I’ve been thinking a lot lately about a term … but I don’t know how it made its way into my head.
The term is “institutional truth.” (If you can find a clear definition of the term, please send it to me.)
This term provides a partial explanation as to why some churches end up treating their pastors – and sometimes other employees – so poorly.
To illustrate this idea properly, let me share with you a story that happened more than two decades ago to a pastor I once knew. (I will use aliases throughout this story.)
Pastor John and his wife were called to Trinity Church, a church that had been declining for some time. Through John’s preaching and personal charisma, Trinity began to grow at a rapid rate. In fact, news of Trinity’s growth spread to the church where I was serving, which was several hours away.
One summer, I was attending a Christian conference back east, and when I picked up my rental car, I saw Pastor John and his wife at another rental counter … but all the cars had been rented. I immediately introduced myself to them and offered to drive them to the conference.
During the two-hour drive to conference headquarters, we became fast friends.
While driving, I casually mentioned my interest in pastoral termination and church conflict. John and his wife seemed intrigued by some of the ideas that I shared with them.
We saw each other several other times during the conference, and I sensed I had developed an ongoing friendship with this couple.
Not long afterwards, I heard rumblings that all was not well at John’s church. Some of the pioneers were beginning to complain loudly that they didn’t like John or the way he did things, even though both attendance and giving had significantly improved. These complaints begin making their way to other churches … including the one that I served as pastor.
One day, I visited our district office, and a secretary told me all about the conflict from her perspective. Her view was that Pastor John was causing trouble in that church … which she used to attend. The evidence?
Her friends were upset.
Back at my church, a board member named Harry had a different take on the conflict. He was good friends with Don – a board member from the “troubled” church – and Don fully supported his pastor.
One night, at a board meeting at Trinity, Pastor John arrived to find the district minister sitting across the table from him. The district minister had been meeting with Trinity’s board members who all wanted their pastor removed from office.
Someone pushed a letter of termination in front of the pastor’s face. The letter demanded that Pastor John resign immediately, turn in his keys, clear out his office, and never set foot on the property again.
Pastor John told me later that he stared at the letter for 45 minutes before reluctantly signing it.
However, there is more to the story … because the board waited until Don was away and absent before they staged their coup.
When Don found out what happened – and that the district minister was involved in pushing out his pastor – Don and many of his church friends were extremely upset. They thought the church was going well!
Over the next several months, I was visited by Pastor John, Don, and Stan, a Trinity member who had moved into our neighborhood. Stan wanted to find out if there was a connection between the district office and the church office, so he filed a lawsuit to find out the truth.
Oh, my.
I spoke with all the parties involved, trying to understand the conflict better. (I had no official role except as a pastor interested in resolving the conflict.)
I knew and liked the district minister … and the district’s attorney … and Pastor John … and Don, the board member who didn’t attend that infamous meeting.
I also knew a lot about what happened at that meeting because Don began sending me and his friend Harry official board documents … including the minutes of the meeting where the pastor was terminated. (And I still have them.)
Both sides had made mistakes, but neither side would admit them … and some information going out about the conflict publicly consisted of outright falsehoods.
I witnessed institutional truth up close and personal, and I did not like what I saw. Here is what I learned:
First, institutional leaders almost never admit they’ve made any mistakes. The board at Trinity did wait until Don was absent before removing their pastor … and they did involve the district minister … and they did concoct some deceptive explanations when they made their announcement about the pastor’s departure the following Sunday.
I am not in a position to say that they purposely lied about anything … but I never heard anyone from the district’s side acknowledge that they had committed any errors.
In Scott Peck’s book People of the Lie – a book I’ve read several times – his closing chapter states that government institutions (and he uses the military as an example) never admit that they’ve done anything wrong, even when they’re caught red-handed. In fact, we’re seeing this principle at work right now in our own government with several scandals that have just been revealed.
Why is this? Because it is the job of institutional leaders to advance the mission of their organization and defend it at all costs … and if they publicly admit they’ve done something wrong, they’re afraid they’ll lose people’s confidence and (a) donations will take a hit, and (b) they’ll be reprimanded, disciplined, or even removed from office.
But if God is a forgiving God … and His grace covers all our sins … then why can’t Christian leaders admit that they make mistakes? Doesn’t the gospel apply to leaders as well as non-leaders?
Second, institutional leaders prefer to blame problems on convenient scapegoats. When Don revealed that the church board had aligned themselves with the district office to push out his pastor, Don became the scapegoat instead.
He was blamed for all kinds of things, and because he held a national office with the denomination, attempts were made to remove him from office.
Most pastors and church leaders lined up behind the district office, which resulted in attempts to discredit Don.
And I got caught in the crossfire, too.
Harry, the board member from my church who was friends with Don, went to the district minister and told him to his face that he never should have been involved in removing his successor. I told my district minister the same thing, only in a much kinder way.
I wasn’t trying to remove him from office … after all, every leader makes mistakes … but I couldn’t play political games and act like it was all Pastor John’s fault, either.
Pastor John undoubtedly made some errors in judgment as well, especially when he sent a letter to every church in the district insinuating that the district minister was corrupt. But the district minister was a good man not normally given to playing politics, and I felt that John’s letter went too far.
Third, institutional leaders who do not support their institution 100% are considered subversive. I could not support the district minister’s actions completely. Know why? Because Trinity was the church he had pastored for several decades!
And I believe that it is unethical for a pastor to become involved in removing his successor.
Because I questioned the actions of the district minister, I was branded by some as being disloyal to the district … and some people wrote me off from that moment on.
It’s not that I was disloyal to the district office – it’s that I was more loyal to the truth.
Some top-level leaders felt that since I wasn’t vocally supportive of the district minister, that meant I was standing behind Pastor John instead.
And they especially felt that way when Pastor John quoted from a study I had done about pastors leaving our district.
Since I was becoming persona non grata inside our district, I called the President of our denomination and told him what happened from my perspective.
He told me that I hadn’t done anything wrong … and that he was good friends with Pastor John and felt he was being unfairly blamed for things he didn’t do!
This was the point at which I asked myself:
Must I look the other way and remain silent when I see wrongdoing?
Must I tow the party line and cast blame on people that I think have legitimate complaints?
Must I support an institution completely even when I believe its leaders have done something wrong?
Must I view every conflict through institutional eyes … or am I allowed to view conflicts through biblical eyes?
In my opinion, I was asked – along with many other pastors and church leaders – to believe in institutional truth … which states:
*Those who lead the institution are always right.
*Those who criticize the institution in any way are always wrong.
*Those who fail to protect and advance the institution will be ignored, slandered, or intimidated.
*While it is never permissible for an individual to criticize the institution, it is permissible for the institution to criticize and even destroy its critics.
What do you think of this idea of “institutional truth?”
How have you seen it play out in your church, denomination, or even your company?
Restoring Kingdom Builders 