Posts Tagged ‘making charges against a pastor’

When I listen to the stories of pastors who have undergone a forced termination, I almost always ask them this question:

“What were the charges against you?”

If a pastor committed a major offense like heresy (and I haven’t met one yet who has), sexual immorality, or criminal behavior, then he knows precisely why the governing board removed him from office, and has only himself to blame.

But in more than 95% of the cases, by any objective measure, the pastor isn’t guilty of any major offense.

And much of the time, the pastor is in the dark as to why the board pressured him to resign.

If I was a church board member, and I was concerned about my pastor’s behavior or ministry, I would tell my fellow leaders, “We need to design and follow a fair and just process for dealing with our concerns about the pastor.  Since he isn’t guilty of any impeachable offense, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt and bring him into our deliberations.”

This means following three principles:

First, the pastor needs to know what people – including board members – are saying about him.

Second, the pastor needs to be able to respond to any charges made against him.

Finally, the pastor should be allowed to suggest ways to improve his behavior and ministry.

A minority of church boards follow the above three principles, and when I speak with such a board member, I always commend him for trying to be fair.

But the majority act differently.  Here’s a typical scenario:

Pastor Tim receives a phone call at his home late one night from his friend Nate, who tells him that the church board has met in secret twice over the past month.  Since Pastor Tim is also a board member, and he wasn’t invited to those meetings, he immediately assumes that the board is talking about him.

And Tim’s instincts are correct.

Since nobody on the board has spoken to Tim about any concerns about him, Tim asks himself a series of questions:

*Am I guilty of a major offense?  No.

*Am I aware of anyone who wants to get rid of me?  No.

*Am I aware of anyone who is angry with me?  No.

*Am I aware of any factions that are forming against me?  No.

*Have our attendance and giving slid recently?  Maybe a bit, but I can’t believe I’d be fired for a temporary slump.

Even though Tim is confident before God that he has done nothing to merit dismissal, he doesn’t sleep well that night.

Four days later, Don, the board chairman, asks to meet with Pastor Tim privately for breakfast the next day.  After another sleepless night, Don and Tim meet.

Don begins, “Pastor, a group has formed inside our church that has some serious concerns about the way you do ministry.  The board has listened to their concerns and we believe that for the good of the church, you should resign as pastor effective immediately.”

Pastor Tim cannot believe what he’s hearing.  He’s absolutely stunned by Don’s revelation.

After a long and awkward pause, Tim asks, “What are their concerns about me?”

Don responds, “We’re not at liberty to say, but they’re important enough that we think you should resign.”

Tim then asks, “Who are these people, Don?”

Don responds, “They’re spoken to us confidentially and we told them we wouldn’t reveal their names.”

Tim then says, “Don, that’s not fair!  I need to know who is making charges against me and what those charges are or you’re participating in a kangaroo court.”

But Don doesn’t budge, saying, “Look, Tim, this is in the best interests of everyone involved.”

Ready to blow his top, Tim tells Don, “I don’t agree with you, Don, unless you tell me who is saying what about me.”

But Don won’t reveal a thing to his pastor about the charges.

At this point, let me quote from church conflict expert Speed Leas in his manual Moving Your Church Through Conflict:

“A person being charged or condemned by others should have the right to know what those charges are and [have] an opportunity to respond to them. Denying this opportunity plays into the hands of real or potential manipulators, allows untrue or distorted information to be circulated and establishes a precedent that the way to deal with differences is to talk about rather than to talk with others. I have also found it true that individuals who talk about others out of their presence tend to exaggerate their charges, believing they will not be quoted.”

The process that Leas describes is eminently fair, and yet many church boards violate these principles when they conspire to get rid of their pastor.

Why do church boards do this? Why do they engage in practices toward a man of God that are utterly unjust?

Supposition #1: The board ‘s reasons for getting rid of the pastor are so petty that they’d be embarrassed to reveal them.

A common reason for getting rid of a pastor is that one or two important people just don’t like him.  But that’s not an objective charge … that’s a subjective preference … and few people are going to let their pastor know their feelings.

I have a friend who was dismissed and never given a reason.  All he could do was speculate.  He finally determined that he was fired because he didn’t visit a board member’s child who was in the hospital on an outpatient basis one day.

Supposition #2: Some key people in the church – board members, staff members, or prominent leaders – have threatened to leave the church unless the pastor is sacked. 

Some of these leaders are personal friends of board members or their spouses.  Some are longtime members or large donors.  The board reasons, “It’s easier to get another pastor than it is to replace those who stand against the pastor.”  So they jettison any kind of fair process and shut their mouths.

Supposition #3: Some board members – especially those who run small businesses – decide to treat the pastor the way they would treat one of their employees.

What do many small business owners tell their employees when they let them go?  “You just aren’t working out.”  They speak in vague terms because they feel it isn’t worth it to get into specifics.  That same mentality is directed toward pastors in too many situations … but a pastor isn’t a sales clerk or a custodian.  He’s someone called by God to lead God’s people and preach God’s Word.  Big difference.

Supposition #4: The board doesn’t want to hurt the pastor’s feelings by being specific.

But what could be worse than being summarily and instantly dismissed?  I for one would want to know exactly why I was being elbowed out the door … and I wouldn’t let the board off the hook by letting them resort to platitudes and vague generalities.  If I had a blind spot in my character or behavior, I’d want to know about it so I could work on it … or I could be dismissed from my next position.

Supposition #5: Someone in church leadership – probably on the board – has a vendetta against the pastor.

That person doesn’t want to implement Jesus’ words and confront the pastor as Matthew 18:15-17 specifies, so they bully or manipulate the board to carry out their wishes … and the board passively goes along with them.  This supposition says far more about the board than it does about the pastor.

I believe that many church boards dismiss their pastor prematurely.  They never tell him directly about their concerns so the pastor is never given a chance to make course corrections.  They also fail to bring up issues as they arise.  Speed Leas comments:

“Healthy and fair confrontation should tell the ‘offender’ what is wrong, and prepare the way for negotiation (or collaboration) toward agreement and a better relationship. Confrontation which demands that things be done one way, and does not allow for others to shape the way those things are done, is oppressive and demeaning. There are times when a board or supervisor (the one with authority to direct others) must confront without negotiation or collaboration; but even in these cases the ‘offender’ should have ample opportunity to perform differently before being dismissed from the organization. This is often difficult and done poorly in church situations. Instead of clearly describing to an employee or volunteer what is wanted and seeking to find a way to achieve a mutually satisfactory relationship, too often church leaders avoid confrontation until all hope of improving the working relationship is lost, or they confront and expect immediate change on the part of others without looking at what else in the organization might need to be changed.”

I’m sure there are other reasons why the governing board doesn’t tell the pastor why they’re pushing him out, but these are the ones that come most readily to mind.

If the board refuses to tell the pastor why they’re letting him go, what, if anything, can the pastor do about it?

If I were Pastor Tim, I’d tell Don … at breakfast or later on: “If you want to fire me, go ahead, but realize that you’re going to have to explain your decision to (a) the church staff; (b) other church leaders; (c) the congregation as a whole; (d) members who will contact individual board members; (e) the district minister (assuming the church is part of a denomination); (f) any interim pastor you might hire; and (g) the next pastor.

“And believe me, if you tell any or all of these parties why you’re letting me go, much of what you say will eventually get back to me, and you and the rest of the board will come off as cowards.

“So here is what I propose: I ask that you and one other board member meet with me as soon as possible so you can tell me the real reason why you are letting me go.  If you want to fire me, go ahead, but I will not give you a resignation letter unless you’re honest with me and until we agree on a severance package.”

If the board is intent on flexing its muscles, they might fire Pastor Time outright, but believe me … they are going to have a lot of trouble down the road.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that church boards like having a strong pastor when it comes to theology, and biblical morality, and critiquing the culture, but they want a weak pastor when they want to enforce their will upon him.  They want him to roll over and play dead, and if he doesn’t, they don’t want him around any more.

This is where church boards need to remember that nobody comes to church to watch the board make decisions.  They come primarily because they enjoy the pastor’s ministry.

All the more reason why every church board should treat the pastor fairly and justly.


Read Full Post »

Like you, I’ve heard a lot in the past few days about U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Like you, I have some personal opinions about the wisdom of exchanging five terrorist leaders for the sergeant.

Like you, I wonder why Sgt. Bergdahl ended up being captured by the Haqqani network.

And like you, I don’t know whether Sgt. Bergdahl is guilty of desertion … or innocent … or something in between.

But I do know this: Sgt. Bergdahl has not yet told his side of the story … and until he does … we need to be very careful about making final judgments.

Why bring this up on a blog devoted to pastors and church conflict?


Several months ago, a friend and colleague sent me an email.

My friend had spent several hours with a pastor who was forced out of a church he had planted.

One of the staff members began spreading a rumor that the pastor and his wife were taking illegal drugs.

Someone called a public meeting.

When the pastor stood up to confront the charges being made about him, those who opposed him stood up and shouted, “You’re lying!”

Because they kept yelling at their pastor, he finally stopped talking and walked out of the church … and resigned soon afterward.

Satan couldn’t have planned it any better.

That pastor – and all pastors – need to be protected by the following safeguards in every church:

First, the pastor has the right to know any charges being made about him.

How many people told that pastor that people were saying he was taking illegal drugs?

My guess: few, if any.

I was recently told for the first time about a charge some people made about me 4 1/2 years ago.

The charge was 100% false, but why wasn’t I told about it sooner?  How many people believe it to this day?

And why wasn’t I ever given a chance to defend myself against that charge?

Second, the pastor has the right to meet with his accusers.

The staff member who made the accusation about drug usage needed to speak with the pastor and his wife before taking his charge to anyone else.

By taking his charge to others first, he could have ruined their reputations and careers.  What if the charge was totally false?

If a similar charge was made against a top leader in a secular corporation … and it proved to be false … the person making the charge would be dismissed and possibly sued for slander.

When people make charges against a pastor … but never make the charges to his face … they almost always exaggerate the charges.  Remember that.

Third, the pastor has the right to see any and all evidence against him.

What kind of evidence did the staff member have that the pastor and his wife were taking drugs?  Blood tests?  Photographs?  Eyewitness accounts?

Or was it all just speculation?

The pastor needed to be presented with all the evidence.

If the evidence was strong, the pastor might have privately asked for forgiveness … or gone into rehab … or resigned on his own … without involving the congregation.

But if the evidence was fabricated … or misinterpreted … then the pastor needed to be able to tell his side of the story.

Otherwise, when we don’t like a pastor, we can just manufacture lies about him, and he’ll be forced to leave … without anyone ever discovering where those lies originated.

Fourth, the pastor should never initially be confronted with a charge in public. 

Why would a staff member take a charge against his pastor public?

To embarrass him?  To humiliate him?  To use the power of the mob?

Yes, yes, and yes … but most of all, to engage in retribution.

Many of the charges that people make against pastors are really punitive in nature.

How can you tell?

Because the people making the charges never talk about restoring their pastor … or redeeming him … but only about removing him.

Where do we ever find that sentiment in the New Testament?

Finally, the pastor should be given due process whenever charges are made against him.

Many … if not most … churches lack such a process.

And even if they do have one, the process (found in church bylaws) is often ignored because people become anxious and overly-emotional.

But it’s critical that a pastor … as well as any spiritual leader … be allowed to have a hearing and tell his version of events.  Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”

When do church leaders ever question those who make charges against their pastor?

The ethos in most churches is that whenever people make accusations against a pastor, they’re almost always accurate.

But they aren’t … not by a long shot.

In the story about the pastor allegedly taking drugs, why did the pastor’s opponents shout him down when he tried to answer their charges?

Because they didn’t want their pastor to be given due process.  They had already selected themselves as judge, jury, and executioner, and in their eyes, he was guilty.

But if he had been allowed to speak, the truth would have exposed their own guilt and hatred, and they could not allow that to occur.

My prayer for churchgoers everywhere is that whenever they have concerns about their pastor’s character or behavior, they will insist on a fair process rather than immediately declare his innocence or his guilt.


I don’t know the complete truth about Sgt. Bergdahl.  Maybe nobody does right now.

But he shouldn’t be tried in the press, especially when he can’t answer the charges that people are making against him.

In the meantime, I’m going to try and keep an open mind about his guilt or innocence, especially after I read this article today from the pastor of the Bergdahl family:


He will have his day in court.  Then we’ll find out the truth.

But please remember: neither the mainstream media … nor social media … nor your dinner table … constitute a fair and final court.










Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: