Is there hope for pastors and churches in conflict?

I have been involved in church life for nearly 70 years, half of those years as a pastor. I love the church except for one thing: churches and pastors don’t seem to know how to disagree agreeably. Too often when a church and their pastor cannot agree on how well he is doing, separation results. But must it be this way?

(iStock)

Typically, when churches decide that their pastor is not meeting their expectations, they do one of two things, sometimes both.

First, they try to change their pastor. This usually does not work. Perhaps an illustration can help. In my younger days I played a lot of baseball. Inevitably I would hit a batting slump. Coaches, fellow players, even fans, all offered advice. One said I should move forward in the box, another said I should change my grip on the bat, one even suggested I try batting from the other side of the plate. I tried all their remedies but none of them worked. Why? Because I became completely confused and no longer knew what had worked for me in the past. What actually helped was when a friend who saw my dilemma put his arm around my shoulder and said, “I know you are a good hitter, just keeping trying your best and you’ll find the sweet spot again.”

Pastors are a lot like that. They strike out sometimes, or fail to deliver a timely hit with the bases loaded. Sometimes the home run hitter the church thought they hired is actually a utility player.

But these things being true does not mean the church has a crisis; it’s not necessarily time to try to change the pastor. What pastors need is what helped me when I was in the batting slump. They may need advice from time to time but that is not the same thing as trying to fundamentally change a pastor. What they need most is encouragement: “I’ve got you, pastor; I believe in you; I’m praying for you.” After all, they have spent years developing their skills, becoming competent students of the Word, honing their skills under the guidance of wise mentors, and receiving education at Bible colleges and seminaries.

A church must remember he is the same pastor the church thought so highly of when they hired him. If they just let him, he’ll rediscover the shine they thought he had at the beginning.

Another possibility is that what are perceived as shortcomings on the part of the pastor are merely the results of a congregation making comparisons to the previous pastor, a popular pastor in the community, or someone they have seen on the internet. None of these suggest that trying to change the pastor is called for. Granted, there are times when advice or guidance are necessary, and churches should help their pastor with kind advice.

It must also be recognized that every pastor and church initially go through a honeymoon phase. During this period both church and pastor have difficulty being objective. Both may be operating with blinders neither able nor wanting to see the shortcomings of the other. But this honeymoon phase does not last forever. At some point, these blinders fall away and a greater awareness of each other’s human frailties is gained. Such insight, however, does not mean it is time to force change. Perhaps, what appears as a slump is a plateau—which may lead to a period of growth in skill, depth and wisdom.

A much healthier way of dealing with the situation is for the church to acknowledge that their pastor may not be perfect but that he does bring strengths and skills to the position that, with encouragement from the church, can lead to an extended period of fruitful ministry. The sign that church and pastor have a strong, healthy relationship, that can produce healthy, lasting results, is when the church provides positive feedback for what their pastor is doing well, sprinkled sparingly with necessary suggestions for improvement, and their pastor welcomes suggestions of areas he could become even more effective. It must be remembered that suggestions for improvement are suggestions, not an attempt to change the pastor.

The second thing churches do when they are not happy with their pastor is they dismiss him. But, in all my years in church life, I cannot recall an instance where firing a pastor was worth the pain and loss involved in doing so. Of course, there are times when a pastor must be terminated for moral failure or heretical teaching, and so forth. But that’s not what we are usually dealing with. Most times a pastor’s sinsare much less flagrant like his sermons are too long, his choice of humour isn’t funny, or he doesn’t smile enough.

Of course, there are times beyond moral failure and heresy where changing pastors might be considered. Here are some examples:

l   When a pastor cannot or is not willing to do the job they were hired to do.

l   When a pastor finds it excruciatingly difficult to meet with people and avoids it almost completely.

l   When a pastor genuinely doesn’t have a gift for teaching/preaching.

l   When a pastor’s health does not permit him to serve acceptably.

When these issues remain after careful mentoring over several years, and hiring a second pastor to address these shortcomings is not possible, it would be legitimate to consider dismissal. Such situations must be dealt with graciously and proper severance should be provided.

Another issue is when the pastor’s theology no longer matches the church’s statement of faith. This is a tricky one because when we look back at the history of our conference, we have shifted in how we understand Scripture on some issues. The key point is that those changes came by consensus within the conference ministerial. A pastor whose teaching is inconsistent with the church’s faith statement should not necessarily be removed—but he should be willing to receive the guidance of the conference ministerial. If he is unwilling to abide by and teach consistent to such guidance, this would be a case for possible dismissal.

If a pastor is honest, he likely realizes before the congregation does when his effectiveness has waned, and the church would benefit from a new voice. At such times a wise pastor will initiate conversations with trusted people to confirm or rule out his suspicions. It’s far better for the pastor to discover this on his own than to hear this pointed out by church leadership. In my experience if the pastor and the board are prepared to have a frank, honest, discussion about the situation this can often lead to changes that do not require the pastor being replaced.

Pastors can also be shortsighted when it comes to seeing how they have contributed to the breakdown of the relationship. Sometimes they overlook obvious red flags during the interview process that should have given them pause. The size of the church, the geographical location of the church, the anticipated salary can all cloud their vision. Other times pastors are too thin-skinned and get defensive at the slightest suggestion of improvement. And sometimes their ego gets them in trouble. They go to a church with the full intention of changing it but don’t mention this during the interview process. Just as a church doesn’t have the right to radically change their pastor after he arrives, a pastor does not have the right to radically change the church—that’s the Holy Spirit’s work.

So, what is the solution? Here are five things to consider.

1.         Pastors need to be humble and teachable, not slighted at positive correction.

2.         Pastors need to choose their battles carefully. Sometimes allowing others to fix some problems can extend their tenure considerably.

3.         Pastors with a lone ranger mentality should be avoided. Pastors need to realize that the job of messiah is already filled. What the church needs are pastors who see their authority as one that is earned and exercised cooperatively with the other leaders of the church.

4.         Churches need wise, mature, courageous leaders who will not cave at the first sign of trouble. Good, effective pastors who are doing their job correctly will at some point offend someone and leaders will receive complaints. Leaders cannot take unsubstantiated complaints seriously whenever someone threatens to leave the church. Sometimes complaints have validity and need to be given consideration, but things like vision or direction of the church are usually developed over considerable time through much discussion and prayer and should be protected from unwarranted attack. And certainly, the pastor should be protected from criticism for simply fulfilling the role given to him or for upholding the vision established by the church.

5.         For the good of both pastors and boards, churches need to move toward more frequent review of the pastor’s work by the board, and away from votes of confidence as a way of assessing the pastor’s effectiveness. Confidence votes are good for creating division in the church and allow for a small minority of the congregation to remove the pastor. Pastoral reviews should be fair, as positive as possible, and kind when suggesting improvements. Boards just as often need to receive the pastor’s evaluation of their performance. They should also be interested to hear their pastor’s assessment of the spiritual condition of the church and what he sees as needing attention.

The keys to disagreeing agreeably are two-fold. There has to be mutual respect between a pastor and his leadership team. Without this, the process is lost before it has started. The other is that there must be trust. When disagreements or criticisms come, and all parties trust each other enough to speak honestly and lovingly, striving to solve a problem together, the church is on the road to success.

This is how a pastor and congregation I knew were able to work joyfully together for over 20 years.