After four years pastoring his church Robert was feeling wounded and rejected, finding it hard to accept that it was time to move on. He sat brooding over events that at first had seemed to come from nowhere, but in reality had been brewing away under the surface for some time.

Prior to his coming the church had suffered a number of years of zero growth. Robert had been aware that if this decline was to be arrested, there were areas in the church in which he needed to facilitate change. The morning service seemed trapped in a time warp. The prayer meetings were poorly attended and dominated by a few who prayed without direction. Although they talked about evangelism, few were really willing or able to engage with their local community. Robert believed that he could address these issues in his preaching and through the home group program, and in his first few months had felt very much at home with most of the congregation.

But after a time a number of the young families approached him to request more contemporary songs and music. Robert raised the matter with his church leaders, but found many of them defensive and unwilling to even consider the possibility of such changes. After some of these young families left and began attending another church nearby, Robert raised the matter again with the church leaders. Two of the older ones accused him of neglecting the more senior members of the congregation and compromising in order to accommodate the younger members.

In spite of this, and in the belief that the church could not survive without some changes, Robert decided to tackle the morning service first by adding a few contemporary songs and other musical instruments. He persisted with the changes, really believing that people would eventually come to accept them. But the complaints increased. Robert found that the older members had now formed a block of opposition led by his two older leaders. They began to dominate church business meetings. The leaders’ meeting that Robert had just left had been yet another battle, concluding with a vote of no confidence in his ministry, leaving him with no alternative but to resign.

Like Robert, a significant number of ministers leave their churches with a sense that their ministry has been cut off. They have been robbed of the ability to ‘leave well’. They leave with unresolved issues, with a sense of being pushed out rather than believing they have concluded their ministry. The leaving is frequently the inevitable conclusion of prolonged tension, relational breakdowns and the activities of others rather than a sense that God is in the new move.

A young pastor who was about to begin ministry in a new church once asked me, ‘Given the fact that there are strong people of influence in every church, what can I do to avoid future conflict with these people?’ My advice was very simple: when you begin a new ministry identify the people who have significant influence and intentionally commit to building healthy relationships with them. If you do, when the tensions and differences of opinion do arise, as they inevitably will, you will then have a relational base from which to work them through.

In our ministry to churches we emphasise the fact that all ministry is about relationships. Whatever we do, be it working through the issues of change or church evaluation, being involved in evangelism, preaching sermons, participating in a business meeting or praying together, the quality of our relationships will largely determine the outcomes.

A very high proportion of Christian workers who leave full-time ministries do so because of breakdown in relationships. I once read a report that claimed that over 70% of missionary resignations were for this reason. The presenting issue may be conflict within a leadership group, a breakdown within the worker’s family or simply a conflict with an individual, but in the process others become involved until the problem takes its inevitable toll and someone leaves. Whilst surveys show that a number of other factors contribute to pastors leaving churches, when there is a strong emphasis on healthy relationships many of these other factors can be readily addressed before they get out of hand.

In our mediation and church consultancy work we have found a number of common factors that create pressure on church/pastor relationships. Not only pastors and Christian workers should consider these issues, but also church leaders and members of congregations. Being aware of the issues sometimes helps to avoid the pitfalls that have trapped others and, in a situation of relational stress, to be able to engage in a process of seeking resolution.

1. Unrealistic expectations

Interact vol 13.2 addressed the issue of unfulfilled expectations in the ministry. The point was made that they were a major contributor to almost all conflicts, regardless of the number of people involved. The problem is that although all of us have expectations of each other, our church, our leaders and certainly of our ministers, they are rarely recognised, often quite unrealistic and almost never fulfilled! This factor alone frequently sets the scenario for tension and subsequent conflict.

When our expectations (legitimate or otherwise) are not met, almost all of us experience a range of negative reactions: anger, frustration, disillusionment, withdrawal and blaming of others who we perceive have thwarted us. If the root cause of such feelings is not recognised and adequately addressed, breakdown in relationships will be the result.

It is rare to find churches that have really thought through the role, function and expectations of their pastors and leaders. Indeed, apart from the pastor, very few of those in leadership in the average local church have any form of job description at all, so there is no basis on which to evaluate them. Much of the negativity leveled at them has its roots in unfulfilled expectations. Imagine how helpful it would be if each of our churches had clear job descriptions for their pastors and leaders that not only laid out their role and function from a biblical perspective, but also considered the expectations of both those who lead and those who are being led.

2. Inadequate pre-call research

Many pastoral search committees have very little idea of how to go about finding a suitable pastor who matches the needs of their church. Following are some suggestions that will help a committee in deciding what kind of person they need and hopefully will also help any prospective candidate considering a call.

1 Provide a brief history of the church.

How many ministers have served there in the past twenty years? How many members and adherents are there? What are the age groups: children, teens, young adults, young families etc. What kind of people are they: young professionals, retirees etc?

2. List the regular activities of the church. Which of these are the most vital? Does the church have a particular theological focus? What are its current needs?

3. Write a community profile, perhaps using data from the local council or the latest census. What are its needs?

4 Write a profile of what you are looking for in a prospective minister.

But a word of caution in drawing up this profile. Most churches list all the best qualities that were evident in their previous ministers and lump them all together into one! Does the church need a strong leader? A good Bible teacher? A gifted pastor? Someone who will relate well to certain age groups? Does the pastor need to fit into a particular theological ethos? These questions all need to be answered, but at the same time committees need to be careful they are not aiming too high. Frequently when churches give me a profile of what they are looking for I say to them, ‘There isn’t anyone out there like that’! A good question to ask is, ‘Why would that kind of person want to come and bring their family to be a part of our church?’ Churches also need to recognise that no two ministers will be the same or have the same level of gifting. The profile will often need to be adjusted to fit the gifting, passions and vision of an individual pastor. So whilst churches do need to have a profile of the kind of person they are looking for, they also need some flexibility.

There is a trend today to look for younger ministers. A church recently told me they were looking for a 35-45 year old who could minister to young people and families. But surely the primary issue is not one of fitting a certain age bracket, but of vitality, maturity, wisdom and the ability to teach and model Jesus. There are very fine young pastors within that age bracket who demonstrate those qualities, but whatever their qualities now, they are still growing and maturing and many will be at their best as a pastor in a decade from now, and still be at their peak for some years after that. In a decade their preaching, teaching, pastoral care leadership skills and wisdom in dealing with relational issues will be significantly better. The reality is that their experience of life itself will have added new dimensions to their ministry, making them far more able than they now are.

5. Find out what the candidates have done in the past.

Were they a good fit in their previous church? Did they build the church, address issues, model godliness and develop leadership? What are their strengths and weaknesses?

Such a process should not be rushed. It’s worth waiting a little extra time to ensure the right match. Much heartache for leaders and churches could have been headed off at the pass if more research and planning had gone into the choosing of their pastor.

3. Resistance to change

Pastors and leaders who want their churches to be vital and strategic, seeing Christians growing to maturity and reaching out to the lost, will invariably need to confront the issue of change. Whenever a church is prepared to go through the process of evaluation, embrace their potential and strive to reach it, change becomes a vital and strategic part of the growth that occurs. However to some people change is threatening, not only disturbing their comfort zone but challenging their complacency and mediocrity. People often personalise the issues and react with a protective zeal, accusing the change agents of a range of things from being uncaring to being unspiritual.

Because we believe that it is God’s will for his church to focus on edification and evangelism, these should govern our process of change. We are the people of God, the body of Christ, committed through the edification process to grow up into spiritual maturity. We are also God’s people in the world, demonstrating the reality of the Christian message and at every opportunity declaring the gospel story. This means that we are to strive to be relevant in the way we function as a church, with a commitment to reaching all generations. Invariably this will mean making regular adjustments to our programs. It is important to realise that real change is a consequence of changed thinking. The process of change may be slow, but it will not happen at all unless the reasons why the change is needed are patiently worked through with those most impacted. When facing opposition to change or simply doing a church review it is sometimes helpful to use the expertise of an experienced and impartial person from outside the local church.

4. Lack of clear vision

I am constantly amazed to find that there are still churches that are not only without any stated sense of purpose but which also actively resist the whole idea of making any declaration of vision. The Commission Jesus gave to his church affirms his purpose: ‘Go and make disciples … teaching them … ‘ The thing that consistently motivated Paul was his conviction about God’s purpose for his life (Phil.3:10-14). Even on a personal level, seeing our potential as believers is about vision-our perception of what we ‘in Christ’ can become (2 Pet.1:3).

There are any number of reasons that people oppose the idea of a vision statement: suspicion of the concept (‘It’s corporate thinking’); a club mindset (‘We don’t want too many people coming to our church’); people being protective of their turf (‘How will this impact me or my role?’); or being unable to embrace new possibilities.

When vision is either opposed or simply ignored, it undermines the capacity of the church to reach its potential. Pastors with vision either attempt to move on with those who are to committed to it or withdraw from the battle. Either way it is a costly process, and sometimes it is simply easier for pastors to move on to another church that wants to see its purpose fulfilled. Sometimes the problem isn’t with the congregation; rather it is an inability on the part of the pastor and leadership to develop and implement vision. This in turn creates a vacuum of purpose in the church, resulting in discontent spilling over into negativity about the pastor and leadership.

5. Dysfunctional leadership

Three words are constantly used in the New Testament to describe the role and function of leaders in the church. The first is ‘example’, which expresses the idea of leaders being a model for others to follow (1 Cor.4:14-17; Heb.13:7; 1 Thess.1:4-10). The word ‘shepherd’ affirms that leaders should know the way, feed by providing consistent nourishment from the Scriptures, and protect the flock by bringing Bible principles to bear on the issues of personal and church life (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7).

The third word is ‘servant’. Leadership in the Bible is not about status or ruling; rather it implies an attitude of heart that desires to consistently contribute to others, encouraging them to grow in the knowledge of Jesus (1 Pet.5:2-4). We have the immense privilege of being servants of the most high God (2 Cor. 6:3) and of each other (2 Cor.4:5). When leadership in the local church functions like this, most of the issues that create tension and disharmony are dealt with before they grow and cause long-term damage.

The problem is that most of our church leaders do not demonstrate the qualities of a model, a shepherd and a servant. A good test is to ask your congregation who in your church they would like to be like. Would they nominate their elected leaders? The reality is that most church leaders are likely to be ill-equipped to lead, with very little understanding of their role. Consequently many are unsupportive of the minister and his role (especially when it counts), and may even at times be a negative influence.

I frequently meet with pastors who feel they are carrying the whole load of ministry. Sadly, when they are under attack or being undermined, their leaders simply refuse to get involved, often standing by to watch as their minister is slowly destroyed by other people’s agendas. We encourage church leaders to see themselves as a functioning and responsible part of the whole team. Pastors ought not to have to address issues of conflict alone. When the whole leadership together affirms their commitment to addressing issues, this is then seen as a leadership action rather than the pastor acting alone.

6. Refusal to own and learn from mistakes

It has been said that the true failure is one who doesn’t learn from their mistakes. Many of us find it difficult to even recognise them, let alone own them. I recall meeting with a pastor about a conflict in his church that was compounded by the fact that on several occasions in the heat of discussing the issues he had lost his temper in front of the whole church. Instead of owning his failure he excused it by saying that he was provoked. The congregation simply lost confidence in him and he was eventually asked to resign. The tragedy of this story is that two years later, in his next church, I had almost a duplicate discussion with him and he was still claiming provocation. He had not owned his problem and so had not been able to learn from it.

The heart of this story could be repeated endlessly, not only in regard to pastors but also to individual churches and their treatment of pastors. I once worked with a church that in forty-two years had not kept a pastor for more than two and a half years! In fact the pastor who asked me to mediate was pastor number twenty! There was a culture of control in that church that simply destroyed the confidence of its pastors. The church’s response was not to evaluate itself but to criticise the training of its denominational college. After a period of consultancy they began to see that there were issues that had to change, including their perception and expectations of the role and function not only of the pastor but also of themselves.

7. Destructive power brokers

Power brokers are usually people staking out their turf. They can range from pastoral carers to pastors themselves; they can be key musicians or leaders of departments. They often find Did You Jump or Were You Pushed? their security by being in charge and in the process they take ownership of the area of ministry in an unhealthy way. What makes them power brokers is that they see ‘their ministry’ as something they own, rather than a part of the whole church’s ministry. They usually do not have a passion for the vision of the church, but in fact will oppose it if they think it will encroach on their control of what they do. Every church has power brokers. It is human nature to want to gain kudos from being prominent, even if it is only from being in charge of the flower roster.

Although they frequently use spiritual language power brokers are not godly people. Their focus is themselves, not Christ and his kingdom.

In a church where we had gone to conduct a consultancy a lady approached me after the first service to tell me that her ministry (the craft group) was not going to be part of the consultancy process. When I asked her why, she replied that she was its director and that since I probably didn’t know much about craft, I would have nothing to contribute. The problem was that she didn’t see the craft group as part of the ministry of the church and resisted any change that would in any way touch her power base.

When power brokers are left unchallenged they become entrenched, and it is difficult to move them without conflict. Everything we do in the church must be seen as a part of our ongoing strategy for the whole church, and as such, nothing is untouchable! It is the role of leadership to make sure that this is a reality in your church.

I have seen people who were looking for status and recognition in the church deliberately set out to undermine the pastor or other church leaders. If leaders aren’t aware and committed to the consistent application of Bible principles they can be quietly undermined because no one has set in place boundaries for relational behaviour. Power brokers need to be lovingly and gently but firmly confronted and held to biblical principles. In the matter of the craft group above, the church leadership eventually saw the issue and gently but firmly addressed it. Now there is a clear edification and evangelism component to the craft groups.

8. Poor self-image

Most of us battle with our sense of self-the things we feel about who we are and, just as importantly, what we think others think of us. When a person has an inferiority complex, they react defensively to almost anything they think questions their status, role or value. When this happens there will be any one of a number of reactions: defensiveness, withdrawal, aggression, attacking or negating others, the constant drive to prove oneself, and so on. This can be a recipe for conflict.

It is important as pastors and leaders that we work at seeing ourselves from God’s perspective, embracing not only his unqualified commitment to us, but also his revealed purpose for our lives. In this context we need to understand our strengths and weaknesses, accepting and being comfortable with who we are in Christ, embracing our potential to become increasingly like him.

9. Unwillingness to confront issues

In our last issue we stated that one of the things leaders do not do well is confronting issues. In contrast we pointed out that it was part the ethos of the leaders in the New Testament church to confront things in a godly way (Acts 20:32; Acts 6; Gal 2; Matt. 18). When issues are left unresolved they build and often undermine church and pastoral authority. In the mediation process we frequently ask whether Matthew 18:15 has been applied to the situation: ‘If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault.’ We seldom find that it has!

I was recently with a group working through a major conflict and in the process discovered that the beginning of the conflict had been some harsh words spoken by one of the leaders. Although both the leader and the person involved felt bad about the situation and even wished it had never happened, neither took appropriate, biblical steps to deal with the matter. It simmered away in the heart of the group member and he found himself reacting to the leader, to the point that he was critical of him to other members of the group. They began to develop a negative mindset towards not only the leader but also to others who were seen to be ‘his supporters’. Matters came to a head when an accusation was made against him that was taken up by other leaders, who repeated the accusation in the leaders’ meetings. At no time in the process had biblical principles for addressing conflict been applied (1 Tim. 5:17-20).

Even though we were able to identify and address the issues, there has been real damage to some of the key people in that organisation. One has resigned, believing that his confidence in the existing leadership has been shattered, and another has taken leave. The lesson for the group was never to leave matters un-addressed. They only fester away to re-emerge at a later time with renewed power to disrupt.

In many ways this issue is the key one. When application of this principle is a habit of life, the others issues listed are significantly less likely to reach their potential for disruption and eventual destruction.

Whilst the issues discussed in this article are not intended to be a definitive list, the reality is that any one of them can be the catalyst for a pastor’s resignation. The key is to have clear strategies to address the issues that inhibit our capacity to function together as members of Christ’ s body so that what we as leaders model to the church is genuine godliness and then the world will want to listen to our message.

Kel Willis, in ‘Interact’ magazine

http://www.users.bigpond.com/nickzimm/interact/interact.html