Transforming Church

Churches that have clubs, cliques, power groups, and pecking orders have significant issues and challenges regarding church leadership. They tend to think of the church as a democracy, over which they can exercise political power to mold as they like through force of will and numbers. Those in “the club” reject the authority of church leadership, and they think of the pastor as an employee rather than a leader called by God.

They expect the pastor to ask their permission before implementing anything new, and they stubbornly refuse to relinquish any established program or tradition, regardless of its relevance or appropriateness. They feel that they can force the pastor to conform to their image, and that they have a right to do so.

Should a pastor refuse to conform, he (or she) is attacked, slandered, and belittled until they buckle-under or resign. They justify this behavior in the name of “their church”, citing the right to protect their church identity. They sacrifice the Gospel in the cause of protectionism and control. Such is the reality in some churches, and it is even more prevalent if a church is in a phase of growth and transformation.

Over the thirty years of transformation of our congregation, several things occurred regarding “the club”. Some died off, some left the church, some converted to the vision of the church, and the rest lost their influence through the dilution of an expanding congregation. “The club” seemed to have given up and there was a period of time of peace and prosperity for the church.

Then, when we were at the brink of another huge step in growth of ministry, a disgruntled individual decided it was time to drive out the pastor, because he felt that the pastor was leading us away from our heritage and ignoring the old membership of the church. Citing his personal resume of his involvement in the church as his right and authority, he began a coup to overthrow the leadership of the church, including the council.

He approached the small residual of old-church membership that remained from when we were a village, family-sized church. He also pulled in those who had left, plus anyone else who may have had any beef with the pastor or council. All in all, 32 people signed a petition of no-confidence against the pastor and council, 32 of which only 8 actively worshipped with the congregation, 8 out of an active congregation of 350+. Within those 8, only 2 contributed in any way to ministry. The ringleader had not contributed to active ministry in more than 10 years.

Of the 32 who signed the petition, there were several who had second thoughts and recanted. One of those called to tell me about it. She provided me with a copy of the petition, stating that she did not realize what she was signing; that she had been coerced and manipulated into signing it, and she wanted to undo that. She apprised me of the plans of the group, which I conveyed to church council.

The council president, two fellow parishioners, and myself showed up at their meeting. By this time, their group had shrunk to less than 20. We listened to their statements, took notes, then reported back to council. There were those on the council who were sympathetic and thought it prudent to hear these people. They were inclined to act upon their complaints.

Most of the council was more objective, but only a few exercised the appropriate amount of alarm. This concerned me greatly. After prayer, study, and great deliberation, I wrote a letter to the church council which you may choose to read before continuing or at the end of the article.

The contents of this letter helped council regain perspective of the situation, particularly the statistics regarding those actively worshipping and serving in ministry. They then took decisive action. They brought the bishop up to speed, conveying their plan of action to him, which he completely endorsed.

Then they sent a well-written letter of the council’s position on this matter to those who signed the petition. It stated that the petitioners were being divisive and acting in a manner that was not in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel or the Constitution of the church. The letter went on to spell out the disciplinary action that would be taken against any member seeking to disrupt ministry and undermine leadership, from censure, up to, and including expulsion, as outlined in the church Constitution.

The following Sunday morning, the council president addressed the congregation before worship commenced. He apprised the congregation of the situation that had occurred, the position of church leadership on this matter, and the action taken. At no time did he identify the names of those who had signed the petition. He read a copy of the letter that council had sent to the petitioners, and concluded with words of grace, kindness, and a welcome back to the flock to any who had been a part of the attempted coup. The congregation listened quietly, and then went on to worship with great heart and spirit.

So, what is the outcome of all this? Of the original 32 petitioners, less than half remain. Those remaining are in full fellowship with the rest of the congregation. Several are active in ministry, and they contribute in a constructive manner. The ringleader quietly attends services, and he is polite to the pastor and leadership. Those who left had not been truly active for years; their leaving left no gap in service or giving.

Regarding our leadership, our pastor feels validated and supported, and he continues to lead us with vision and spirit. Our council has become more decisive, basing its function and action on sound doctrine. Over three years later the congregation continues to grow in bounds, safe from bullies and free of encumbrances from “the club”.

Collectively we have a pronounced growth in faith and spiritual maturity as an outcome of this misadventure. In retrospect I am not sorry that it occurred, nor is our pastor or church council, despite the stress we all felt at that time. The dark cloud of this experience certainly had a silver lining, and I hope that it can shine as a beacon of hope for other churches that have to deal with their own version of “the club”.

Peace in Christ--