5. Church Leadership: Leading Under Adversity (Acts 27:9-44)
Related MediaPastoral leadership often involves adversity, like dealing with church discipline, managing church conflict, or leading your church through change (see my articles in the series on “Church Relationships”).
For this study on “Leading Under Adversity,” let’s learn from the personal experience and example of the apostle Paul’s leadership in a situation of great adversity (Acts 27:9-44). Here we learn that pastoral leadership requires trust in the faithfulness of God no matter how adverse the circumstances. Notice first…
I. Adversity Often Results From Unwise Decisions (27:9-20).
There are many underlying causes of unwise decisions…
1. Unwise decisions are often based on personal agendas. There seems to have been three personal agendas going on in our text:
1. The centurion needed to safeguard his prisoners (27:1).
2. The captain and the owner of the ship needed to deliver their cargo and passengers (27:10-11).
3. The majority of the people wanted to spend the winter in a more commodious harbor than Fair Havens (27:12).
But none of these agendas took into account the risk factors. The fact was that to sail in the late fall or winter was very dangerous. Because of the risk, Paul advised strenuously against sailing out of Fair Havens (27:9-10). Nevertheless, the centurion was more persuaded by the arguments of the ship’s captain and owner than by Paul (27:11). In the end, Paul’s warning about the risk of stormy weather was ignored, majority rule won the day and the decision was made to set sail, “hoping somehow to reach Phoenix, a harbor on Crete facing the southwest and northwest, and to winter there.” (27:12). All that remained was to wait for the right conditions for sailing and they would set out.
They had every reason to listen to Paul’s warning. After all, he was a very experienced traveler in this part of the world, having taken eleven sea voyages totaling possibly 3500 miles in the Mediterranean before this. He knew a thing or two about the sea. More importantly, Paul was a mature Christian leader. But people so often set Christian insight and wisdom aside in favor of human logic and personal preferences.
2. Unwise decisions are often based on unreliable circumstances. Circumstances often influence us so easily. In this case, all it took to convince them to set sail was when “a gentle south wind sprang up, they thought they had achieved their purpose” (27:13). Such an unreliable guidepost was all they needed to justify setting out from Fair Havens. But what started out as a gentle south wind soon became a fierce north-easterly (27:14). After setting sail, the wind shifted from a gentle southerly wind to a raging, tempestuous hurricane.
Circumstances can be so seductive, can’t they? We can fall for them so easily. Everything looks like it is pointing in the direction we want to go. The problem is sorting out whether the circumstances mean anything or whether we are merely interpreting them to achieve our own desires. And besides, as in this case, circumstances can change so quickly; they are often so unreliable in decision-making. The premise of “hoping somehow” (27:12) and “thinking (supposing) they had obtained their purpose” (27:13) wasn’t much of a basis for making a good decision, was it? They just hoped that the conditions were right to leave Fair Havens. They supposed that the south wind meant they should set sail, throwing caution to the winds. How much better to make decisions based on knowledge and good judgement than presumption. Further, they supposed that “they had obtained their purpose.” That’s what lay beneath their supposition – their purpose, their desire. That was evidently more important to them than good reason, statistical data, or seasoned experience. This is what is so deceptive and subtle about circumstances. Interpreting them is so subjective, so inaccurate, especially when they seem to coincide with your desire. It’s much more reliable to make decisions based on facts, truth, wise counsel, and experience. It’s dangerous making decisions, especially life threatening ones, based on changeable circumstances.
Then, decision-making goes from bad to worse when we try to deal with the adverse circumstances in our own strength (27:15-20). These people were desperate to save themselves, such that (1) they secured the life boat (27:16); (2) they undergirded the ship with ropes to stop it falling apart (27:17a); (3) they lowered the driving anchor to keep the ship upright as they were helplessly blown by the wind (27:17b); (4) they threw some cargo overboard to lighten the ship (27:18); and (5) they even jettisoned the ship’s tackle into the sea (27:19). While these actions were logical and understandable, they also depict just how utterly desperate they were.
In the end, all their efforts failed and they gave up hope of being saved (27:20). I suppose they must have kicked themselves a thousand times for making such an unwise decision. Despair set in and they just waited for the inevitable. Notice that unlike the sailors in the story of Jonah, none of the crew called upon God. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone, other than Paul and his companions, had any sensitivity to God or figured out that maybe they should cast themselves on his mercy. None of the crew admitted that God is sovereign over the wind and waves. None of them looked to God as the Creator of the sun and stars, which had not appeared for many days, and of the wind and waves, which were about to consume them. No! They preferred to rely on their own abilities and judgement. They had more faith in human effort than divine intervention.
Perhaps you’re like that too. You’d rather rely on yourself than on God. You’re too proud to admit that you need God. And you’re certainly too proud to admit that you are wrong.
Adversity often results from unwise decisions. And notice…
II. Adversity Always Reveals Wise Character (27:21-38).
Finally, Paul steps forward and takes charge. The captive becomes the captain, the prisoner becomes the liberator. Little did they know that they had God’s man right among them, a godly and wise leader. Notice how Luke portrays Paul as a leader among this eclectic band of soldiers and sailors, prisoners and passengers.
A. A Wise Leader Speaks The Truth In Love (27:21).
“Paul then stood up among them and said, ‘Men, you should have listened to me and not put out to sea from Crete, thus avoiding this damage and loss” (27:21). Paul isn’t saying: “I told you so!” He isn’t rubbing their noses in it, so to speak. Godly leaders don’t do that. He is merely establishing his credibility and their accountability. They needed to be reminded of the disastrous decision they had made back in Fair Havens when they considered their personal agendas and desires more important than Paul’s sage, experienced, godly advice (27:10).
A godly leader isn’t afraid to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). He is willing to confront, but never with bitterness. The truth is, they should never have set sail in the first place. Common sense and experience would tell them that. The truth is, they were already facing disaster and they were about to sustain the loss of the ship and possibly of their lives as well.
Sometimes the truth hurts, doesn’t it? We would rather remain in ignorance than face the truth. That’s why some people don’t go to the doctor to find out why they have a pain or other symptoms. They figure that the symptoms are easier to deal with than the truth. But, there are times when you just can’t avoid the truth. These people couldn’t avoid it nor could they argue about it. Now, it just wasn’t up for debate. They had done what they wanted to do and look what it got them – impending disaster and loss. What they should be saying now is: “What must we do to be saved?” (Acts 2:37).
But speaking the truth alone is not enough. And confrontation alone doesn’t achieve anything. There has to be a remedy. So, a wise leader not only speaks the truth in love, but also…
B. A Wise Leader Inspires Hope In Others (27:22).
You can’t achieve anything with a bunch of de-motivated, desperate people. A wise leader gives them a vision and hope.
1. A wise leader speaks words of encouragement. “I urge you to take courage” (27:22a). Beating people over the head never did much to achieve anything. If you want people to follow your leadership you need to be able to motivate them, to give them hope and encouragement, even in the face of impending disaster.
2. A wise leader speaks words of assurance. “There will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship” (27:22b). What a relief that must have been, even though they couldn’t see how that could happen. But now they had experienced Paul’s wisdom for themselves and, if he was right the first time, they had no reason to doubt that he would be right now.
A wise leader speaks the truth in love. A wise leader inspires hope in others. And...
C. A Wise Leader Roots His Confidence In God (27:23-26).
1. You need confidence in the word of God. “For last night an angel of the God to whom I belong to and whom I serve stood by me and said, ‘Don’t be afraid, Paul’” (27:23-24). This is the first time Paul speaks of a word from the Lord throughout this ordeal. Even so, he at no time doubted that he would eventually reach Rome. God’s word is utterly reliable; it is our ultimate standard for faith and practice.
2. You need confidence in the character of God. How could Paul have such confidence in such circumstances? How did he know that there would be no loss of life, only of the ship? Because he was confident in his relationship with God. He knew the God to whom he belonged and whom he served. He knew God's nature and character, and the faithfulness of his word.
“This is the God with whom I have a personal relationship,” he is saying, “...the God to whom I belong” (27:23b). “My God is not an impersonal, mystical, inanimate god of wood and stone but a personal God, whom I know and who stands by me in time of trouble. This is the God who bought me with his own blood, saved me from my sins by his grace, and has given me eternal life. This is the God who met me on the road to Damascus. I know him; I have a personal relationship with him; I belong to him now. He is my Lord and Master, my Sovereign, my Redeemer. I don’t belong to one of your pagan gods who has no power at all to save you, but to this God who stood by me this night and spoke to me. This is the God with whom I have a personal relationship and...
“This is the God to whom I have a personal devotion, “…the God whom I serve” (27:23c), Paul is saying. “Because I belong to him I also serve him, even if that means experiencing life-threatening circumstances like this. Nothing will shake my resolve to serve him. I serve the living God who is the Creator of all things, the God in whom ‘we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28). That’s the sum and substance of my life, serving the God to whom I belong.”
You need confidence in the word of God, in the character of God, and...
3. You need confidence in the power of God. “Don’t be afraid, Paul” (27:24a). This God gives comfort and courage in the face of fear because he is sovereign. He rules the wind and waves. He is the all-powerful God who exercises his power on our behalf. We have no need to fear when he is on our side.
4. You need confidence in the purposes of God. “You must be brought before Caesar” (27:24b), the angel said. Whatever God has decreed must come to pass. His eternal purposes cannot fail; they must be fulfilled. When Paul heard, “You must be brought before Caesar” he knew that they would be saved from this storm. In the providence of God, Paul must be brought before Caesar. He knew the purposes of God in his life. It must happen. Go to Rome he most certainly would.
You need confidence in the word of God, confidence in the character of God, confidence in the power of God, confidence in the purposes of God, and...
4. You need confidence in the promises of God. “And indeed, God has graciously granted you (the safety of) all those who are sailing with you” (27:24c). Undoubtedly, Paul had been praying for safety and deliverance, evidently not only for himself and his companions, but also for all the souls on board. In response God “graciously granted” his request. Paul had unswerving confidence in the promises of God in answer to his prayers.
5. You need confidence in the trustworthiness of God. “Therefore, take courage, men, for I believe God that it will be just as it was told me” (27:25). This is a wonderful confession of faith. Paul knew the character of God - when you know someone’s character, you can trust them unconditionally. Paul knew the word of God - when you know someone’s word, you can trust them unquestionably. Paul knew the power of God - when you know someone’s power, you can trust them unreservedly. Paul knew the promises of God - when you know someone keeps their promises, you can trust them undeniably.
When a godly leader exudes such confidence in God, it gives everyone else assurance, hope, vision, and courage. A wise leader speaks the truth in love, inspires hope in others, roots his confidence in God, and...
D. A Wise Leader Addresses The Needs Of Others (27:27-35).
1. He sees the need for the people to be united (27:27-32). After 14 days, the sailors sensed they were approaching land. To prevent them from being driven up on the rocks, they cast out four anchors from the stern and “prayed for daylight to come” (27:29).
Seeing an opportunity to save their own skins, the sailors pretended to let down anchors from the bow, when in fact they were letting down the lifeboat in which to escape (27:30). Paul warned the centurion that they would need the entire crew in order for everyone to be safe – they had to be united. So, upon his instruction, the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it go (27:31-32). Now they had no lifeboat! What an expression of implicit trust in Paul’s leadership! What a transformation in their attitude towards Paul!
A wise leader sees the need for the people to be united and...
2. He sees the need for the people to be nourished (27:33-38). They hadn’t eaten for two weeks (27:33). They would need to eat in order to survive, “since not one of you will lose a hair from your head” (27:34). They were about to experience not just no loss of life but complete survival.
Like all wise and godly leaders, Paul sets the example (27:35). He gives thanks to God in the presence of them all, 276 persons (27:37). He begins to eat and “all of them were encouraged and took food themselves” (27:36).
This is a biblical, and pastoral approach to leadership. Paul is the example of a well-balanced Christian, one who demonstrates practicality and piety, spirituality and sanity, faith and works (see John Stott, “The Message of Acts,” 392). He isn’t a mystic or someone out of touch with reality. No, he gives thanks for the food publicly despite being surrounded by unbelievers - that was a powerful and courageous testimony. He recognized the practical danger of sailing with the onset of winter storms. He didn’t toss caution to the wind in an irresponsible trust in God. He took action so that the sailors did not escape. He calculated how much manpower would be needed. He set the example of eating food to provide physical sustenance and the energy that would be needed.
The wise leader doesn’t utter senseless platitudes, isn’t self-serving, isn’t patronizing of others. Rather, he combines his deep, unswerving faith in God with practical action. He recognizes that God's word always produces works of faith (James 2:14-18). He is both spiritual and sensible, prayerful and practical.
Finally, “when they had eaten enough, they began to lighten the ship by throwing the grain overboard into the sea” (27:38). Now they had no lifeboat and no food! All that they could cling to was what Paul had said based on God’s word!
Adversity often results from unwise decisions (27:9-20). Adversity always reveals wise character (27:21-38). And…
III. Adversity Continually Ratifies God’s Faithfulness (27:39-44).
Finally, after such a life-threatening experience, they see land! Even though they did not recognize where they were, they decided to just run the ship ashore (27:39). Now, not only did they have no lifeboat and no food, but with the anchors cast off and the ropes that tied the rudders loosened (27:40), they had no control over the ship whatsoever. Any reliance on themselves that they may have had is abandoned and their destiny now lay in the hands of God alone! Of course, we know that their destiny lay in God’s hands from the very beginning of this experience.
But just as they must have breathed a sigh of relief with land in sight, two more dangers surfaced. First, the vessel ran aground (as they had planned) but the stern of the ship began to break up (27:41). It seems as though this storm will never stop pursuing them. Second, the soldiers planned to kill the prisoners “so that no one could swim away and escape” (27:42). The custom was that if guards allowed prisoners to escape, they themselves would have been killed as punishment.
Yet again, all onboard that ship benefitted from God’s protection of, and plans for, Paul: “You must be brought before Caesar” (27:24). Thus, “the centurion, wanting to save Paul’s life, prevented them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and get to land, and the rest were to follow some on planks and some on pieces of the ship. In this way, everyone safely reached the shore” (27:43-44). God is faithful – he keeps his promises, he protects his own, he fulfills his purposes, he exercises his power.
Final Remarks
The old adage says that adversity builds character. But I think it would be more accurate to say that adversity reveals character. We certainly see that in the scene we have been studying. When others made bad decisions that led to their despair, not knowing which way to turn, the apostle Paul came forward and guided them with utmost confidence in God. He knew that his journey to Rome was providentially ordered by God. He knew that nothing could disrupt that goal because it was God-ordained. He didn’t know how they were going to get there, given the violence of the storm, the breakup of the ship (27:41), and the mutinous intent of the soldiers (27:42), but he did know what the angel had promised him (27:23), that God had a purpose for him in Rome, and that therefore God would overrule all these obstacles to bring him safely to Rome along with all the others on board ship.
Don’t you just long for that kind of faith, that enables you to act with that kind of courage, and to communicate to others with that kind of bold leadership, even in the face of that kind of adversity?
God has not promised us a pleasant voyage (see 2 Cor. 11:23-28), but he has promised us a certain voyage. He has not promised us a life of ease and pleasure. Christians are not exempt from challenges and troubles in life. In fact, Jesus promised that in this world we will certainly face tribulation (John 16:33). But our comfort and assurance is this, that when we face trials and challenges in life we have a resource that the world does not have – a God who is infinitely powerful, absolutely trustworthy, and entirely loving. Those are resources that enable us to withstand the storms of life, no matter what they may be, where they come from, or what their outcome is.
As our structure of this message indicates, adversity often results from unwise decisions, adversity always reveals wise character, and adversity continually ratifies God’s faithfulness. Let us be pastoral leaders who learn from adversity, leaders who trust God for wise decisions, leaders who follow God’s instructions, leaders who trust God’s faithfulness, and leaders whom others will want to follow even though they may not understand what we are doing, where we are going, or how we are going to get there. Remember our thesis: Pastoral leadership requires trust in the faithfulness of God no matter how adverse the circumstances.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors
6. Church Leadership: The Legacy Of Leadership (Acts 20:17-35) </p>
Related MediaA legacy is something that is passed on, usually from one generation to the next and often in the form of a person’s manner of life, such as their values, relationships, priorities, beliefs, habits, and moral character - those primary characteristics that continue to influence those who follow after them.
We learn much from the legacy of great spiritual leaders who have gone before us, like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Tyndale, Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon was fifty-seven years old when he died, after a ministry that impacted people around the world. After forty years of exemplary ministry, Spurgeon passed into the presence of the Lord. Two or three days before the end he said to his secretary, “My work is done.” Well, his work may have been done, but it still lives on to this day. That’s a lasting legacy!
Acts 20 records the apostle Paul’s journey to Jerusalem (20:16). On route, he stops at Miletus where he calls for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet with him (20:17). He had had a great influence on the church at Ephesus after having ministered among them for probably a couple of years. When they came to him he gave his farewell address to them in which he exhorts the leaders to take on the work of shepherding the people of God. The primary purpose of this meeting was evidently for Paul to remind the elders to follow the example of his ministry among them. This would be his lasting legacy.
I am calling this biblical study on church leadership, “The Final Farewell Of A Godly Leader: A Lasting Legacy” (Acts 20:18-35). Paul’s final words are words of reflection and exhortation, words that demonstrate credibility, experience, and godliness, words that project warmth and care, words that summarize his ministry. Let us learn from the apostle Paul’s legacy as described in his parting words and apply the principles of his leadership to our own. The first principle we learn is that...
I. Our Words Should Expose The Clarity Of Our Motives (20:18-21)
1. Our Personal Testimony (20:18-19). Credibility seems to be more and more absent in church leadership today. It seems that no sooner does a church leader emerge on the public scene and generate some degree of notoriety than something arises that mars or even destroys their ministry. Often this happens during the latter years of a leader’s ministry. It’s so sad! A man may have had a tremendous impact on people over a long period of time, and then towards the end of his life he may do or say something that casts a shadow over all those years of faithful ministry. Not so with the apostle Paul. His ministry was credible because his motives were clear, in terms of…
a) Commitment and consistency. It’s important that our words clearly communicate who we are and why we do what we do. “You yourselves know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I set foot in Asia… (20:18). The believers in Ephesus knew all about Paul’s manner of life from the example he set while living and ministering among them. They had observed him from the very first time he came to their area. They saw how he lived, his steadfast commitment to the ministry and his consistent manner of life.
Commitment and consistency are so often lacking in the lives of church leaders. Sometimes their zeal for the ministry wanes. Sometimes they say one thing and do another. In fact, we sometimes do that ourselves. What we need is not only commitment to the work of the Lord but consistency in the work of the Lord, ensuring that our actions match our words, that our motives are pure, and that our manner of life is patterned after Christ’s. If we do, we will leave a lasting and powerful legacy.
b) Activity and attitude. The singular activity of the apostle was devoted to “…serving the Lord” (20:19). He was a living example of his own exhortation: “Do not lack diligence in zeal; be fervent in spirit; serve the Lord” (Rom. 12:11). That was his daily engagement, to serve the Lord anywhere and at any time, whether it was convenient or not, “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).
And he carried out that ministry activity with a Christ-like attitude, “serving the Lord with all humility, with tears, and with the trials that happened to me because of the plots of the Jews” (20:19). Humility is often confused with meekness. In a sense, they are two sides of the same coin of self-awareness. Humility is the awareness of yourself in relation to others, not thinking of yourself more highly than you ought to think (Rom. 12:3); whereas meekness is the awareness of others in relation to yourself, considering others as more important than yourself (Phil. 2:3). The apostle Paul exhibited both these attributes throughout his ministry life, despite the hardships and opposition that he received from others
It's so easy to develop a bad attitude when you are verbally criticized, physically attacked, and wrongly accused, isn’t it? When you read of the tears that he shed and the trials that he experienced from the plots of the Jews (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24-28), you wonder how he could have lived such a consistent, committed life with such humility. May that energize us to so live with clear motives, manifesting the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor. 10:1).
2. Our Public Ministry (20:20-21). It’s so easy to live our personal lives differently from what we practice publicly. Perhaps this is why the apostle Paul spoke about his personal testimony before speaking about his public ministry. They must be consistent with one another if we are to have credibility. Paul’s personal testimony was marked by commitment and consistency in his activity and attitude, and his public ministry by…
a) Transparency and boldness. “I did not hold back from proclaiming to you anything that was profitable or from teaching you publicly and from house to house” (20:20). He didn’t hold back anything that was beneficial for them to know. He didn’t play favorites. He didn’t modify his message to suit the crowd. He didn’t say one thing in public and another in private. His motives were expressed in openness and truth, transparency and boldness.
b) Gospel orientation. “…testifying to both Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus” (20:21). Paul’s audience included everyone regardless of race or religion. Wherever the opportunity arose, Paul taught the truth of the word of God in every venue (whether in the public square or in private homes) and in every way, such as “proclaiming… teaching… testifying” (20:20-21).
Even more noticeable than how he taught and preached is what he taught and preached. Four different descriptions are given in our passage: He preached (1) “Repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (20:21); (2) “The gospel of God’s grace” (20:24)”; (3) “The kingdom (of God)” (20:25); and (4) “The whole plan (purpose) of God” (20:27). This was the sum and substance of his ministry at the root of which was the gospel. This should challenge us as to the extent to which our preaching and teaching ministry is similarly characterized. Are we taking every opportunity to lead people to repentance? Are we taking every opportunity to help people grow in their faith?
We need to preach evangelistically (the gospel), instructively (for the edification of the saints), admonishingly (warning unbelievers and saints alike), and fully, so that we are “innocent of the blood of all of you” (20:26).
The second principle we learn is that...
II. Our Words Should Exude Our Confidence In God (20:22-25)
The men who have been role models and mentors to me have all been men with great confidence in God for the present and the future. In Paul’s experience he had…
1. Confidence despite present uncertainty (20:22-23). “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit warns me in every town that imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me” (20:22-23). Even though the Holy Spirit had told him what awaited him at Jerusalem, he was not deterred. He had confidence in the call of God on his life. This is what kept him going, regardless of the possibility of imprisonment, persecution, and even death that he may face in Jerusalem.
2. Confidence in view of future completion (20:24-25). “But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of God’s grace” (20:24). Paul’s focus was on the long term, not on the short term. He was not concerned about the present uncertainty of what may happen to him in Jerusalem because he didn’t place value on his present, temporal life. Rather, he was concerned about the future completion of his ministry, for which the Lord Jesus had called him and gifted him. This is what gave Paul such confidence, to “testify to the gospel of God’s grace” to the very end, to finish well his life’s task. Is this not the life of a preacher? Is this not what we have been called to?
For this reason, he was determined to press on to Jerusalem, despite the testimony of the Holy Spirit that “in every town imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me” (20:23), and despite the reality that this would be the last time he would see the brethren from Ephesus: “And now I know that none of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face again” (20:25). Despite this uncertain future and the fact that the end of his life was in view, his life’s purpose never changed, it would be one of constant testifying and proclaiming the truth of the gospel. “I strive toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). He never wavered in his task in view of its future and imminent completion. This is what he aimed for. He kept his eyes on the goal (to “finish my course) and the prize (“the upward call of God in Christ Jesus”).
The third principle we learn is that...
III. Our Words Should Express Our Convictions About Ministry (20:26-31)
In three succinct exhortations, Paul expresses his convictions about a preaching ministry…
1. We must preach the full scope of Scripture (20:26-27). “Therefore, I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, because I did not hold back from proclaiming to you the whole plan of God.” This verse contains two convictions about a gospel-preaching ministry…
a) That the people are responsible before God for their response to our preaching. No matter how Paul’s hearers responded, his conscience was clear; if any of them chose not to believe, he was not responsible - they were. Because he had fully, openly, and boldly declared the whole plan and purpose of God to them, he could say “I am innocent of the blood of all of you” (20:26). He had completed his ministry; he had preached the whole truth. That was his responsibility; how they responded was their own responsibility for which they would answer to God.
b) That the preacher is responsible to declare the whole plan of God in the gospel. Paul had spent a considerable amount of time in the church at Ephesus teaching them the truth. On his arrival in Ephesus he found that the disciples there only knew about John’s baptism, so he taught them that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, “telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus (19:4). The result was that they responded positively to his teaching and he baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5). He then continued to fully, openly, and boldly (19:8) declare the whole truth of the gospel, nothing left out and nothing compromised (see also 20:19-21). Despite opposition (19:21-41), “I did not hold back from proclaiming to you the whole plan of God” (20:27), he says. He had fulfilled his duty to make known to them the entire truth concerning the full scope of the gospel (see Ephesians 1:3-14).
This is a wonderful encouragement for those of us who are preachers, that we are responsible to preach the full plan of God in the gospel and our hearers are responsible for how they respond. If we have been faithful in making known to our hearers the scope and power and consequences of the gospel, then we can leave the results of our ministry with God; he will be the judge.
2. We must warn about spiritual dangers (20:28-30). As a result of what Paul had preached in Ephesus, he exhorts the leaders of the church to “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” (20:28).
First, the elders of the church are to “guard” their own personal lifestyle and teaching. They are to be living examples of what it means to believe the gospel, examples of godliness among the flock of God.
Second, they are responsible to guard “all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers.” They are the church’s guardians, supervisors who make sure that none of the flock falls into danger.
Third, they are responsible to “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” Notice the specific terms that Paul uses here to describe the responsibilities of elders, equating them with shepherds (pastors) of the church. They had been appointed and were recognized as the leaders of the church, whose primary function is to “shepherd (pastor) the church of God.” As spiritual shepherds, they are responsible to supply good spiritual nutrition and to provide complete spiritual (and physical) care and guidance. That’s what shepherds do. They are the guardians, care-givers, and protectors of the flock. To this end, elders are to watch out for two specific sources of danger to the flock…
a) Savage wolves (20:29). “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.” Savage wolves are those people from outside the church who, like wild animals, attack the flock. They break into the sheepfold and decimate the flock for their own sick benefit and morbid pleasure (see John 10:10-13).
b) Divisive men (20:30). “Even from among yourselves (your own number), men will rise up, teaching perversions of the truth…” These are false teachers who arise from within the church, who distort the truth of the gospel for their own divisive purposes. Satan always has his agents who are ready to pounce whenever there is a gap in the protection of the flock, whose express purpose is “to draw away (lure) the disciples after them.” False teachings are accompanied by false motives, namely, to create a personal following in opposition to the genuine shepherds of the church.
3. We must teach others by our example (20:31). “Therefore, be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I never stopped warning each one of you with tears.” Paul himself was the quintessential shepherd of God’s people, the example of the continuous and passionate faithfulness to which he is exhorting the Ephesian elders. He is not asking them to do anything that he had not practiced himself.
The fourth principle is that...
IV. Our Words Should Exhibit Our Care For The Congregation (20:32-35)
1. A final benediction: Ministry is about God and his Word (20:32). “And now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified.”
As a demonstration of the very pastoral care that he is exhorting the elders to practice, Paul entrusts the Ephesian believers to two rock solid resources: (1) our divine, personal resource for care and protection in God himself; (2) our infallible, written resource for spiritual edification and teaching in God’s word, “…which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified.”
This phrase “all who are sanctified” refers to the saints, those who are set apart (“sanctified”) exclusively to and for God and who collectively (“among all”) will enter into their inheritance of a shared future life (Eph. 1:14, 18; 5:5), the security and reality of which is based on the truth of God’s word which builds us up (Eph. 2:20; 4:12, 16, 29).
2. A final exhortation: Ministry is about selfless service (20:33-35). “I have desired no one’s silver or gold or clothing” (20:33). True and faithful leaders are not motivated by personal gain or materialism. Indeed, “you yourselves know that I worked with my own hands to support myself and those who are with me. In every way I have shown you that it is necessary to help the weak by laboring like this and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (20:34-35). He was their mentor who not only taught them in his words but also in his actions.
Pastoral ministry is about selflessness – about giving not taking, about generosity not miserliness, about working not idleness, about others not self.
Final Remarks
Paul spoke these words in anticipation of his departure to Jerusalem where he might receive a death sentence. He references this possibility several times in this short treatise. “22 And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit warns me in every town that imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me…25 “And now I know that none of you… will see my face again… 29 After my departure…” (20:22-29).
It is in that context that he speaks these words, leaving for us a lasting legacy of pastoral leadership, which, I suppose, is summed up in verse 24: “I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of God’s grace.” His life and ministry were all about a humble attitude (20:19) and a bold proclamation (20:20-21, 24, 25, 27). It is on the basis of this ministry that he issues the concluding exhortations that (1) ministry is about God and his Word (20:32) and (2) ministry is about selfless service (20:33-35).
Such final words are truly remarkable. By the grace of God, may this inspire us as pastors and preachers to establish and leave behind us just such a legacy.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors
Church Relationships
This series is a continuation of the series on church leadership (found here).
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors
1. Church Relationships: Improving Church Communications
Related MediaThis article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…
Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.
1. The purposes of the church.
2. Formulating a philosophy of church ministry.
3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.
4. Pastoral leadership.
Part II, Strengthening Church relationships.
1. Improving church communications.
2. Dealing with church discipline.
3. Managing church conflict.
4. Leading your church through change.
This is the first article in Part II: “Improving Communications.” Communication is the exchange of information between two or more people. Thus, to communicate effectively we must be able to express ourselves in such a way that those who listen can understand what we say and what we mean. So many organizations have poor internal communications. They fail to communicate organizational news, plans, developments etc. to those who need to and should hear it.
Good communication is vital to the harmony and efficient operation of any organization. Good church communication in particular is a two-way street, from leadership to the members and from the members to leadership. In order for church members to feel (and to actually be) an integral part of the organization, the church leadership has to inform them about what is going on and the members have to have opportunity to participate in on-going dialogue with leadership about their wishes, ideas, concerns etc.
Communication should be a pastor’s strength since this is our craft – communicating the gospel and edifying God’s people through teaching and preaching. But sadly, communication with church members is often not our strong point. Members often feel that they are not informed about developments, or not consulted about certain important decisions. And, frankly, they are often right. Sometimes this is because the church has never properly defined what issues must be brought before the members – church leaders often think they can make the decision, whereas the members think they should have been consulted. But even on issues that do not need member agreement, the communication by church leaders with the congregation about matters of congregational interest and importance is often sparse and poorly done.
Let us not forget the very practical fact that the church members are the ones who fund the church’s operations and provide the human resources for church ministries to function. Therefore, if you want their continued co-operation, initiative, and support, you are duty bound to keep them informed and, where necessary and appropriate, consult them.
The question always is, “Which issues do we need to get the members’ agreement on, and which issues do we need to simply inform them about?” This question needs to be settled by each individual church, which will depend on the church’s convictions and traditions concerning organizational structure. But even if the level of decision-making is defined, there still needs to be great sensitivity by church leaders as to issues that should be communicated voluntarily, such as matters of common interest, church developments, news, thanks for member support etc. Of course, certain matters require even greater communication awareness than others, like building plans and progress, vision and strategic ministry plans, annual budgets, and changes in pastoral staff. So, try to communicate as much as possible with transparency and openness, without becoming enslaved to a burdensome administrative system. Generally, it is better to over-communicate than to lose credibility by appearing to be secretive or insensitive.
Communication is a really big topic, so I don’t pretend that this article will address everything you might want to know. But I will try to cover some of the more important bases…
I. Realities About Communication.
A. Communication Is Challenging.
If it were simple, we would all do it much better than we presently do and we would not have the misunderstandings that we do. There are many reasons why communication is challenging. Here are a few examples…
1. We often express ourselves in ways that do not communicate what we intend, leading to misunderstandings. This is one of the limitations and complexities of language.
2. Communication can be verbal and / or non-verbal (as in body language – e.g. hand and arm movements, facial expressions etc.). The communicator is usually not aware of his non-verbal communication and yet, often, more is deduced about meaning from non-verbal than from verbal communication. This, in itself, can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Were the communicator’s non-verbal expressions a true indicator of what he was saying or were they merely the product of habit (e.g. talking to someone with your arms folded or your hands on your hips)? If so, they may not be an indication at all of what he was trying to say at all.
3. We hear someone speak with words that we understand but whose meaning we do not understand (at least, not with certainty): “What did he mean by what he said?” This is the same hermeneutical issue we face when interpreting the Bible. It’s vitally important in communication that the party receiving the communication understands what is being said in the same way that the one communicating understands it.
4. In this digital age, we more often than not use one-way communication (as in e-mail), which requires even more precision than in two way communication (as in a conversation, a debate, or a meeting).
B. Understanding Is Affected By Many Factors.
Our understanding of what is said is usually affected by other factors such as our experience, feelings (e.g. about the topic or the speaker), and attitudes. You can communicate or listen with a positive, receptive attitude or a negative, unreceptive attitude. Your attitude may be affected by your previous experience with, or relationship to, the speaker. Or, it may be affected by your health, state of mind, or previous good or bad experiences that day.
You may interpret what the speaker says in terms of your own personal needs or expectations. If you expect to hear one thing but hear another, that affects how you receive what is communicated. People tend to interpret what they hear or read within the framework of what they want to hear or read. Communication that does not meet our expectations is either filtered out altogether (we do not hear it at all), or rationalized, or stripped altogether of its intended meaning.
Because communication is so complex, it’s easy to understand how two people can listen to the exact same communication but derive from it two entirely different understandings. Those of us who are preachers face this challenge regularly when people derive from a sermon something that we did not say or intend. As pastors we face this whenever we are involved in conflict resolution between people, just trying to convince one or both parties that they do not understand the issue properly. It isn’t a matter of deceit; they just interpret what was said or done in different ways.
When you consider all the variables in communication, you quickly realize how conflicts in any organization or relationship can occur so easily.
C. Healthy Communication Depends On Trust And Truth.
Keeping these two factors in balance is sometimes hard. Trust is earned by the leader over time through your relationships, reliability, kindness, fairness. Truth is demonstrated in the leader’s forthright, open, and accurate communications. I used to work for a businessman who used to say, “You can do business with anyone except someone who lies.” The reason he said that was because you never know where you stand with someone you don’t trust - you never know if they are telling you the truth or not.
It's important to understand the distinction between forthrightness and unkindness. You can be and must be forthright (so that people know where you stand) but without being unkind (Eph. 4:29). It is not satisfactory to say something and then justify it with: “Well, I was just being honest.” Honesty is often used as a cloak for many communication sins among Christians, as though honesty somehow outweighs the sin of cruelty. Usually such persons are not being honest; they are being vengeful (Prov. 15:1).
A trust environment is a prerequisite for truth to be freely and fully expressed - the two go together. But how do you balance the two so that truth is not expressed in a way that disrupts trust. The balancing factor between truth and trust is to follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to always “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), and to ensure that our “speech (is) always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6). This is a principle that is often forgotten.
All communication must be done with sensitivity and wisdom. Sometimes this means that you do not say anything because to do so might inflict damage, especially when a response is not needed. This is being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). All our communications must pass a threefold test: (1) “Is it necessary to say this? (2) Is it kind? (3) Is it true?”
Truthful communication means that sometimes we will say things that the other person does not want to hear (Prov. 27:5-6). Sometimes we need to express our feelings and clarify misunderstandings. Sometimes we need to say things that might generate a negative reaction. For this to be done successfully, there must be an environment of love and respect, of mutual trust and acceptance; an environment in which neither party seeks to denigrate the other.
Lack of trust in leadership is a big issue in many churches. When an environment of distrust exists people start to talk secretly between themselves, not in an open forum where disagreements can be properly aired. They interpret actions and statements negatively, not positively. They attribute to statements and actions deceptive motives, not honest. They start to meet in small private groups, not large public gatherings. It becomes an “us” and “them” situation. This is a major barrier to the type of communication that is necessary and should exist in churches more than anywhere else.
So, how do you build this environment of trust and truth, and who creates it?...
1. The responsibility to generate this atmosphere of trust lies with the leaders. Leaders must, above all else, have strong relationships with the people – the people must know the heart of the leadership. Developing an environment of trust requires two factors: (1) Willingness to be vulnerable; (2) Understanding and valuing each individual. When these factors are present, relationships within the group can move from fear-based to trust-based relationships.
Leaders need to set the example by practicing open, honest communication themselves. They must demonstrate the willingness to be vulnerable. This means being transparent about their decisions, plans, feelings, values, convictions. They must take the time to know and understand each individual. They must demonstrate that they value each individual for who he or she is. Open, honest communication means communicating things to the congregation that they don’t have to communicate, but do so because they want to create this open, honest atmosphere. They want the people to never feel that things are being hushed up, that they are being kept in the dark.
2. The leaders of the church must encourage open dialogue. This means (1) creating forums for this to take place; (2) not being defensive when people challenge their decisions; (3) responding to people’s statements and questions in a non-judgmental manner; (4) respecting people for who they are, regardless of whether they agree with you or not; (5) admitting when they (the leaders) are wrong; (6) telling the people when they (the people) are wrong (perhaps because they do not know all the facts, which is often the case); (7) sometimes telling the people things that they might not want to hear. One of the prices tags that comes with open, honest dialogue is hearing bad news or things you do not want to hear or being shown that you are wrong or being overruled.
3. The leaders must allow the expression of conflicting opinions. Healthy leadership wants its members to be free to express differing opinions and they do so by establishing ground rules for dealing with disagreements within the group. Such ground rules are based on trust and respect. As trust builds, members become freer to engage in group discussions, debates, and meetings where there are conflicting opinions. This is critical to problem solving because this allows for healthy, open, authentic interaction, which produces better decisions and greater likelihood of achieving group goals.
When there is open, respectful dialogue, discussions go beyond the superficial to the real issues, because emotional reactions are not a hindrance to open discussions when everyone knows they are loved and where there is mutual trust.
In general, an environment of trust means creating a safe place for open, honest, loving communication. The critical questions are: How can church leaders create this atmosphere of open and honest dialogue? What sort of forums can leaders create that nurture this kind of communication? What is the pastoral role in creating this environment?
D. Leaders Need Good Communication Skills.
If you can’t communicate accurately, clearly, and relationally, you cannot be a good leader. After all, the main concepts, values, plans etc. of an organization are usually communicated by the leader to the members of the organization. In a church the process usually starts with the initial proposal by the leadership, followed by the solicitation and collection of the members’ opinions, wishes, and ideas in response. Then, when this input is consolidated and combined with the leaders’ original visions and plans, a final proposal is brought to the members in such a way that they take ownership of it.
Good communication is also needed by the leader for every development in the organization which needs to be communicated to the members. Take the example of Jesus’ communication to his followers. Jesus devoted much of his instructional communication to matters of principles, values, future plans, and relationships (cf. Matt. 27:37-39; 7:12; 6:25-34; 24:1-51; 16:21-28). He wanted them to be very cognizant of what they stood for, why they were here, where they were going, what they had to do, and what their scope of responsibilities and authority was. In other words, he wanted them to know how they could and should best represent him (particularly when he was gone). This is so much of the leader’s task - to infuse into his followers his philosophies, vision, values, standards, and plans so that they will act as he acts (i.e. adopt his values, beliefs, and behavior), so that they will carry on the mission (whether he is there or not) in a way that is consistent with how he carried on the mission.
Such was Jesus’ ability to communicate that he inspired the apostles’ writings; he laid the basis for the establishment of his church after his departure (Matt. 6:18); and he radically changed the subsequent history of the world. The power of good communication by a leader is evident not only in Jesus’ example but also in both secular and religious history (e.g. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Winston Churchill, Billy Graham).
In the church, the pastor’s communication skills do not start and stop with preaching. Preaching is certainly his primary task, of course, but he must also be able to communicate the church’s reason for existence – who it is, why it is here, where it is going, how it is going to get there.
II. Keys To Good Communication
1. Understanding people. You must understand what makes them tick, how they think, how they react, why they do what they do.
2. Knowing what you are talking about. No matter how good your oratory, if you don’t know what you are talking about the people to whom you are talking will know; what you say will not be authoritative; and you will create an atmosphere of distrust because people will not know if what you say is true and whether it will happen, or not.
3. Communicating when the time is right. So many leaders make the mistake of communicating thoroughly good information but at the wrong time, and then they wonder why the people responded in a different way than they expected. “When” we communicate is just as important as “how” and “what” we communicate.
If you say something to a person at the right time, they will accept it, adopt it, support it, whereas at the wrong time they might turn against what you said, even though what you said was perfectly good and proper. There are times when people are pliable and receptive to what you are saying. There are other times when they just cannot or will not compute what you communicate. Good leaders know the right time to communicate.
Usually, the right time is not dumping a whole load of information at once, or enacting a lot of significant change at once, or trying to communicate too much too quickly. There is only so much data that people can process in a certain period of time. A good leader knows how much to communicate at one time. A good communicator builds up to the hard communication over time.
4. Discerning the appropriate response. Don’t bury your head in the sand when you have finished communicating. You need to have your ears and eyes open to discern what the response is at the grass roots level, among the people who probably wouldn’t respond to you directly. Being able to “read” people’s responses is vital to being a good communicator because communication isn’t a one-way street.
Whether the response is verbal or non-verbal, there will be a response. And the communication has not finished when you have delivered your speech. It carries on until all the responses are in and until you have made any corrections if necessary. If the response is not what you wanted or expected (1) you might have to change course by modifying what you said; or (2) you might have to cancel what you said altogether (if you do, you probably made a big mistake in the process); or (3) you might have to give more information to persuade the people of your view and your proposal.
5. Striving to improve your communication skills. This means constantly learning how to preach and constantly learning how to communicate in a non-preaching mode.
III. Developing Good Communication Skills
A. Individual (Private) Communication.
1. Be a good listener. “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” (James 1:19). This is of particular importance for pastors. How can we practice it in reality? How can you be a good listener?
(i) Don’t interrupt. Let the other person do the talking until your participation is appropriate. Some people (including pastors sometimes) talk incessantly. We need to understand that what other people want to express is important.
(ii) Take note of what the other person is saying both verbally and non-verbally.
(iii) Figure out what the other person means by what they say.
(iv) Be attentive. Look at the other person in the eye. Don’t let your attention wander by looking around.
(v) Interact intentionally with the other person by asking questions (to clarify). Show your understanding by responses like “Yes,” “OK,” “I understand”).
(vi) Talk about the other person’s situation and concern and not about yourself. This shows the other person that you are interested in them alone.
2. Be consistent. Be consistent in your attitude toward the other party, in your respect for them, in the way you interact with them. This is difficult sometimes, particularly if they have been critical of you or others. In this situation, try to carry out the apostle Paul’s instruction: “In humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), and “Esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:13).
3. Be encouraging. Encourage the other party by showing unconditional love, that your relationship with them and opinion of them is not changed by what they say. A great way to encourage people is to pray with them.
4. Be responsive. Respond appropriately in your language, attitude, and content. Don’t respond with a mini-sermon every time. Don’t try to make every issue a spiritual matter if it is not. Respond to the other party at the same level as they speak to you, which may be at a superficial level or a deeper, spiritual level. If the other person is light-hearted, respond that way. If they are deeply burdened, respond that way. In your response, don’t try to be an expert when you are not, don’t try to have all the answers.
It is always inappropriate to use corrupt or coarse language or foolish talk ((Eph. 4:29; 5:3-4). It is always inappropriate to speak evil of someone (Tit. 3:2; James 4:11; Jude 8).
Responding appropriately means figuring out what this person needs, be it comfort, counsel, validation, or just the need to vent their feelings to someone, someone to understand them and what they are going through.
5. Be sensitive and tactful. Choose your words carefully. Watch your tongue – it can spread poison (James 3:1-12). “Speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:25). “Let your speech always be with grace seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6). “Be kind to one another” (Eph. 4:32).
6. Be supportive. It is easy to treat people like a number – “Next!” – and then promptly forget that the previous person even existed. When you meet them next time, ask how it is going, what happened, how they feel (1 Thess. 5:11). If something has been left for you to do, always make sure you do it as you promised.
B. Collective (Public) Communication.
Collective communication may be to the congregation or to the Board or staff or some special interest group. All the principles of individual communication apply, but communicating publicly (whether to all the congregation or part of it) has some of its own characteristics and challenges.
In order to be consistent and accurate in public communication, it is good to have some policies and procedures in place that cover such things as: (1) Regularly scheduled events at which to communicate certain information (e.g. quarterly business meetings; annual meetings; town hall meetings). (2) Timely disclosure – when certain information is to be disclosed and to whom (e.g. budgets, spending, new initiatives, staff resignations or dismissals). By spelling out in a policy of procedure who the recipients are of certain information and when they should be informed, you can try to ensure that no one who needs to know is left out. (3) Material information – information that will have a material impact on the church (e.g. shortfalls in donations; a lawsuit; or a potential liability or risk). Such policies and procedures should cover your communication and relationship with the congregation and between the leadership.
1. Relationship and communication with the congregation. Ask yourself the following questions…
a) How can we effectively communicate with the congregation? From the pulpit? In the bulletin? One-on-one? In groups? In membership meetings?
b) Who communicates to the congregation? The pastor? The Chair of the Board? Specially designated person? – e.g. chair of finance committee.
c) What is communicated to the congregation? Better to communicate more than they need to know than too little. Communication of the church’s vision is the responsibility of the visionary (usually, the pastor), who is also the living example of what the vision is all about. You illustrate what the vision is about by, for example, your enthusiasm for it, your time commitment to it, the resources you commit to it. The communication of the vision is vitally important if you want your people to adopt it as their own and participate in making it reality. Notice how Jesus communicated his vision (Luke 19:10; John 3:17; John 10:9-10). What is his key component, common theme?
2. Relationship and communication between leadership. Good relationships and communications between the Elders’ Board and pastoral staff are vital for a healthy leadership group and a healthy church. And yet, this is a potentially problematic relationship, especially in a church that practices congregational government where the lines of accountability and areas of responsibility are not always crystal clear or neatly divided up. In the church, often the Board as a whole (through its Chair) is accountable to the congregation directly as is also the lead pastor individually.
I would suggest that churches need to become far more intentional in defining the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of its pastoral staff and its leadership, and the relationship between the them (between the Board and the congregation; between the pastor and the congregation; and between the pastor and the Board). However it is defined, the leadership of the church is a common task of the elders and the pastors. They have to make sure that it works. A divided leadership team will make for a weak ministry.
Biblically, there is no distinction between elders and pastors – an elder is a pastor (1 Peter. 5:1; Acts 20:28). But practically we make a distinction in their functions because elders are part-time volunteers and pastors are full-time, paid staff. Probably the best distinction is that (1) the elders’ role is to govern (they deal primarily with policy matters, direction, spending, spiritual issues, ministry etc.); (2) the pastor’s role, assisted by staff, is to lead and manage day-to-day matters. Again, these inter-relationships should be at least covered in broad brush terms in a policy and procedure statement.
The elders of the church need to understand that the scope of their mandate is: (1) To be a governing body and not a management team; and (2) To set policy, vision, direction, approve budgets and new ministry initiatives, review financial statements etc. The role of the pastoral staff, on the other hand, is carry out the day-to-day management, subject to the approval of the elders and congregation as necessary. That’s why a church has staff. To not let them carry out the day-to-day execution of day-to-day management issues and duly approved decisions would be an indication of the lack of trust that often exists in our churches.
To enhance the working relationship between the leadership and the pastoral staff, obviously, they need to communicate regularly, openly, honestly between themselves. If such communication doesn’t exist at that level, you can hardly expect it to exist at a congregational level. The purpose of this level of communication is to deal effectively with ministry and practical issues as they relate to the function of elders and pastors.
The direction and stability of an organization stem from the communication and relationship between the Board and the management staff (in this case, the pastors). If there is tension in this relationship, it will affect the communication and the leadership of the church. Often there is a difference of approach to certain issues because the pastoral staff view certain decisions from a different perspective than lay elders, based on their knowledge of the congregation and their theological, biblical, pastoral perspective.
Lay elders are often business people or people from other professions and trades whose training pushes them toward solving problems, setting policies, giving direction etc. from an entirely different perspective. This is where everyone needs to serve the church as shepherds of the church, from a kingdom perspective.
Some suggestions for improving intra-leadership (pastor-elder) communications and relationships are…
a) Training. It helps if pastors train their lay elders whenever possible and suitable. Teach them the Bible, particularly as it relates to the biblical theology of being an elder, of leading the church, of church ministry and leadership. Teach them about prayer. Teach them about the fruit of the Spirit.
b) Developing relationships. The pastor can play a very important role in developing intra-leadership relationships. If people know each other personally and respect each other at a non-formal level, this always helps when differing opinions need to be resolved at formal meetings. Any interaction in a relaxed, non-threatening environment helps to break down communication barriers. Some suggestions for a pastor to help to develop these relationships are…
Spend time together between official meetings – for example, by inviting the elders to your home for social occasions; or by arranging elder-pastor retreats. This creates a more relaxed setting with time to talk together.
Express your appreciation to your lay elders – for their time, interest, commitment to the Lord and the church. Being appreciated does wonders for relationships. If people know they are loved and appreciated, they will be much more accommodating of your ideas.
Pray together (for each other and the church) and study the word together. I would strongly recommend that all meetings should be preceded with prayer and a word from the Scriptures. This sets the tone for the meeting.
Encourage each Board member – for example, when they are criticized by members of the church or when something goes wrong in their lives.
Exercise forgiveness regularly and freely. This is all very biblical but often forgotten. Again the pastor would do well to teach the leadership such principles as (1) esteeming others better than yourself (Phil. 2:3), forgiving one another and speaking kindly to one another (Eph. 4:32). Leadership is so public, so risky, and so complex, that forgiveness and the other Christian relational attributes must be spontaneously and openly practiced or communication will not work well.
3. Relationship and communication between other leadership groups. Just as the pastoral staff and the elders should meet regularly to communicate and make joint decisions, so other ministry leaders in the church should meet regularly with their volunteers in order for everyone to be on the same page regarding the church’s operations, ministry goals, and vision. The more open and regular the communication, the better. Generally speaking, you can’t over communicate.
Final Remarks
Many volumes of books have been written on this subject of organizational communication. This article is really just a brief introduction to the subject. Of course, in our context of church relationships and communications, we find our most authoritative and practical instructions on this topic in Scripture, such as…
James 1:19. “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”
Proverbs 10:19. “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.”
Ephesians 4:29. “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
Proverbs 18:2. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Ephesians 4:15. “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”
Ephesians 4:25. “Having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”
Romans 12:4–5. “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”
Ephesians 2:22. “In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”
1 Thessalonians 5:11. “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.”
Romans 12:3. “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.”
Philippians 2:3. “In humility count others more significant than yourselves.”
Let us take heed to these Scriptures (and many others) and practice them in our communication and relationship with others. I hope that this article stimulates your thinking on this topic. I hope that it motivates you to document policies and procedures that govern communications in your church and to be intentional about developing your own communication skills and relationships. If you do, I think you will find that your communications will become more effective and you will develop more healthy relationships in your church. May that be so for the glory of God and the blessing of the church.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors, Relationships
2. Church Relationships: Dealing With Church Discipline
Related MediaThis article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…
Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.
1. The purposes of the church.
2. Formulating a philosophy of church ministry.
3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.
4. Pastoral leadership.
Part II, Strengthening Church Relationships.
1. Improving church communications.
2. Dealing with church discipline.1
3. Managing church conflict.
4. Leading your church through change.
Last time, I addressed the first article in Part II: “Improving Church Communications.” Today, we come to the second article: “Dealing With Church Discipline.”
The topic of church discipline is not popular especially in today’s society where, often, anything goes and where there are no absolute moral standards. But this is a necessary topic to discuss and understand because it is biblical, it deals with issues that may dishonor the Lord’s name, it affects the spiritual health and future of the church, and it can cause harm to others in the church.
None of us likes to discipline someone else or be disciplined ourselves. Sometimes, when parents are about to discipline their children, they say, “This hurts me more than it hurts you.” At a physical level I’m not sure that’s true, but at an emotional level we understand the sentiment expressed. We don’t like disciplining our children, but sometimes it needs to be done for the benefit of the child and the family. Hebrews 12:5-11 says, “5 My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives…11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”
Christians are commanded to carry out self-discipline in order to maintain lives which are holy and acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 11:28). It is an affront to God to bring sin into his presence. This is particularly evident in the context of the remembrance of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-32). To bring sin into the presence of God, at the very ordinance that celebrates the death of Christ for our sins, is an insult to the work of Christ. It manifests no spiritual sensitivity to, or consciousness of, the One whose presence we are in and what we are commemorating.
As in our personal lives, so in our corporate church life, sin must be dealt with. Corporately, the church is commanded to exercise discipline (Matt. 18; Acts 5; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14) in order to maintain the holiness of the body of Christ. Matthew 18 deals with the instance of one brother sinning against another and the process for the restoration of personal harmony through repentance by the offending party and the forgiveness by the offended party. If such harmony of relationship cannot be restored at a personal level, then the sin becomes a matter for the church to deal with, since such sin cannot be left unjudged. Thus, the final “court of appeal” is the church.
This is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 6 where Paul rebukes individuals in the church for suing each other in court rather than bringing the matters before the assembly for judgment. All church discipline should take place within the local church, which is responsible for dealing with all matters that affect the purity of the assembly whether generated at the individual relationship level or at the corporate level.
One of the characteristics of this subject of church discipline is that it is sadly missing today in many evangelical churches, which, undoubtedly, contributes to the weakness and decline in so many churches. The Reformers said that there were three marks of a church: (1) Preaching the Word (edification of believers and evangelization of the lost); (2) The administration of the sacraments; and (3) The exercise of discipline.
Relevant Scriptures for this topic include: Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:1-13; 6:1-20; 11:27-32; 2 Corinthians 2:3-11; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; 1 Timothy 1:20; 5:17-20 (elders); Titus 3:10; Hebrews 12:3-11; James 5:19-20.
I. The Reasons For Church Discipline
It is the responsibility of the church to carry out church discipline where and when necessary for several reasons…
1. To preserve the holiness of the body of Christ and the Lord’s glory. This is the primary purpose of church discipline. The body of Christ is the temple of God, “which body you are” (1 Cor. 3:17), just as our bodies are “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19). The church of God, as the temple of God, is a holy place because it is where God dwells and God is absolutely holy and cannot tolerate sin.
God is totally identified with his people. He indwells us corporately (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16-17) and he indwells us individually by his Holy Spirit and by Christ himself (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:15-20; Eph. 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jn. 4:13). Such is the union between Christ and his people that “as he is, so are we in this world” (1 Jn. 4:17). And again, “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17).
We are united with Christ and are a direct reflection of him. Therefore, we cannot persist in unjudged sin and at the same time be a true reflection of the nature and character of God. As his people and his dwelling place, God requires that we reflect his nature and character here. Thus, we are commanded to be holy “as (God) is holy” (1 Pet. 1:16). This applies individually and corporately. To be anything other than holy people is to contradict who we are as redeemed people who belong to God – “You were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).
We must always judge sin. The proper place for sin to be judged is in our individual lives before it ever becomes a matter for church discipline. But some Christians lose their sensitivity to sin – perhaps because they wander away from God; or don’t spend time with God; or lose their initial love for God; or Satan gains an advantage over them etc. When we grow distant from God and “leave our first love” (Rev. 2:4) we become hardened to sin and to the holiness of God. That’s why it is so important to maintain daily quiet times with God, reading his Word and praying, in order to maintain intimacy with God.
If sin is allowed in our individual lives, it may and can easily become defiling to the whole body of Christ in the local church (1 Cor. 5:6-8). Therefore, if that happens it is the responsibility of the church to “purge out the leaven” (1 Cor. 5:7) of sin. Robert Saucy writes: “Failure to discipline evidences a lack of awareness of the holy character of God” (“The Church in God’s Program,” 120).
Sins may be contained either within the assembly or they may spread outside the assembly into the community. Regardless, if they are not judged the testimony of the local church is brought into disrepute (e.g. through fraudulent or immoral behavior), the Lord’s glory is tarnished, the church becomes defiled, and God’s people are harmed. Therefore, church discipline is necessary (1) To preserve and honor God’s holiness; (2) To reflect the nature and character of God and his glory; and (3) To protect the spiritual health of God’s people in the local church. If sin is not judged, the rest of the church becomes defiled by association, and others may become embroiled in sin themselves if they see that the church takes a light view of sin - this actually happened in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1-2) - and because they are attracted by the pleasures of sin as demonstrated in the other sinning Christians in the church.
2. To carry out what God has commanded us to do. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of his body, the church, and he has commanded us to exercise discipline in the church. “Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12-13). God uses us as his agents of discipline in the church. Notice the twofold authority for carrying out discipline in the local church according to Matthew 18:15-20…
(a) The authority of Christ’s presence in the “midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). He cannot tolerate sin and, since he is present, sin must be put out. Christ’s presence among several believers constitutes that group of believers into a local church and authorizes their church discipline.
Christ’s presence in the assembly empowers such action: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Christ, as the Son over his own house (Heb. 3:6), exercises discipline in his church. He is the disciplinarian of his church: “Whom I love I rebuke and chasten” (Rev. 3:19).
(b) The authority of heaven (Matt. 18:18). Where Christ is present (i.e. in a duly constituted local church), and where the church is agreed on the course of disciplinary action, the church has divine authority for so doing - the action is ratified in heaven: “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
3. To restore the sinning brother or sister in love. Just as parents discipline their children because they love them, so God disciplines his children because he loves them (as we already saw in Heb. 12:5-11). We experience the chastening hand of God both in our individual lives (Heb. 12:6) and corporate lives (1 Cor. 11:30), because we are members of his family individually and corporately.
Parental discipline is remedial. It has in view the restoration of the erring member of the family to a proper relationship with the parents and family. Similarly, church discipline is remedial. The church has a responsibility to discipline those who sin in order that they may be “partakers of his holiness,” which process “yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness” (Heb. 12:10-11). In other words, because we love the people of God, we want to see them live as spiritually healthy, responsible, mature, holy people.
The purpose of church discipline, as it affects the offender, is to restore that person to spiritual wholeness and to become, once again, a fully functioning member of the church (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20). If you do that, you have “gained your brother” (Matt. 18:15).
4. To ensure that only believers are church members. When a church member acts like an unbeliever (i.e. commits repeated, unconfessed, public sin about which he / she is not repentant), we have no reason to believe that he / she is a Christian – “by their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7:16). If such becomes the case, they need to be removed from church membership until such time as they prove that they are a believer and have truly repented and been restored to the Lord, to their family, and to the fellowship.
5. To warn others. Paul’s admonition to the Church at Corinth evidently had this effect: “For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). Again, “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:10). And again, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all” (1 Thess. 5:14).
Conclusions. The purpose of church discipline is to protect the honor of the Lord’s name by: (1) Clearing the church of sin-by-association – i.e. association with those who bring public dishonor on the Lord’s name / testimony; (2) Protecting the members of the church from those who might have a negative influence in the church; and (3) Restoring those who have sinned to full communion with God and the church.
II. The Scope Of Church Discipline
Scripture is not definitive in telling us what sins the church is responsible for judging. The early church practiced church discipline (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1:20), but evidently at Corinth there was more sin than the immorality of the man in 1 Corinthians 5, like divisions and disorderly conduct.
Obviously, the church is not responsible for sins of which it is unaware. Many sins in the lives of individuals never become public either because of the private nature of their sin. or because the individual took personal self-disciplinary action against their sin. Further, if a believer sins, and he / she repents of that sin, such sin should not be made public unless it is of a public nature (such as a criminal act, or if the sin is commonly known in the community).
If not dealt with privately (and I would argue that, wherever possible, sin should be dealt with privately), Scripture mentions certain types of sin which require church discipline, although we should not take this as an exhaustive list…
1. Sins against individuals. These are sins that have been committed directly against an individual. Those that are against an individual fall under the category of “if your brother sins against you” (Matt. 18:15-17). Often personal interrelationships are ignored and people go on for years harboring bad feelings toward each other without dealing with them. This inhibits the work of the Holy Spirit and the general spirituality of the church. Thus, personal sins directly against an individual must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure of Matthew 18 and if they are unresolved privately, they must come before the church.
2. Sins of personal irresponsibility. The general category of irresponsibility disorderly conduct seems to include such things as not working to earn a living (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). From such irresponsible, disorderly persons they were “to keep away” (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Sins of divisiveness. Divisiveness might be arguing about things that are unprofitable, In the 1st century, genealogies seem to have fallen into that category (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4-5; Tit. 3:9). After admonishing such a person two times, they were to reject that person (Tit. 3:10; see also Rom. 16:17-18).
4. Sins of the flesh. These include sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, drunkenness etc. (see 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21).
5. Sins of false teaching. These are teachings concerning fundamental truths (see 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Rev. 2:14-16), not differences of opinion on Scriptural interpretation of minor issues.
III. The Responsibility For Church Discipline
Discipline all begins at the personal level with each of us judging ourselves. However, should such self-discipline not be exercised or successful, then the responsibility for carrying out discipline at various levels and in various forms falls into three categories…
1. The person sinned against. If the sin involves an offence committed by one person against another, then the person sinned against is obligated to begin the discipline process in the form of personal remonstrance with the offender. The objective here is that the one who initiates the restoration process “gains” his brother / sister if he / she will listen and respond positively (Matt. 18:15).
2. Third party intervention. If personal remonstrance does not work, then discipline becomes a matter that requires the intervention of others. This is a sort of mediation process where “those who are spiritual” (Gal. 6:1) seek to restore a sinning brother or sister. Those who are spiritual are those who manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). While the holiness of the Lord’s table is the responsibility of every member of the church, not all members of the church are qualified to carry out this intervention – only “those who are spiritual.” This step of third party intervention is designed to still try to resolve the matter privately.
3. The church as a whole. If personal remonstrance and third party intervention does not work, then the matter needs to come before the church for the judgement of all.
IV. The Procedure For Church Discipline
The procedure for carrying out church discipline falls into two general levels…
A. Individual Self-Discipline.
Example: Eating and drinking the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Notice that in Corinth, they were turning what was supposed to be a remembrance of the Lord into a disorderly feast at which some went hungry others became drunk. It wasn’t a remembrance of the Lord at all. This is called “eating and drinking in an unworthy manner.” Such behavior renders the believer guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord by desecrating something that is holy.
Notice, that it does not say: “Let such a person examine himself and then stay away, or abstain from the Lord’s table.” No, you are to examine yourself (i.e. confess and judge known sin in your life) and then “eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28). The purpose of this self-judgement is to put yourself into a state where you are worthy to participate at the Lord’s table.
To eat and drink in an unworthy manner is to partake of the Lord’s supper with unjudged sin in your life, or acting at the Lord’s supper in such a way as to dishonor the Lord. If such behavior is persisted in (without self-discipline which leads to repentance), then the end result may be the direct discipline of God (1 Cor. 11:30). To bring sin into the presence of the Lord’s table where we are remembering what it cost the Lord to cleanse them from sin is utterly abhorrent to God and may lead to direct divine judgment (see below under “Intervention by God himself in the church”).
B. Third Party Intervention.
When it is recognized either by an individual or the leadership of a church that a believer is practicing sin (i.e. that there is unjudged, repeated sin in his or her life), that person needs to be confronted about it. There are two types of third party intervention – individual and collective.
1. Individual intervention.
Example: Matthew 18:15-17. The sin here is that of one person sinning against another. While the sin involved here is not stated, it must have been of some major significance (not a minor misunderstanding) to warrant this disciplinary action. The process of discipline in this instance is to be initiated by the individual who has been sinned against.
The process here follows four steps…
Step 1: Private remonstrance. The one who has been sinned against initiates the discipline by telling the offender his sin and urging his repentance. Private remonstrance is so important – to clarify issues, to appeal to the heart, to address misunderstandings. It has the greatest possibility of a positive outcome.
Step 2: Private remonstrance with witnesses. If the sinning brother will not listen and respond, the offended person must try again by taking witnesses with him.
Step 3: Public remonstrance before the church. If the sinning brother still will not respond, the matter is brought before the church. Prior to this, if the desired result of repentance is obtained, the offence does not become a matter for public church involvement.
Step 4: Excommunication. If the offender still does not respond, the church may need to act in excommunication, depending on the nature of the offence. If excommunication is required, he / she is to be treated “as” an unbeliever (i.e. as a pagan or tax collector who obviously could not be members of the church).
The goal of this procedure is not excommunication but restoration – to win the sinning believer back; to give him an opportunity to repent (Matt. 18:15). Indeed, one of the purposes of all discipline is to restore the sinning believer. In this instance of a sin by an individual against another individual, if the sinning believer repents (when confronted), the one offended can and should grant forgiveness. If that is the result, then there is no need for the matter to become public before the church – you have won your brother. In the event you do not win your brother, the public aspect of church discipline begins when the church leaders bring the matter before the church as a whole (see below, “Collective Intervention”).
Other examples for your private study: Luke 17:3b-4; Galatians. 6:1-5; Galatians 2:11-14; Philippians 4:2. When studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
2. Collective intervention.
Collective intervention may be initiated (1) by the leaders of the church only; or (2) if the matter is not resolved, by the church acting as a whole. If the church does not take this disciplinary action, God himself may intervene (see below “Intervention by God Himself in the Church”). This action is to be taken only when all other avenues for correction are exhausted without success. Prior to this the discipline is carried out at a private level.
This process is reflected in Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth, that corporate action takes place when they are “gathered together” in assembly to take action against the offender (1 Cor. 5:4-5) – i.e. they are taking action as a church (2 Cor. 2:6).
Similarly, the churches as a whole at Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3:6-15) and Rome (Rom. 16:17) were ordered to take action against those who needed discipline. Church discipline is an action of the church as a whole because that is where the authority lies, in the church as a whole where Christ is in the midst (Matt. 18:20).
When a local church takes disciplinary action against one of its members that action is binding on all other churches because it is an action taken in the name (by the power) of Christ as the Lord of the church (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4b), which action is bound (ratified) in heaven (Matt. 18:18-19). Similarly, just as the act of discipline is an act of the whole church, so the act of restoration is also the act of the whole church - the “many” who discipline must “forgive him, and comfort him” and confirm their “love to him” (2 Cor. 2:6-8). (See Robert Saucy, 122).
a) Intervention By Leaders Of The Church.
Example: 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. The sins involved here were (1) the sin of idleness (3:6-7); (2) the sin of freeloading from others (3:8); and (3) the sin of gossiping, meddling (3:11). In such a case, the person needs to be instructed to obey God’s word and change his / her ways (3:12). If the sinning person does not respond positively to the admonition of the other brothers, they were to “keep away from him…have nothing to do with him that he may be ashamed” (3:6, 14). This does not appear to be complete shunning, but a distancing from him as a warning of the seriousness of his sinful behavior (3:15).
Other examples for your private study: 1 Timothy 5:19-20; Titus 3:10-11; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Titus 1:10-14.
When studying these texts, again ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
b) Intervention by the Church Acting as a Whole.
Example: Matthew 18:15-20. I dealt with this text earlier under individual intervention. But I mentioned then that this is also applicable to collective intervention since that is the last stage of unsuccessful private intervention. After steps one and two (above) have been taken, the matter is to be brought before the church, the goal of which is still to “gain your brother” (18:15), to restore him to the Lord and to the church. But if the individual refuses to listen even to the church (i.e. he / she does not repent and seek forgiveness), then they are to be treated as a pagan and tax collector (18:17).
Other examples for your private study: 1 Corinthians 5:1-12; 2 Corinthains 2:5-11. Note the connection between these two texts: 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 is the follow-up text to 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. In 1 Corinthians 5, the church was to act as a whole in disciplining the sinning brother which, in that case, was excommunication. Note that excommunication included the withdrawal of social interaction (1 Corinthians 5:11). However, by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 2 his instruction to the church concerning the discipline of the sinning brother had been obeyed and the results had been positive (the offending brother had evidently repented) but the church had not extended their forgiveness and comfort (2:7-11), which they needed to do lest the repentant brother be “overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (2:7). When the desired result of discipline has been achieved, the relationship between the parties needs to be restored.
Again, when studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
c) Intervention by God himself in the Church.
Example #1: 1 Corinthians 11:30. I mentioned this text earlier under “individual self-discipline,” but I wanted to add here that when that form of discipline does not take place voluntarily, then God may act in direct judgement on certain individuals in the church. The judgement that evidently took place at Corinth was God’s judgement in the form of illness, weakness, and even death of the unrepentant individuals.
Example #2: Acts 5:1-10. I suppose that you could classify this instance as either (1) individual intervention by Peter himself; or (2) public intervention since Peter acted in public, presumably because of the nature of the sin; or (3) intervention by Christ through the Holy Spirit the result of which was the instant death of the offenders, Ananias and Sapphira.
Again, when studying these texts, ask yourself…
What sin was involved, if stated?
Who committed the sin – a Christian or non-Christian?
What method was used to deal with the situation?
Who carried out the process? What was the context in which this action was taken?
What was the purpose of the intervention?
What was the goal of the process?
What would the consequence be if the process was not successful?
What was the result of this process – for the individual or for the church?
What general principles do we learn from this case?
V. Forms Of Church Discipline
In examining the Scripture texts above, we have touched on the forms of church discipline, but I want to look at these forms as a separate category. There are several Scriptural forms of church discipline which seem to vary according to the offence. The difficult question is: Are these forms of discipline universal practices or are they temporal – i.e. should we have different forms today that are more culturally relevant?
1. Warning and Withdrawal.
a) Warning. Those who “walk disorderly” (1 Thess. 5:14) need to be warned about their lifestyle and where it may lead if not judged by them.
b) Withdrawal. Warning may be followed by withdrawal. Withdrawal may take different forms, for example (1) Withdrawal of certain church privileges (like serving in a ministry); (2) The removal of social fellowship if the warning does not have its desired effect (2 Thess. 3:6-15). This action of removal from social fellowship tells the offender that his sin has caused a practical severance of harmony in the body – i.e. that his actions are offensive to the other members of the body. In that case, he is to be treated as one who needs to be publicly shamed into recognition of his sin (2 Thess. 3:14). Nonetheless, unlike Matthew 18:17, the offender was not to be regarded as an enemy or unbeliever but warned as a brother (2 Thess. 3:15). This action takes place before (and, hopefully without) actual excommunication.
2. Excommunication (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Matt. 18:17b; 1 Tim. 1:20).
This is the action of last resort, when all pleadings and admonitions have not worked. Putting someone out of the protective sphere of the church is to effectively deliver them into the sphere of Satan “for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20). There is some debate as to what this actually means. Perhaps it means, as Robert Saucy writes, that “Satan becomes the instrument in God’s hand by which God inflicts some kind of physical punishment” (Saucy, 123). Presumably, the final and most severe form of the destruction of the flesh is death (1 Cor. 11:30). Or, perhaps it means that the offender is placed in the sphere of Satan (i.e. in the world) where he / she is neither protected by the church nor enjoys the privileges of church membership, which place exposes the reality of their sin very graphically and, thus, breaks down the flesh so that sin is no longer attractive or pleasurable to them. Of course, the desired result of this discipline is not the permanent removal of the offender, nor their death, but their restoration (1 Cor. 11:32b; 5:5b; 1 Tim. 1:20b).
The word “put away” (1 Cor. 5:13) in the Greek means “to remove, drive away.” Here, Paul gives two short summary statements: First, about those who were “outside” the church (2 Cor. 5:12a), unbelievers on whom the church does not pass judgement because they are not part of the church. Second, about those who were “inside” the church (2 Cor. 5:12b-13), those whom they must judge (e.g. the incestuous man). The assembly of God’s people is duty bound to judge “those inside.”
The challenge with this instruction is how it should be carried out. This seems to be why some churches err on the side of so-called grace (“after all,” they argue, “we are all sinners, aren’t we?”) while others err on the side of legalism. The problem with both these positions is that they make no distinction between those “inside” and those “outside.” Gordon Fee summarizes it this way: “This is dealing with persistent wrongdoing of a kind wherein someone wants to have it both ways, to belong to the Christian community without leaving his / her former behavior behind. Such persistence demands discipline for the sake of both the person involved and the community” (NICNT, 228).
1 Corinthians 5:13 is the summary of all that Paul has been teaching in this chapter – namely, (1) “deliver such an one to Satan” (5:5); (2) “purge out the old leaven” (5:7); (3) “not to keep company with sexually immoral people” (5:9); (4) “not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler ... not even to eat with such a person” (5:11). Clearly, Paul is referring to those who persist in this way of life. That’s the point. This person was openly, persistently living like a heathen person. And worse yet, the assembly was going along with it, even boasting of it! This is very significant in Paul’s treatment of this situation. This assembly did not have much in the way of moral or spiritual discernment. In fact, it was thoroughly toxic.
So, when we read this passage, we must be sure that we are reading it in its
context, and not arbitrarily applying it to situations for which it was not intended. This was gross, persistent, public immorality on the part of the brother, and gross negligence on the part of the assembly regarding their responsibility to maintain the Lord’s holiness and to do what has to be done to restore such a one.
Question #1: What does it mean “not to eat with such a person”? Certainly, it means that such a person was to be excluded from Christian fellowship meals (which the 1st century Christians had together in their homes - agape feasts) and from the Lord’s table (which often was celebrated along with the fellowship meals). But does this exclusion have in view private family meals? I think that the thrust of Paul’s argument has in view the action required by the church rather than its individual members – i.e. that the assembly as a community of faith must exclude the sinning brother from its community activities (namely, worship and instruction). Although this is not explicitly clear, 2 Thessalonians 3:15 would seem to support this viewpoint. By doing so, the assembly rids itself of sin in its midst. However, by not cutting the person off from all personal contact, we have the conduit left open to bring about his / her restoration.
It seems to me that rarely do we ever face the extraordinary circumstance as in 1 Corinthians 5. I certainly have never faced it in my lifetime. Therefore, we need to be very careful not to apply it inappropriately. There are, however, certain disciplinary obligations that we cannot ignore:
a) We need to exercise grace while at the same time guarding the Lord’s holiness.
b) We need to protect the assembly from sin in its midst so that the Lord’s table is not contaminated or desecrated by allowing sin in the very presence of the remembrance of our cleansing from sin by the atoning work of Christ.
c) We need to take action when necessary so that others are warned of the seriousness and consequences of persistent immorality (i.e. a way of life from which they will not turn after all possible remedies have been exhausted).
Question #2: Does this action infer total exclusion from the premises? Perhaps, if that is what it takes to accomplish what I have just outlined. While I think taking such drastic action would be rare, it would be appropriate in the extreme case of someone who is guilty, for example, of criminal behavior like sexual assault. What we must avoid at all cost is taking legalistic action – i.e. this person did this, therefore, we must excommunicate them. In my church experience, this approach does not accomplish what it is designed to do (namely, to rid the assembly of sin while also seeking the restoration of the sinning person) and it is often done in the wrong spirit. These situations require courage and humility to accomplish what is right for the Lord’s honor and for the assembly’s purity.
VI. The Spirit Of Church Discipline.
It is vital that church discipline be carried out in “a spirit of gentleness, keeping watch on yourself lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). This demands an attitude where love and humility are clearly manifested - love for the brother or sister and humility that but for the grace of God it could be us who is the offender. We are to deal with the offender just as the Lord deals with his children whom he loves. Again, the end result that is sought in discipline is restoration (Gal. 6:1) not destruction, punishment, permanent excommunication. The purpose is to win your brother (Matt. 18).
Paul manifested the correct attitude (2 Cor. 2:4) while the Corinthians manifested the wrong attitude - they were puffed up with pride (1 Cor. 5:2). Humility and love will generate in the church sorrow for the offender and repentance as a church for what has happened and which has brought dishonor on the Lord’s name. For in all matters of church discipline there is an element of failure on behalf of the church as a whole (cf. Achan’s sin, Josh. 7), failure to detect the change in the individual before sin occurred and failure to provide pastoral care.
Also, discipline is to be carried out in an atmosphere of privacy. Privacy should be maintained at two levels – the church level and the community level. At the church level, privacy should be maintained by trying to deal with the issue either between the sinning brother and the offended individual or between the sinning brother and the leaders of the church. At the community level, privacy should be maintained by not discussing the matter outside the church (if the matter is not already public in the community). Church discipline should be viewed as an internal matter in the strictest confidentiality.
Finally, all church discipline must be done in a spirit of willingness to forgive, readily and quickly (2 Cor. 2:7; cf. 2:5-11; 7:10-13). To not forgive and restore when repentance is evident is to leave the offender in the sphere of Satan and possibly cause irreparable damage (2 Cor. 2:11).
VII. Conclusions
Let me try to summarize briefly the principals and processes addressed in this article…
1. Wherever some form of intervention is required, whether privately between two individuals or publicly in the church as a whole, the process for dealing with it must follow the biblical patterns outlined in the Scriptures referenced in this article. These procedures ensure that the matters are dealt with in a fair, upright and God-honoring manner.
2. The attitude of those dealing with matters of church disciple must be that of humility, kindness, love, and honesty. The overriding attitude is that of “a spirit of gentleness…lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).
3. The immediate goal of discipline is the repentance of the offender through a sense of shame (2 Thess. 3:14) and “godly sorrow which leads to repentance” (2 Cor. 2:7; 7:10). The ultimate goal and spirit of discipline is the restoration of the offender, restoration to the fellowship of the church and with the Lord (Heb. 12:10; Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 12:11).
3. The purpose of discipline is…
a) To remove sin from the church, thus permitting the freedom of the Holy Spirit.
b) To clear the church from the accusations of the world (Rom. 2:24).
c) To restore the honor due to God’s holy name.
d) To restore the church’s testimony.
e) To protect the church from further sin (1 Cor. 5:6).
f) To remind the members of the church of their own susceptibility and propensity to sin and to warn them of the possible consequences if we do not keep short accounts with God (cf. 2 Cor. 7:11).
This topic is complex an hard to deal with in a short article like this, but I hope that the principles and processes mentioned in this article stimulate you to think carefully about this matter in the light of Scripture and for God’s glory.
1 Some help for this article from Ted Rendall, “Christ’s Discipline of his Church Today” (Olford Ministries International, Biblical Leadership Institute, Oct. 2003), Section 4.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors, Relationships
3. Church Relationships: Managing Church Conflict
Related MediaThis is only an introduction to the subject at a broad-brush level. These comments are oriented toward church conflict specifically, but are applicable in other situations as well.
This article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…
Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.
1. The Purposes of the Church.
2. Formulating a philosophy of Church ministry.
3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.
4. Pastoral leadership.
Part II, Strengthening Church relationships.
1. Improving church communications.
2. Dealing with church discipline.
3. Managing church conflict.
4. Leading your church through change.
Someone has said that the two leading causes of men leaving the ministry are (1) Their inability to manage conflict; and (2) Their inability to implement change. In fact, these two issues (conflict and change) are tightly interwoven since change itself is one of the leading causes of conflict. So, it makes sense that these are the two leading, interconnected causes of men leaving the ministry.
Conflict in the church is not new. Conflict existed in the early church, despite its apparent pristine condition. We’ll look at some of the biblical examples later. Conflict exists anywhere people with the old nature are present. Conflict occurs when people press their own agenda (their preferences, their opinions, their will) over that of others (cf. Phil. 2:1-4), when they are not willing to compromise or exercise mutual submission. Conflict occurs wherever you have a group of thinking, motivated people. If people are creative, care about their organization, and are motivated to be and do everything to the best of their ability, you are likely to encounter conflict.
I. Some Positive Observations About Conflict
1. Conflict can be healthy. While conflict is usually something we shy away from and which usually has a bad connotation, some conflict is good. Conflict can arise from something as innocuous as a mild misunderstanding. Even if it involves an outright disagreement over something that is serious, it need not necessarily lead to sinful behavior. As long as the parties behave as mature Christians, displaying Christian attributes, and keeping the flesh in check, sin will not be (and must not be) present.
Obviously, conflict that undermines authority or personal self-worth, dignity, or the unity of the church is not good under any conditions. But, if handled properly, conflict is good that stems from or gives rise to a healthy exchange of views or from challenging the conscience (as some preaching does), or that makes people think through their beliefs, traditions, and relationships. Good conflict brings out into the open what was festering underneath, deals with it, and enables all the parties to go on together happily. Good conflict is evidence of healthy life in the body of Christ. Good conflict may open up new ideas and methods. Good conflict may challenge leadership to change course or begin something new, or re-examine the church’s vision, values, or goals. Some of the best decisions are spawned in the soil of good conflict.
When a group of people never has a difference of opinion or practice and where uniformity is the order of the day, you may have a cult or, at the very least, a non-thinking, perhaps apathetic, unhealthy, unmotivated group of people. Healthy conflict is that which is conducted in a God-honoring manner and leads to improved relationships, processes, priorities, and values. Conflict that does that is healthy.
It’s important to understand that conflict and disagreement are not always or necessarily the same. Disagreement can be healthy. It only becomes unhealthy when it degenerates into sinful conflict. Healthy disagreement is the product of open dialogue based on trust, love, and mutual respect. Unhealthy disagreement is when it involves conflict expressed in anger, insults, quarrels, personal antagonism, and disrespect. Healthy disagreement brings out into the open what would otherwise be hidden and fester.
2. Periodic conflict is normal. I don’t mean that it is right or best but that wherever people with fallen natures live together in close relationship for extended periods of time disagreements will occur, and sometimes disagreement leads to conflict. Offences will occur which sometimes give rise to conflict. Personalities will clash and sometimes produce conflict.
Normal conflicts do not have to be bad, sinful, or destructive of relationships. How we handle conflict is the determining factor as to whether the conflict itself severs relationships and is sinful.
3. Conflict does not necessarily produce sustained damage. But this requires sensitive handling of the issue and Christ-like behavior on the part of the parties involved. Conflicts that in the world would leave permanent scars do not have to do so among God’s people. This is why building Christian character in your people through your preaching and example is very important on an on-going basis.
However, I do need to be realistic and warn you that if conflict is allowed to escalate and degenerate into a quarrel, relationships can be fractured, sometimes irreparably, the church can become an unsafe place, and spiritual growth can be hampered.
Conclusions:
1. We need to guard our emotions whenever differences of opinion are expressed, particularly if it is in the form of criticism against you, the pastor, personally, or disagreement with you.
2. We need to beware not to allow Satan to gain an advantage over us through internal strife.
3. We need to constantly examine ourselves – our motives, our pride, our attitude etc.
4. The church is particularly prone to conflicts because of…
a) The closeness in which we live together in the body of Christ.
b) The degree of conviction that we hold about what the church is and how church should be done.
c) The desire for power which is more easily obtained in a church than any other organization.
d) The influence of culture and tradition in the church.
II. Analyzing Conflict
Conflict can be difficult to analyze. The causes of the conflict, the motivations of the parties, the facts of the issue, the history behind the conflict are often difficult to discern. Sometimes, the parties to the conflict do not know the causes, motivations (e.g. their biases etc.). Sometimes, conflict is irrational. Sometimes, two people’s perception and recounting of the facts are completely different.
A. Types Of Conflict.
Conflict has been analyzed into three types (see Speed Leas and Paul Kittlaus, “Church Fights: Managing conflict in the local church,” cited in James Berkley, Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration, 187).
1. Intrapersonal conflict (cf. Ps. 73; Matt. 27:46; Phil. 1:22-23). Intrapersonal conflict is conflict within yourself over competing desires, goals etc. Or, it may be internal emotional, psychological conflict from life circumstances (e.g. loss of a job), which manifests itself in other relationships and contexts.
2. Interpersonal conflict (cf. Gen. 27, Jacob and Esau; Gen. 37f., Joseph and his brothers; 1 Sam. 19, Saul and David). Interpersonal conflict is conflict between two or more persons due to competing personality types, attitudes, upbringing, worldview, temperaments etc.
Paul and Barnabas obviously had very different personalities and temperaments. Paul was very focused on tasks, setting and achieving goals, whereas Barnabas was more focused on relationships and personal encouragement. When it came to dealing with John Mark they had a falling out. This does not imply that Paul was not a people person (Romans 16 would indicate that he was) nor that Barnabas did not have goals. But periodically our overriding temperament comes out and may cause conflict if it is in the context of dealing with someone else of a different personality and temperament. In some cases, certain people’s personality type seems to be always looking for conflict.
Both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts are also found in inter-group and intra-group conflicts. The third type of conflict is what I call...
3. Substantive conflict.
a) Conflict over facts like budgetary items (how much do we have in the building fund; what percentage of total donations should be allocated to missions).
b) Conflict over methods as in evangelism, fund raising, differing approaches to ministry, or engaging in public protests (e.g. at abortion clinics) vs. relying on political intervention.
c) Conflict over values. You can help prevent this type of conflict if your church conducts a core values audit and spells out what its core values really are. Conflict over values and methods of ministry is often seen between age groups where both groups (old and young) hold the same values but express them differently. Some of this stems from tradition or culture that has been established over time.
Often, the generation that follows the founders of a church will follow in the culture that was established by the founders, but sooner or later a generation arises that, in a sense, “knows not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) and which rebels against the culture for culture’s sake.
d) Conflict over goals and priorities such as where to put human and financial resources into developing community outreach or overseas missions. This may stem from losing sight of the purpose and goals of the church. This underscores the value and necessity of spelling out clearly what are the church’s mission (purpose), vision, and goals.
e) Conflict over beliefs and worldviews. These are some of the harder conflicts to resolve because beliefs are held so tightly. We ought always to be willing to re-examine our beliefs and interpretation of Scripture without compromising fundamental truth. The problem is that some people consider any re-examination of any traditionally held view as compromise. But this is not necessarily the case, as in, for example, church structure. Not long ago most, if not all, Baptist churches in Canada were structured around deacon leadership. Now, most of them have changed to an elder / deacon structure in response to a fresh examination and understanding of Scripture. This kind of re-examination of our practices and culture in the light of Scripture is good.
The biggest problems occur, obviously, in those areas where interpretation of Scripture is hard, or where Scripture is unclear or silent. Often these are in areas of practical application. Question: What might be some of the contemporary issues that contribute to conflict of doctrine or practice? Some answers: The role of women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, music styles, Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
f) Conflict over power and control. There may be an attitude of “This is our church, we started it.” I deal with this in greater detail in the next article in this series called “Leading your church through change.” We need to understand at this point that the desire for control is a very strong motivator for some of God’s people. My observation has been that, often, those who want control are those who have little or no position of control in other endeavors in their lives (e.g. they do not hold a position of authority in their work, or even at home sometimes). Thus, they have a subconscious need for power to generate self-esteem and recognition, and the church is the obvious place to try to get it. In fact, it has been astutely observed that the church is probably the easiest place to obtain power and to potentially abuse it because (i) Christians (and Christian leaders) often find it hard to confront people and deal with such issues; and (ii) Power is often conferred in the church just by a person’s popularity, not ability or godliness.
Power struggles often stem from money. Those with more money sometimes think that they should have the right to be heard over others and to get their own way. Social status and even education can do the same thing. Pastors need to be careful that they do not seek power because of their position or education. The biblical instruction that I think is very apropos in this situation is that we are to “esteem others better than ourselves” (Philippians. 2:3) and “to not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think” (Romans 12:3).
Conclusions. Of course, any one of these conflict types may overlap with another – e.g. conflict over which project to spend money on may expose personality differences. Analyzing the type of conflict is obviously valuable in resolving the conflict as it will determine your approach.
Often, the type of conflict may be masked by a Christian veneer of submission (e.g. “I only want what’s right for the church”), or godliness (“I don’t want this for myself but for the glory of God”). We need to be able to cut through that veneer to see the true source of the conflict. When conflicts arise out of a false front (e.g. when you are dealing with people who are not explicitly honest about their goals and feelings) you can easily go after the wrong type of conflict, thinking that it is a conflict of substance when it is actually a conflict of personal ambition or control.
So long as people have opinions and convictions, and so long as they feel passionately about their church and its mission and vision, then you will inevitably have some sort of conflict. What is of most importance is the motivation of the conflict and its resolution.
B. Some General Steps In Analyzing Conflict.
1. Analyze what type of issue it is. Is it a doctrinal issue? Is it a church ministry issue? Is it a leadership issue? Is it an interpersonal relationship issue? Is it a financial issue? etc.
2. Analyze all the known facts about the issue. Acting without all the facts can get you into hot water. Remember, there are often two sides to the story – the side you have heard is not necessarily the only one or the true one. During this part of the process you may learn facts and aspects of the issue that you did not know before.
3. Analyze what category of conflict this issue falls into. If it is a doctrinal issue, decide what category of doctrinal issues – one that threatens your fundamental, evangelical beliefs, or a secondary issue over which we have some liberty. If it is a ministry issue, decide what category of ministry issue – one that revolves around practice or people; one that speaks to your core values or long-term goals etc.
Ask yourself how widespread or deep this issue is. Is it a full-blown, church-wide drama (either actual or potential), or is it something that the majority of people wouldn’t care about? Is it something that attacks who we are, what we stand for? Is it an issue that could dishonor the Lord’s testimony in this community?
4. Analyze the people involved. Who are they? Have they been involved in such conflicts before (i.e. are they habitual fighters)? What might be their motives in this conflict (e.g. defending other family members)? Is this a power issue? Are they part of a clique in the church?
5. Analyze the level and state of the conflict. The most serious level is one in which (a) the parties are mad at each other, shouting etc.; (b) the conflict may cause a split in the church; (c) resignations have been tendered or pending; (d) threats are being made; (e) this is a full-blown fight over irreconcilable differences.
Below that there is an intermediate level, where there may be a sense of foreboding that is hanging over everything. Things don’t seem to be progressing. The future seems uncertain.
Then, there is a manageable level, where people are cool, calm, and collected. This conflict is characterized by the discussions and decisions that are being made. Resolution seems to be near.
The healthy level is one where the disagreement is minor and positive results are appearing. The conflict is producing some good results. No damage to relationships appears to be sustained. The parties are acting in a mature manner. This is a situational problem that can be resolved
Analyzing the level and state of the conflict helps you determine the urgency of intervention. You will be able to determine the risk factors, the seriousness of the conflict, what is at stake, how entrenched are the positions, how illogical and emotional the parties have become.
6. Analyze the problem over a reasonable period of time. Time does a number of things: (a) It allows you to digest what you learn about the conflict before acting; (b) It gives you time to pray about it; (c) It gives you the opportunity to consult others if necessary; (d) It gives you space to arrive at a wise decision (wise decisions are not made in a hurry); (e) It gives time for emotions to settle down (time is a great healer).
III. Some Sources Of Conflict
A. Personal Affront.
Personal affront can be caused by different sources…
1. Unfairness, injustice. Churches are notorious for dealing with people (staff or members) unfairly or unjustly. Some pastors are let go from their church for the most unjust reasons. For example, a pastor who was diagnosed with cancer was let go because he would “not be productive” during his chemotherapy treatment period. That church justified their action on the grounds that it was in the pastor’s best interests to be free from the pressure of pastoral responsibilities during his treatment period. But what about the pressure of no income? What about the love and care for someone who is undergoing a heavy burden? What about just being kind and fair?
2. Favoritism. Often decisions are made based on the person involved. Certain persons are given permission and freedom, for example to carry out certain ministries or functions, when others are not.
3. Left out of the group. A few years ago I was involved in conducting a significant survey of our church to get a handle on the church’s current state of affairs. One of the things we did was conduct some exit interviews. Many of those interviewed disclosed that they had left the church because they felt that they didn’t fit in or that there was no sense of belonging, of community.
B. Differing Convictions.
Some church conflict arises over matters of doctrine, but they are usually intertwined with matters of practice such as the role of women in ministry, leadership organizational structure and selection, church music (e.g. contemporary vs. traditional).
The differing convictions that give rise to church conflict usually are not doctrinal convictions (although the antagonists often would like to make them doctrinal!) but matters of personal preference that is raised to the level of personal conviction, or matters dealing with church practices or power. Many issues of power are masked as issues of doctrine.
C. Unfulfilled Expectations.
Why do unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conflict? Because unfulfilled expectations lead to disappointment and disappointment can affect one’s attitude. And because unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conclusions that, for example, promises were not kept, which in turn generates feelings of distrust, lack of integrity.
Why is it so important to establish clear, definitive expectations? Because expectations (whether stated or assumed) set the standard against which people measure future performance.
What are some of the expectations that church leaders need to define? They may be such matters as the expectations of their ministry leaders, pastors’ job responsibilities, or scope of authority.
D. Unclear Definitions.
Often churches fail to define things like job descriptions, ministry plans and goals, leadership authority, organizational structure. When these important matters are undefined or unclear, they can easily lead to conflict.
E. Leadership And Decision-Making Style.
Here are some of the styles that can cause conflict: Autocratic vs. collegial; top down vs. team approach; political maneuvering vs. forthrightness and openness. These processes probably causes more conflict than the issue itself because people are not informed fully or because they are not given enough time to think the issues through.
F. Habits, Attitudes, Behavior, And Personalities.
There may be toxic attitudes that need to be addressed in dealing with conflicts, such as a root of bitterness, critical spirit (cf. Eph. 4:31-32; Heb. 12:15); a critical spirit; gossip and evil speaking about others (cf. James 3:1-12; 4:11); self-will; pride; stubbornness; the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21).
These negative, sinful habits and attitudes need to be replaced with the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:19-22) – love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1); respect and honour; mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21).
G. Contemporary Issues.
Among other matters, contemporary issues include the style of church music, women in ministry, leadership structure, the division of power (between members, elders, pastors), redefinitions of pastoral authority and responsibility, and transitioning from one generation to the next.
H. Change.
See my article on “Leading your church through change” (“Change: Culture and Control”).
IV. Some Biblical Principles And Studies On Conflict
A. Biblical Principles For Managing Conflict.
Notice how pervasive in Scripture is the exhortation and instruction to unity and peace:
Psalm 133:1; Proverbs 16:7, 32; 17:14; 18:17, 18; 19:11; 20:3; 21:14; 26:17; 26:20-21; Matthew 5:9; 18:15-17; John 17:20-23; Romans 12:14-21; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:4-13; 2 Cor. 2:11; Gal. 1:6; 4:11-12, 20; Ephesians 4:3; 4:25-32; 6:10-20; Col. 3:8-9, 15; Phil. 1:27; 2:2-5; 3:15-16; 4:2-5; 2 Tim. 2:24-25; 2 Tim. 4:14-15; Titus 3:10; James 4:1-10; 5:16.
B. Biblical Examples Of Conflict.
Judges 15, Samson’s responses to conflict. Samson’s responses actually escalate the conflict: (a) The response from the mind - impetuous decisions (e.g. to marry a Philistine); (b) The response from the will - arrogant behavior (e.g. posing a ridiculous riddle); (c) The response from the heart - uncontrolled emotion (he will take revenge for losing his wife to another man); (d) Rage that distorts his reason such that his response is totally disproportionate to the offense (e.g. tying 300 foxes’ tails together and setting their tails on fire). One act of uncontrolled emotion leads to another – it doesn’t end with the loss of crops but escalates to the loss of life, a great slaughter. Revenge and retaliation never solve the problem.
Other texts for private study: Luke 10:38-42; Acts 6:1-6; 11:1-18; 15:1-35; 15:36-40 (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11); 1 Corinthians 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 10:2-11; Gal. 2:11-21; 6:1-2; Phil. 4:2-3.
When studying these texts, answer the following questions: What was the issue? Or, what was the cause of the complaint / conflict? What happened? How was it resolved? What can we learn about church conflict from this example?
V. Some Principles And Practices For Resolving Conflicts
A. Some Good Principles To Adopt.
1. Make sure that you approach the conflict with the right attitude. This applies to both the parties involved in the dispute and to the pastor / mediator of the dispute. The attitude of the parties is vitally important in bringing about resolution. If you, as the pastor have the wrong attitude either towards the issue or towards either of the parties, you won’t be effective in bringing about resolution. If either of the parties has the wrong attitude towards the other, the chances of resolution are slim. The overriding attitude must be one of grace, humility, kindness, love, peace-making.
Biblical principles about our attitude must be foremost in our minds. In this regard, the beatitudes become very meaningful in conflict resolution. The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) is very important to remind yourself of the right attitude. Make sure that you judge your own heart before engaging in conflict resolution. You can be just as critical, harsh, uncompromising etc. as anybody else. Part of one’s attitude is the recognition that God is able to resolve these disputes and that just as he gave Solomon wisdom, so the Holy Spirit can give you the necessary wisdom.
2. Whenever possible, try informal resolution first. Try to defuse conflict before it becomes a public issue. It’s much better to deal with conflict informally. Once it becomes public, you have to deal with it formally and decisively using the above steps.
Informal processes for dealing with conflict would include one-on-one counselling sessions with the parties; group counselling sessions. Group sessions are helpful in bringing the parties together to talk about the issue and to bring the facts out into the open. Often disputes can be dealt with this way since all the parties may not know all the facts, all the parties may not realize how they have offended others, the parties may not be talking to one another – a sure way not to resolve the conflict. Another benefit of a group meeting is that you will learn things about the conflict that you did not learn from the parties individually. Conflicts are rarely as simple as the parties involved may make them out to be.
3. Trust The Effectiveness Of Prayer. Bathe all conflict in prayer. This means not only your own prayer about the situation but the prayer of the parties involved. Insist that they commit to pray about it. Involve your elders in praying about it (if that is appropriate). Begin your conflict resolution meetings with prayer, involving the parties in praying together at those meetings. During the meetings when tough issues are being discussed and / or things are going off the rails, don’t be afraid to stop the proceedings for a time of prayer.
B. Some Good Practices To Follow.
1. Be objective. Deal with the facts as much as possible, not the emotions. Don’t allow yourself to respond emotionally or defensively. For example, if you are dealing with a theological / doctrinal issue, deal with the theology objectively, precisely, biblically; bring Scripture and commentaries to bear on the issue.
2. Be neutral. Don’t show partiality (James 2:1-10). Ignore who the parties are (whether you like one and not the other etc.). And don’t try to manipulate the parties by forcing them to settle the dispute. If you are perceived as using force (either mental, emotional, or spiritual), you will erode the position of trust you hold. And, beware of misusing Scripture – that is a form of manipulation. The parties to the dispute have to willingly settle it or it will arise again.
3. Be a peacemaker, not at any price, but work to bring about peace. You are a pastor and a pastor wants peace among his people for their spiritual, emotional, and relational benefit and for the benefit of the church as a whole. After all, conflict has a quenching effect on the Spirit and can bring dishonor on the Lord’s name.
You can be a peacemaker by the way you treat the parties to the conflict, by the way you conduct conflict resolution meetings, and by ensuring that all parties are treated with respect. You can demonstrate this by making your language and resolution options non-personal. You are dealing with the issue, not trying to chastise, humiliate, or demean any of the persons. It’s always appropriate to stress the need for grace and Christlikeness.
4. Be prepared to be misunderstood. Typically, one or more of the parties will misunderstand you and / or attribute false motives to you and / or accuse you of not defending them. The reality is that though you may be acting on behalf of one of the parties, you are actually acting for all.
5. Be strategic, not haphazard. For example…
a) Establish an agenda for all conflict resolution meetings. You may have several meetings and the agenda for each meeting will be different. The purpose of an agenda is to keep the meeting focused and moving toward the common goal of resolution. The first agenda item should be obtaining agreement on the facts. If they do not agree on what the problem is, you can’t begin to resolve it.
b) Get the input of other people. Perhaps friends of the parties (if appropriate) can help with resolution (i.e. people who the parties trust and love, and whose advice they will heed).
c) Ask hard questions of the people involved. Challenge them to support their statement with facts and figures. Often in conflicts, sweeping generalizations are made or statements that are inferences and not facts. The investigation of charges made is biblical (Proverbs 18:17).
d) Establish the rules of procedure and etiquette - e.g. that it is alright to disagree; that everyone’s opinions are to be respected; that people may not interrupt each other or start to argue; that no one will be allowed to say anything derogatory about or to anyone else; that emotions are to be expressed maturely and with restraint.
e) Be in charge of the process. Take charge of the process when engaged in a face-to-face meeting with the parties. You are the chair and mediator. They may not agree with your opinions or proposals, but they have to accept your leadership or else the process has no integrity.
f) Work purposefully toward a resolution. Keep everyone focused on the task at hand. Don’t let the attention wander to unconnected issues. As you progress through the process, periodically summarize where you are and what has been agreed upon so far. Make sure all parties agree.
g) When appropriate, provide options, give your opinion, recommend your preferred solution (if you think it will help and be accepted). But, only articulate a recommendation or opinion if you absolutely have to in trying to break a deadlock. Don’t be offended if your ideas a rejected. Even though you are their pastor, when push comes to shove in a nasty conflict, your opinion may not mean much.
Remember that your primary role is to let the parties resolve the issue. That is the best and the most enduring resolution to conflict. But sometimes some parties cannot work out a solution. They may not have the skills to do so or the maturity. Or, they may be so emotionally involved that pride stands in the way of suggesting a compromise. That’s when you can say what they would not.
6. Options if no resolution is achieved. Not all conflicts will be resolved right away and some may never be resolved. If you cannot bring about resolution through this mediating process, you have a few options:
a) You can send the parties out for professional counselling or professional mediation.
b) You can involve the elders, particularly if the nature of the case may involve church discipline.
c) You can negotiate for more time.
C. Some Common Responses To Conflict Resolution.
The parties involved in conflict will respond somehow to the conflict and any attempts to resolve it. Each of the following responses to conflict and conflict resolution may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation. Typically, all responses fall into one of the following categories (these ideas are taken from Seidel, “Charting a Bold Course,” 259-262, but the expression of these ideas are mine)…
1. Avoidance (withdrawing). A party to conflict may just avoid dealing with the conflict altogether either because the issue is just not resolvable, or because the issue has gone on and on and they need to bring it to an end, or because the person is incapable of looking the other party in the eye and dealing with the issue.
The dangers of responding in this way are that (a) the conflict is never properly closed; and (b) the other party will appear vindicated (or, be the self-declared winner) by virtue of your silence – i.e. you are wrong by default.
A personal experience of avoidance. I had an experience one time where an elder of the church I pastored used avoidance so that the issue was never properly closed. He had an issue against me (I don’t know what), so I asked him to come in and speak with me about it (whatever it was). But when he came in he would not disclose what the issue was, saying that he had other things going on in his life that caused him to act the way he did (i.e. he used avoidance). This was no good. I could not resolve the issue or even attempt to resolve it.
So, if someone uses avoidance because they are afraid to address the issue directly with the party involved, you cannot resolve it. This is not a satisfactory way to deal with conflict.
Avoidance may be used in the following situations…
a) To temporarily to buy time while seeking a resolution in other ways or
b) Where a face-to-face meeting to resolve the issue would be explosive and perhaps do permanent damage.
c) Where the issue really isn’t that important.
d) Where there is no hope of resolution.
2. Capitulation, giving in, accommodating the other party, surrendering. In this response, one of the parties quickly yields to the wishes, opinions, decisions of the other party. Typically, this is done by those who consider the relationship to be more important than the issue; or who just are not fighters or cannot fight. While this will superficially terminate the conflict quickly, underneath the issues and hurts may continue to fester, particularly in the one who capitulates. Obviously, this would be an appropriate way to respond if the issue is not that important to you anyway; or where maintaining the relationship really is more important than the issue itself; or if you, as the one who submits, are wrong and you know it.
3. Compromise. Compromise is a very common response to conflict. It’s a common approach to contract and union negotiations. Each party is urged to give up a little ground in order to reach a point where the issue disappears. While this is not the best resolution it can be effective so long as neither party is forced or manipulated into it. If they are, then the problem will surface again either in poor relationships or another issue.
The weakness of a compromise is that neither party is truly happy. Each party thinks that they had to give up too much. The key to negotiating a successful compromise is to leave both parties genuinely happy with the solution and not feel like they have agreed to something that underneath they resent. You may want to adopt this approach where the ground that both parties give up is not vitally important, or when no other better resolution is forthcoming.
4. All-or-nothing. Sometimes parties to a conflict approach it as a competition in which the parties either win or lose. This is the response of (a) those who are very competitive and who have no intention under any circumstances of losing (or being perceived as losing) this argument; (b) the egotist who has no consideration that he/she might be wrong and who has no consideration for the feelings or opinions of the other party; (c) someone who “fights for their rights no matter what”. This is a power-based response. This is usually used by someone who is verbally loud, a verbal fighter, an arguer, or someone with money and status.
Obviously, this is not a satisfactory response or resolution either for the “winner” or the “loser.” The winner actually loses because he thinks he is right again and is confirmed in his wrong attitude about himself and others. The loser also loses because they are hurt, trampled on, and marginalized. The only instance where “winner-take-all” is appropriate is in cases of outright illegal activity or denial of fundamental biblical truths. For example, if fraud were committed by someone in the church, the case would be investigated and proven and the resolution would be effected with no discussion, no compromise, no negotiated deal. But even in this case, we should always make sure that our attitude is right. It should not be the attitude of the winner-take-all, but of humble faithfulness to the glory of God and the truth of Scripture.
5. Mutual agreement. This is the most satisfactory response of all. Here, you attempt to get a true resolution through a mutual agreement. This is not a compromise in that (a) both parties have participated in the process and are both genuinely convinced of the agreement so that they are not compromised in their beliefs, ideas, or opinions; (b) both parties have probably had to move a bit in their position (i.e. both parties have given something up for the benefit of all and what they have given up has not compromised them).
The benefits of this resolution are that (a) by involving all the parties and working through the issue to bring about a mutually acceptable solution or agreement everyone is happy and the chances of long-term agreement are good; and (b) it preserves the relationships as well as addressing the issue – neither one takes priority.
The challenge with this response is to get the co-operation of the other party. To do so, it requires the willingness of both parties to achieve this result through honest and transparent dialogue. Typically, this kind of response only takes place where the parties are mature emotionally and spiritually.
Whenever possible, I think that this response is the one to be worked for. It does not require either party to compromise their position and yet produces an acceptable result through intelligent, biblical, and prayerful dialogue. Obviously, because of the nature of conflict, this response is not very common or conflict would not be very common.
Final Remarks
Managing church conflict is such a broad topic that an article like this cannot possibly cover all possible scenarios, whether it be analyzing conflict, identifying various types of conflict, or steps to resolving conflict. So I readily admit that this article only covers these topics in a broadbrush way. But I do hope that the comments in this article prompt you to think about these issues, research them in greater depth with the objective of developing your own understanding of the best principles and practices that you can apply to your own pastoral leadership skills.
Above all, I trust that the ideas communicated in this paper will assist you in facilitating unity in your church for the benefit of the church members and for the glory of God. Disunity, that conflict can cause, is probably the primary tool Satan uses to weaken the church’s testimony, to dishonor God, and to cause Christians to be discouraged. May God help us to be unifying and peace-making pastoral leaders.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors, Relationships
4. Church Relationships: Leading Your Church Through Change
Related MediaIn an article on this complex subject, it is impossible to delve into even a fraction of the issues concerning change in the church. So, I am limiting the scope of this paper to some brief comments on how we should view change in the church which, hopefully, will give you a balanced and biblical perspective. This will be followed by some comments on the compatibility of unity and diversity of the church, which affects our view of leading the church through change. Then I will deal a bit more extensively on some key factors involved in leading change successfully. Please understand that this paper by no means covers the entire waterfront of this topic.
I. A Balanced And Biblical Perspective On Change.
A. The Distinction Between Function And Form.
Often the resistance to change that occurs in churches is generated by a lack of understanding about principles and practices - those principles that are timeless and those that are time-bound, and the distinction between form and function. “Because we believe there are things that should never change, we often confuse non-absolutes (those things that should change) with absolutes (things that should not change).” (Gene Getz, “Sharpening the Focus of the Church,” 41).
1. Function.
The church was established by Christ to continue his mission in the world as his representative. To this end, the church has certain biblically mandated functions (for additional reading, see https://bible.org/seriespage/2-church-leadership-formulating-biblical-philosophy-church-ministry). Aubrey Malphurs writes, “Functions are the timeless, unchanging, nonnegotiable precepts that are based on Scripture and are mandates for all churches to pursue to accomplish their purpose” (“The Dynamics of Church Leadership,” 101). Notice firstly that…
The functions of the church are timeless. They never become obsolete or unnecessary. Those functions that were mandated for, and practiced by, the early church are valid and necessary for the church today, and required and expected of the church until the end of the church age.
The functions of the church are biblical. That’s what makes them timeless – e.g. Acts 2:42-47; 1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Colossians 4:1. These are God’s mandates for the church. We do not make up our mission or our mandate; they are set out for us in Scripture. They are not negotiable.
Functions are those activities that the church is responsible to carry out in order to fulfill its purpose. The implication, therefore, is that every church is required to fulfill the church’s biblical functions. Granted, some churches (probably, most churches) are stronger in certain areas than others. But the leaders of each church are obligated to ascertain and evaluate the church’s ministries (their strengths and weaknesses), compare them to God’s mandated mission and purpose, and develop a plan to bring the church into line with the Scriptural instructions, the ultimate and overall purpose of which is to glorify God.
What are some examples of functions that the church should practice? Evangelism (Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14), worship (Luke 4:8; John 4:24), prayer (2 Tim. 2:1-41; 1 Thess. 5:17; Acts 12:5), edification and discipleship through teaching and preaching (2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Tim. 4:11; Rom. 12:7), fellowship (Heb. 10:24-25), caring for others (Acts 6:1-7; Philippians 2:4; James 2:14-17; Heb. 13:16), baptism (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12), the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). These functions are supported and led by spiritually gifted leaders (e.g. Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28).
2. Form. Functions, as I have said, are timeless and biblical, whereas forms are temporal and changeable. Aubrey Malphurs writes, “Forms are the temporal, changing, negotiable practices that are based on culture and are methods that all churches are free to choose to accomplish their functions” (“The Dynamics of Leadership,” 106-107). Gene Getz points out that most of the resistance to change in the church comes from people’s fixation with forms, not functions (“Sharpening the Focus of the Church,” 40).
Forms are temporal and changeable. You can distinguish between functions and forms in that (1) functions are unchangeable, whereas forms are changeable; (2) functions are the ends which we strive to achieve, whereas forms are the means by which we carry them out; (3) functions are the God-given, required mandates, whereas forms are the methods by which those ministry functions are carried out; and (4) functions have to do with why we do something, whereas forms have to do with how we do it.
Scripture does not always or necessarily prescribe the form that the church is to use to achieve its functions. In fact, the Bible is noticeably silent when it comes to prescribing forms. For example, nowhere does the Bible tell us how we are to conduct the Lord’s Supper, or a baptism, or a worship service. That we are to practice these functions is mandated (no choice), but how we do it is not.
Thus, forms are quite often the product of culture. You become very aware of this when you travel overseas to cultures that are different from ours here in North America. In fact, even our understanding of Scripture is often shaped by our culture more than we would admit. Many churches have kept old or foreign forms in their services. If this is acceptable to their constituency and if it aids in the fulfilling of their mandate, well and good. But that is not the case for all churches at all times.
It seems to me that form should serve function just as administrative systems should serve the organization (and not vice versa). In order to satisfactorily fulfill the church’s functions, we need to adopt forms that are attractive and understandable to the society in the which we live. I’m not promoting so-called “seeker-sensitive” services. In fact, I am of the persuasion that that form does not satisfactorily fulfill our mandate, nor mesh with other biblical principles. I’m talking about methodology that serves God’s people and the spread of the gospel so that non-Christians can understand it and not be repelled by it.
The implication, therefore, is that we should adopt those methods and means for our church ministry that best serve our people and that best communicate our message. This does not mean that methods need to be constantly changing, or that because a method is old it is necessarily not suitable today. Old forms may or may not be better or more spiritual than newer forms. Each form must be evaluated based on the history, culture, and context of the church and its surrounding community.
Indeed, some ministry mandates are also methods. For example, preaching is, on the one hand, a function (a God-given mandate - we don’t have any choice but to “preach the Word”) and, on the other hand, it is a means, a method. Some preachers use preaching styles that have changed somewhat dramatically over the years, but the underlying method (of one person standing before a congregation declaring the truth of Scripture) has not changed, despite the fact that it is an old methodology. The reason for that is that the method of standing before a congregation declaring what the Word says, means, and applies to our lives is the preaching method. Here, then the methodology and the mandate overlap.
One of the great examples of this relationship between function and form is the apostle Paul’s statement: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Here, Paul is saying that his function of proclaiming the gospel in evangelism is non-negotiable and unchangeable, but the means by which he achieves that are very negotiable, flexible, culturally sensitive, and changeable.
Yet, do you not find it somewhat ironic that the very area in which we are given freedom (i.e. in forms and methods) is the very area that causes so much conflict in the church and that meets with so much resistance when changes are introduced? Why is this? Perhaps it is because we are such self-centred creatures that we are not prepared to let anyone else introduce a method that does not comply with our personal preferences. Are personal preferences important? Of course! But I would argue (1) that they need to be tested and qualified to ensure that they do not take on the status of mandates; and (2) that our personal preferences should be mixed with grace that allows the personal preferences of others to be satisfied as well.
Just as we have freedom in ministry methods, so we have freedom in governance (leadership and administration). Hence, forms of church government vary from congregational, to elder-led, to Presbyterian, to Episcopal. About the only mandate we can take from the New Testament regarding church governance structure is the plurality of elders. I think it can be argued that Scripture does give some indications of how things are to be done (as in the early church), but it generally does not prescribe that specific form.
Similarly, we have freedom of form in worship services and the ordinances. It is noteworthy that we can derive from Scripture who are qualified baptismal candidates and some indication as to the mode of baptism, but nowhere is a method prescribed. We have even less guidance with respect to the Lord’s supper. Hence, a great variety of forms are employed (such as full loaves of bread, wafers, unleavened and leavened bread, grape juice and wine, one cup and multiple cups). Although I would argue that the symbolism is lost when you use wafers rather than a full loaf and grape juice rather than wine, we have freedom in this form.
In making this distinction between function and form and emphasizing freedom of form, I am not saying that any form goes. One church practice that some would argue for freedom of form is baptism, and that therefore you are at liberty to choose between baptism by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. But, as I said earlier, form should serve function. That is very true when it comes to baptism, in which case I believe that immersion is the form of baptism that most clearly reflects the function.
So, that’s the first balanced and biblical perspective on change – the distinction between form and function. Then notice a second perspective on…
B. The Compatibility Of Unity In Diversity.
The tendency in any organization is to want everyone to think alike. This must be either (1) an innate human predisposition; or (2) a power thing where we all want power by having everybody like what we like and do what we do; or (3) a desire to have someone else do the thinking for us. I think this is why cults are so attractive and popular.
But Scripture is very clear that such is not the case in the body of Christ. In fact, that is one of the distinctives of the church, that we all have different spiritual gifts, different ministries, different functions (1 Corinthians 12:1-31), but there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:4-6). We really should embrace our diversity while at the same time expressing our unity. The notion that everyone should be squeezed into the same mould is not biblical.
This truth has a very real impact on how we view change in the church. It ought to make us much more receptive to it and tolerant of those whose ideas and approaches are different from ours. That’s the body of Christ! In fact, I would argue that a church that does not manifest a significant diversity (in its practices, ministries, gifts, personalities, ideas, dress codes etc.) is unhealthy.
These are just some brief comments on developing a balanced and biblical perspective on change in the church. Now I would like to move on to the main purposes of this article…
II. Some Key Factors In Leading Change Successfully.
A. Build trust before making significant changes.
One of the key ingredients for leading change successfully is that the people must trust you. Don’t take it for granted because it isn’t automatic. In fact, quite the opposite: You have to earn trust as much in church settings as in secular. “The more they believe in you, the more tolerant they will be with changes you propose” (Kenneth O. Gangel, “Feeding and Leading,” 150). You make a mistake if you try to implement significant change early in your pastorate (unless you have been called by the church to do that). This is one of the mistakes that church leaders often make in implementing change - trying to make too many changes too soon and too quickly. Remember, it takes time to build trust.
B. Pick The Timing For Change Carefully.
1. Timing. A good principle to follow is to not change anything significant really early in your ministry (1) until you have learned the history, culture, and the locus of control in the church; and (2) until you have earned respect and credibility in your ministry.
As Gangel suggests, in the first year you are just learning how things work and attempting to adapt to existing structure (Gangel, 150). You don’t know why things are done the way they are, so trying to effect change right away is a recipe for failure. I would go further than Gangel and suggest that you consider the first three years at a new church to be a probationary period during which you are proving yourself to the people and learning about the church – how it functions, why it functions the way it does (i.e. what the history is behind it etc.).
2. Time frame. Because of all the built-in resistance to change, a good plan for change will take into account a time line that reflects the significance of the change – the more radical the change, the longer the time line needed to introduce and implement it. Thus, a plan for change will calculate how long it will take to go from the present situation to the new situation, based on the degree of the change and the depth of the attachment to the present situation.
The more that the people are attached to the present situation, the longer the time frame needs to be for changing that situation. The time frame for effecting change must reflect an initial period during which the people get used to the idea that things are going to change (a period of disengagement from the old); then, once they accept that, a period of time during which they reorient themselves to the future new situation (a period of acclimatization). This transition period obviously can be very emotional and can be fraught with conflict.
A good and wise plan for change will provide for two phases:
1. A transition from the present status quo to acclimatization to the new.
2. A further transition from acclimatization to acceptance and implementation of the new situation.
Timing this transition carefully and sensitively will save a lot of grief later. You need to quench the urge to change quickly and immediately. I have found in my experience that not only is time “for” change very important for effecting a significant change, but also the amount “of” change within a given time period is also very important to the success of the change. People can only adjust and acclimatize to a certain amount of change in a certain amount of time. Any more than that and the emotional overload fuse blows.
Therefore, if people can only absorb so much change in a certain period of time, it isn’t rocket science to figure out that you should introduce change little by little over an extended and known period of time - don’t spring it on them. For example, at a church I was part of some years ago, women were not part of the ushering ministry and, therefore, did not take up the offering in the Sunday service. Don’t ask me why that was a big deal, but it was. Gradually, that idea became reality, so that now you not only have women ushers but also young people as well, and the initial ripples have gone away.
If you start by making small changes, bit by bit, over an extended period of time, not only do you have time to take the emotional temperature of the church to the changes, but you have the option of backing up if you so choose without creating a big scene. Allowing people time to get used to something new is probably the best advice I can give you in effecting change in any organization. They need time to adjust, from the time you broach the idea to the time you publicly talk about the idea and get feedback, to the time you finalize the idea and publish the plan, to the time you start changing by implementing the plan. And when you do start changing, do it slowly! Always remember, the people have not had as much time to adjust to the change as you have, because you were in on the ground floor of the idea – they weren’t.
C. Do Your Research Ahead Of Time.
Keep your ear to the ground and do your investigative work before ever introducing change to try to determine how the people will react if it is introduced. It is far better to get the negative feedback before you enter the official process in case it is sufficiently strong or in case it is sufficiently valid that you must regroup or change directions or cancel it.
Here you can find out unofficially what people’s objections might be and the degree of vehemence with which they object. You can also find out things you had not thought of or changes you can make that will assuage the objections without derailing the change. Or, you might find that people have been wondering why you have not introduced this change before and that they embrace it with open arms.
Depending on the reaction, you may charge right ahead or slow down or even stop. You must be prepared to follow any of these options as necessary or else you may face conflict and perhaps even failure. If you are not prepared to follow these options, then you are a dictator and bound and bent on your course of action no matter what. If that is the case, be prepared for sparks to fly – and you may lose you pastorate.
Your unofficial research could start with people who are around you. Obviously it is going to include your board of elders, since they are part and parcel of introducing and implementing the change. Their reaction should be fairly representative of the congregation as a whole. If they do not represent the cross section of the congregation, then there is probably something wrong with the composition of the board. It isn’t a matter that the board is a mirror image of the congregation, but that the various members of the board are sufficiently in tune with the members that they can represent and reflect how the congregation feels and will react. They should be able to give you wise counsel by their interaction with, and knowledge of, the congregation.
D. Spend The Time And Effort To Get “Buy-In”.
A key component to leading change successfully is to get the “buy-in” of the church members. Leading your church through change involves not only doing your research and developing a plan for change, but also obtaining the “buy-in” of the church by (1) communicating the vision and implementation process to the church, and (2) involving the people in the process, particularly by giving their input. Do not try to impose your change on the people: it must be their change just as it must be their vision. I remember once, without consulting anyone, I changed the church bulletin by deleting the list of ushers for the following Sunday. I didn’t think this was a big deal since a roster was posted on the bulletin board anyway. But it was a big deal to some of the ushers and I had to reverse it.
Another key component to introducing change successfully is to get the endorsement of key individuals in the church before going public with it. To do that, it’s a good idea to propose the change to certain individuals before bringing it to a larger group and ultimately to the church as a whole. “Studies show that only about 15 percent will adopt a new idea without first knowing who else is supporting it, so we’ll normally need to convince enough individuals to give an idea credibility before we attempt to sell it to the entire group” (Larry Osborne, Change Management in “Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration,” ed. James D. Berkeley, 191). Just because your idea for change is deemed necessary by the leadership and presented well to the people does not mean it will be accepted or endorsed. So, I recommend that you get the endorsement of key individuals before going public with the proposal. That way, these key individuals will have had time to consider it before the public presentation, they will have had time to ask questions and have their objections dealt with, and they will be much more likely to support the idea publicly. If they support the idea publicly, your chances of the majority of the congregation supporting it rise significantly. What you want to do is eliminate as many objections as possible from key people before presenting it publicly.
A further key component to getting “buy-in” is to convince the people that the change is necessary. People, generally, are happy with the way things are – that’s why change is so hard to introduce. They don’t want to undergo the pain of change but they will only undergo the pain of change if the new situation is proven to be better than the old. This all ties back to the vision and planning process of evaluating the present situation in the light of the church’s desired situation and purpose.
Also, show them how the proposed change fits into the bigger picture, the “vision.” This isn’t just a haphazard change and next month they can expect something different. This is well thought out, planned, and communicated. Once again, open dialogue in an environment of trust is the key. Just as with visioning, planning, team building, communication etc., implementing change requires open dialogue. When there is open dialogue based on mutual trust and respect, it is easier for everyone to commit to the final decision because they know they have been heard and their opinion is considered.
E. Develop An Environment Of Safe Change.
This is more of a long-term change strategy. This involves creating an environment that is safe and trustworthy. They need to know that you are their shepherd and you would not take them where they should not go. People need to see that when you lead them through change (however large or small, long or short), that you have their best interests at heart and that they can trust you. Trust infers: “We’re safe!”
Safe change means that you will not dump surprises on the people. No one likes surprises (this is another reason for full, open, advance disclosure). Safe change means that you are sensitive to their feelings and input. Safe change means that you would not implement change for the sake of change, nor for your own whim or personal preference.
Safe change means that people are free to express their concerns. This freedom must be genuine, not merely token. If the people are given the freedom to express their concerns, you must be willing to address those concerns genuinely. That might mean making changes to your plans. Or, it might mean that you have not disclosed everything that they want to know.
As I have pointed out in my article on “Improving Communication,” you need to create an environment of open, honest, and free dialogue. If that doesn’t exist in your church already, don’t expect it to take place during periods of change. So, make sure that people don’t feel intimidated when they speak at congregational meetings and that people’s concerns are fully and properly addressed.
F. Communicate The Change Openly.
Open communication means advanced disclosure. Make sure you never make these changes suddenly or clandestinely. Always be open and up-front about what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you are going to do it. Always give lots of time for the communication to sink in and for the congregation to realize the consequences of the proposed change. If there is one major weakness with leadership (both religious and secular) it is the weakness of not communicating to their people well in advance. Don’t let them find out by the back door. Be open and upfront. Don’t come to your people for their approval if you have already decided you are going to do this and you’re going to do it next week or next month.
When you design your plan for change, include a timeline for communicating it to the congregation and make that timeline as long as you can without losing momentum. One way to do this is to divide your plan into components parts – those parts that can and should be done in the short term and those that should be done over the longer term. Some of the longer term parts can also be subdivided into component parts. The point is to show the congregation that you are not trying to push them into something that they do not fully embrace nor push them into a timeframe that they cannot deal with, either emotionally, financially, or spiritually. A combination of advanced disclosure that includes a time line that gives breathing room and gradual implementation will be much more acceptable to your people.
Open communication means full disclosure. Just as lack of advance disclosure is a common weakness in leading organizations through change, so also is lack of full disclosure. Full disclosure in advance means full disclosure in advance! Don’t hold back details that later may come back to haunt you or which, when known, may cause your people to question your integrity.
Full disclosure means telling them everything about the proposed change. Not only what you think they need to know, but much more than perhaps they need to know. Give them all the reasons why change is necessary (perhaps it is because the neighbourhood has changed, or the church has grown significantly, or you have more young people now than a few years ago, or you are not fulfilling your biblical mandate etc.). Tell them the upside and the down side of this change. Tell them the cost of doing it and the cost of not doing it. Tell them all the change that will be involved – financial, emotional, physical, spiritual etc.
Full disclosure means public disclosure such as: (1) Teaching your people from the pulpit over an extended period of time why the change is necessary and what your biblical and spiritual reasons are. Take lots of time to educate your people on the need and purpose of the proposed change. Obviously, the greater the significance of the change, the longer you need to teach your people about it and the more you need to be able to support the change biblically. In such public disclosure you can reveal your heart to the people. Change is much easier to implement if the people are assured that you are looking out for their best interests and not your own egotistical interests. (2) Congregational meetings where public dialogue is encouraged – i.e. two-way communication, not one way. I can’t stress this enough. In fact, if the change is very significant, I recommend that you schedule meetings for various subgroups in the church. We did this at a church in which I was part of a committee implementing significant change to our organizational and operational structures. As we disclosed the plan, we met with the elders first, then ministry leaders, long-term members and other stakeholders before holding a general congregational meeting.
If you practise this principle of full and advanced disclosure you will save yourself a lot of headaches. Anything done without due notice, full disclosure, and open dialogue is automatically suspect from the people’s point of view. “They’re trying to put one over us again!”
Again, the church I was involved with a number of years ago undertook a $3.5 million expansion. I think one of the reasons that this major project went so smoothly was because of the communication process from start to finish. The people were fully informed and involved in the whole process. Their input was welcomed and incorporated. There were regular progress updates, small group discussions to make sure all ministries were included, and full disclosure from leadership and outside contractors.
Open communication means painting a realistic picture of the result. People need to be able to metaphorically touch and see the intended result of the proposed change. This picture must be accurate, attractive, and reasonable. This picture should convince them that the change you are proposing is necessary and, in fact, better then the present situation. This is a vision of a more desirable state. Also, show them how and where they fit into the new and revised picture. What will their roles be? How will it change their functions?
G. Lay Out A Sensible And Achievable Plan.
Don’t set out a vivid picture of this necessary and compelling change without also telling them how you intend to get there. They need to know…
1. What it will cost? - financially, time commitment, emotionally. Calculate the cost of change accurately. Effecting change and being the agent of change comes with a fairly high price tag. But not effecting change usually has a higher price tag in the long run. It just gets buried because no one can or does calculate what that price actually is.
2. How long will it take to implement? The temptation with implementing change is to do it too quickly. Don’t think that once you have designed the plan, communicated it to the congregation, and received buy-in, that you can then implement the plan immediately. Just as the design must be done slowly and carefully, and just as the communication to the congregation must be done slowly and carefully, and even when you are sure that you have congregational support, don’t rush into implementing the change.
A cardinal rule for implementing significant change is not to do it too quickly. I’ve said this before and say it again. There is only so much change in a certain period of time that people can endure. If you introduce too much change too quickly, you will overload them and a fuse will blow, and if that happens your whole plan is put in jeopardy.
3. What disruptions, inconveniences, pressure should they expect? Significant changes always involve pressures and disruptions. Paint a picture of what they might be, like inconveniences in changes to the building, disruptions to various ministries, increased pressure on weekly givings to the church, temporary changes to service times.
H. Always Put People Ahead Of Programs.
If you want to implement change for the sake of a program and in the process run over people, you will live to regret it (1) because the people will rebel eventually; (2) because ministry is about people, not programs; (3) because you are not the only one with good ideas – the people actually have them too; and (4) because people eventually have to make the programs work, and if you haven’t taken the people into account, they can sabotage your program.
On the other hand, if the people buy into your ideology and proposals, then you can count on them to conduct the program the way you would want it conducted, whether you are there or not. Therefore, as I have said before, include the people in the planning and development stages. Let it be their idea, their change. In any event, people are always more important than things, so don’t ever forget that!
I. Pray About Any Change Fervently.
Along with communication, this has to be the leading factor in effecting change successfully. Prayer will reveal to you whether you are on the right track or not. Through prayer God can and does mould the hearts of the people to respond appropriately. Prayer will preserve unity in the church during hard changes. Prayer will preserve the right spiritual attitude of the leaders and the people during times of transition.
The spirituality of the leaders of change is a significant factor in effecting change successfully. If you are not proposing this change for the right reasons, with the right motivation, and with the right objectives, then it will probably come to nothing or else be disastrous for the church. Change can split a church very quickly. But if you and the leadership team are much before God about this, sure of the Lord’s leading, and the people know that this change is the result of your fervent prayer and your deep love for them, then they will be much more accepting of what you propose.
J. Follow These Prerequisites Faithfully.
I would suggest that the process of change be entered into only if the following prerequisites are met…
Prerequisite #1: Only if the leadership team is united. If you can’t unite the leaders who are your closest allies, why would you expect to be able to successfully communicate, convince, and unite the rest of the people? In fact, if the leaders are not united, you are probably dead in the water because the people (most of whom may not want the change) will rally around those who are not in agreement.
Prerequisite #2: Only through the agency of the complete leadership team. Do not try to effect significant change alone. If you do, expect to be the lone ranger and if things go wrong you will take the full wrap, which might include your demise. People you thought were supportive may quickly jump ship if an avalanche of opposition starts. So, make sure all your leadership team is involved in implementing change.
Prerequisite #3: Only with great sensitivity to people’s feelings. Be prepared for the people to vent their feelings (encourage them to do so, but obviously, exhort them to only do so in a Christian manner). Be genuinely concerned about their feelings and, wherever possible, make adjustments to accommodate those feelings. People will respond much more positively to your change plan if they see that you are willing to compromise and to accommodate their wishes.
Final Remarks
As to how to lead your church through change, most of the suggestions I have outline above are common-sense, practical, and courteous. But so many church leaders do not think the process through and end up, sometimes, with a disaster – either in fighting opposition, pushing the change through and possibly splitting the church, or in reversing course (which can lead to lack of confidence in the leadership), or in the pastor and / or lay leaders resigning. This is not good for the individual leaders nor for the church as a whole.
There is so much more that could be said about this topic of “leading your church through change,” such as analyzing and addressing (a) the church’s culture, (b) the locus of power in the church, (c) dealing with stress during change, and (d) handling resistance to change. But this paper does not permit me now to cover those subjects. Perhaps another time.
I pray that the content of this article may be helpful in giving you some of the key components of leading your church through change. Remember that one of the most effective aspects of introducing and implementing change in the church is to ensure, long before the process begins, that the people know that you love them and have their best interests at heart, and that your overriding desire in this process is to glorify God, not to exalt self.
Remember these exhortations…
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3).
“By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgement, each according to the measure of faith that Gad has assigned” (Romans 12:3).
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors, Relationships
8. Literal versus Dynamic Translations - Part 3
Related MediaRelated Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Text & Translation
7. Literal versus Dynamic Translations - Part 2
Related MediaRelated Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Text & Translation
9. Literal versus Dynamic Translations - Part 4
Related MediaRelated Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), Text & Translation