Going It Alone

Yesterday while enjoying some Labor Day relaxation, I stumbled onto what personally may have been the most eye-opening blog post I have seen as a layman.  The September 1, 2012, post titled “Should a Pastor Have Close Friends in His Church?” was written by Dave Miller at SBC Voices.  The blog caught my eye as I was expecting some kind of tongue-in-cheek piece based on the title.  I could not have been more mistaken.  Pastor Miller was quite serious when he stated:

What I discovered is that people did not want to come face to face with their pastor’s flaws. Worse, I found that whenever there was conflict, people were using those things as weapons against me – throwing back in my face that which I had admitted to (or sometimes demonstrated). And frankly, through the years some of the deepest hurts I have received have been from people I thought were my friends.

Gradually, through the years, I have pulled back a little. I have friends in the church and try to be friendly with everyone. But I do not have “soul-friends” – people with whom I share my soul. I have found it preferable to have my closest friends outside the church and to maintain a pastoral relationship with people inside the church.

I have to admit I was taken aback. It had never crossed my mind that a pastor would not want to be close to at least some people in the church.  My initial reaction was that Dave was alone in left field, but I could tell from the way the piece was written that he believed he was not.  Frankly, I was amazed that the general consensus of the pastors in the comment stream (the vast majority) was that keeping some distance between themselves and church members was the best course of action.  When I realized the number of pastors who took this as a truism, I was really stunned.

I know how from my side, I’ve always valued a close relationship with my pastor.  I’ve always wanted to support him and help him to minister and be successful any way I could.  I honestly felt hurt, misunderstood and stereotyped by this attitude in the comments, even though I don’t personally know any of these pastors.  Then I began to reflect on it.  Have I ever heard rumors about my pastor’s private information?  Yes, many times.  Have I ever seen people once close to the pastor turn on him?  Yes, many times and often for no good reason I could see. Have I frequently heard gossip, or judgments or innuendo against a pastor?  Yes, many times.  Have I always fought for him as I should?  Not always.  It's no wonder they feel the need to be guarded!

Having served in some highly visible lay positions, I have experienced my share of misunderstanding, gossip, slander and outright lies.  But there was always an end in sight and light at the end of the tunnel for me.  I also had the knowledge that if things got too bad, I could just walk away from the controversy (though I never did).  I couldn’t help but engage some of the pastors in the comment stream of this blog post out of a genuine desire to understand and to try to give a different perspective.  I stated:

I have witnessed the pain and trouble resulting from pastors trusting laymen, staff, or essentially anyone else in the church. Something “juicy” about a pastor seems to be almost impossible to hold in. Inside knowledge of the pastor is the “significance currency” of the church. My observation is that for many, if you are “in the know” you believe your importance in the church goes up. I’ve seen the unrealistic expectations and nit-pickiness of the congregation. I hear the grumbling and griping about this and that, and the constant criticism about the way things are handled.

So, I get it. I’ve even experienced some of it as a layman myself. But I would like to say this: there are people in the church you can trust – they just may not be the ones pounding your cell phone with texts to meet for lunch or breakfast. They may not be the ones begging you to go to dinner, or to take you to lower arena tickets at the game or to let you use their lake house. My advice to any pastor, particularly at a new church, is to be cautious with those who press hard and who press quickly. You experienced pastors already know that.

But I also want to emphasize, there are members in your church who don’t expect perfection, who love the Lord, who pray for you, who defend you and who will extend tons more grace than you may think. They are just not the ones clamoring for your attention, even though they desire to know you. They are focused on God. If you will allow these people in, you might just be surprised at what an encouragement, and at what true friends they can be to you. You won’t find them at the front of the line to get your attention. It’s always going to be risky to be vulnerable, and that’s true for anyone. I posit that the rewards are worth the risks of cautiously letting people in. It seems to me (and I think I hear you pastors saying this) that is really difficult to go it alone. It also points out to me how I need to be even more vigilant to make sure you know when I support you.

While my comments created some interesting dialogue, I don’t think I changed any minds.  The general pastor’s feeling seems to be that the risks outweigh the rewards when it comes to getting too close to church members.  The sad fact is that these pastors may be right.  This realization concerns me greatly, and it also explains a great deal.  It explains why there so often has seemed a wall, a divide, between me and my pastor and staff that is hard to breach.  I want to be there to help them.  I want to know them.  Yet they always seemed somewhat aloof for reasons I could never understand.  Now I think I at least understand a little more than I did.

This leaves me puzzled as to what to do.  My last comment on the blog included the following:

This has been an “aha” day for me. I never before comprehended that it was common pastoral wisdom in general (based on how I’m interpreting this thread) to keep church members at a distance in at least some sense. I’m not judging it – I even think I kind of understand it – but I had never before realized it. My mind has been spinning on it all day. It makes so many things make more sense to me now.

Pastors, how can we break down this wall? There are always going to be folks you can’t trust and who may attack you, but there will also always be something missing between you and the genuine believers in your church if they don’t know you. When they don’t really know you, they won’t go fully to bat for you.

It’s a catch 22 – you don’t know who you can trust so you keep people at arm’s length. People at arm’s length can’t quite put their finger on what the issue is, but know they’re missing something. An invisible, but real, barrier exists and when the time of trouble comes, you don’t find anyone fully in your corner. You move on, convinced that you should never again trust a church member. Church members view the next pastor with suspicion assuming he’s got something to hide too.

I’ve witnessed and experienced this since I was a child (and that’s been a few years). The cycle continues. How do we break it?

The question remains.  How do we break down this wall?  It seems to me that believers are not supposed to live this way.  I’m really pondering this one.

Is it time to Pick Luter’s Successor? (Does Anybody Have a Light?)

SBC politics are very interesting and sometimes quite disheartening to me.  I wonder who the boys in the smoke-filled-room (cigars are coming back into vogue you know) are going to put up for president post-Luter.  Does this sound premature? Cynical?  It isn’t intended to be – just observant.  In case you didn’t know it, there really is the equivalent of the smoke-filled-room in the SBC.  I don’t know if Joel Gregory’s description of early 90’s power brokers meeting in a hotel room to agree on the next pick for President still applies literally or not (it may).  Regardless, the equivalent of the smoke-filled-room happens today virtually if not physically. 

There is little doubt that SBC insiders compare notes before the annual meeting.  There is little doubt that a consensus pick for President is arrived at.  There is little doubt that directional agreements about the Convention are made beforehand.  The part that is most unclear is who gets included in the discussion.  Last year, the consensus pick was announced well ahead of time in order to head off any competition.  When, before the 2011 annual meeting was even vacated, Danny Akin tweeted his expectation of voting for Fred Luter at next week’s 2012 annual meeting, it was clear that the smoke-filled-room had already been in session.

I do not ever remember hearing a succeeding candidate announced before the term of the current year even started.  Why did this happen?  I know that a group of SBC leadership believes the SBC to be still tainted with past racism.  Changing our image is behind the SBC name change, and it also explains the timing of the announcement of Fred Luter’s candidacy last year.  Luter’s candidacy appeared to be arranged in such a way as to preclude any other name.  No viable Southern Baptist is going to run or nominate anyone else to run for fear of appearing racist.  The name change timing seems to be for similar reasons and handled in a similar way.  This year, 2012, is the year that the SBC power brokers determined to be the year we are going to shed our racist past in an overt and grand way. 

It was interesting to watch what happened politically when Richard Land made his unfortunate (and wrong-headed) remarks.  Every SBC insider spewed their coffee through their noses when they heard what Land said.  Talk about a way to derail the year the SBC ends its racism!  Land got pressure from every quarter until he had sufficiently repented.  I have no doubt that Land’s ERLC job was hanging in the balance (not just his radio show) as the plan from the smoke-filled-room was at risk of coming apart.  In fact, I expect to hear any day of Land’s retirement and replacement with another “insider”.  Never mind the fact that Land was an insider himself up until his ill-conceived comments.  I bet he will have plenty of space at his lunch table in New Orleans next week.

Why am I talking about all this?  Do I want the SBC to hang on to its racist past?  Am I a closet racist?  Absolutely not!  There’s no denying that the genesis of the SBC could have been under better circumstances.  I want the SBC to do whatever is necessary to demonstrate Christ’s love to the world regardless of race – just as Christ does.  Does changing our name help that?  I don’t know.  I never heard people associate “racist” with the SBC until the SBC started talking about it.  If it does help, then I’m all for a name change, but I remain unconvinced. 

What about the presidency of Fred Luter?  Will that fix our image?  It will certainly help.  I didn’t know much about him until his name was tweeted as the presumptive candidate last year.  He seems to be a very well respected, well qualified and Godly man.  He’s got great pastoral credentials and he’s been very active in SBC life for a long time.  He seems to be a steady and thoughtful pastor.  I’ll be honored to have him as our next SBC President based on what I know – which isn’t really that much.

So if I don’t necessarily have any real issue with the actions themselves, what is my issue?  My issue is with the way these things are done; the smoke-filled-room itself whether virtual or real in space.  I do not like it.  I do not like a self-selected group of people assuming they know what is best and working behind the scenes to orchestrate an outcome.  I do not like power-brokering, good-ole-boy networks and having an “inside crowd”.  If you’ve got an agenda, say so, and then let the Convention decide what to do with it.  Let opposition speak.  Manipulation is not leadership.  I want to see our Convention trust the body of Christ to do the right thing –  to trust that God will speak through it.  I want to see our leaders step forward and make their case to persuade.  Then I want them to step back and listen to the response.  I want them to accept what the messengers decide.  I don’t like stealth agendas.

Does this quiet cartel of power exist anywhere except my mind?  I am convinced it does exist, and not just in my imagination, but I suspect it could be about to fracture.  The new wild-card is going to be what happens between the “Traditionalists” and the Calvinists.   I know there won’t be a new pick for the 2013 President announced next week since it will be assumed that Luter serves his maximum two years – that’s normal.  It’s the year after that I want to watch.  Who will the candidate be?  In the smoke-filled-room, names put forth by either side may now be contentious.  The problem as I see it is that any serious candidate will come from one of the warring tribes, and the other tribe may not be easy to persuade.

Regardless of the factions, I want to see agendas come out into the open.  Light truly is the best disinfectant.  If you can’t be up-front about what you are doing, there may be something wrong with your plan.  If your positions can’t stand the scrutiny of the whole group, then you may want to reconsider them.  Maybe we need to get back to something like 2006 when for the only time since the conservative resurgence, the messengers rejected the insider, spanked the power-brokers, and chose Frank Page.  I think that worked out just fine, as well as sending a clear message to the occupants of the smoke-filled-room:  “Open the windows and let the smoke clear!”

Will a candidate from the smoke-filled-room for 2014 President be announced at next year’s convention?  I don’t think so, but time will tell.

News Flash: Pastors and Laity See Things Differently!

I have some shocking news:  I have learned that staff and laity view things differently in a church.  If you’ve spent much time in any church, you’ve witnessed conflict.  Where does it come from?  What are its causes?  In James 4:1-2, he says, “What causes fights and quarrels among you?  Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?  You want something, but don’t get it.”  Even when a goal is noble, how it is obtained can lead to trouble.  Let me illustrate what I’m talking about.

After spending time seeking God’s will, a pastor concludes a new vision is in order for his church.  The pastor sees a more effective way to reach people in his community while at the same time strengthening his church.  He shares this vision with his staff.   They become excited about the possibilities for a greater impact, and get on board with this new direction.  In short order, a well-done multi-media explanation is presented to the church during worship.  The video explains the new vision, as well as the significant sacrifice that will be required of the church to make it happen.  The pastor follows the video with a sermon about reaching the lost and making disciples.  When the vote is taken Wednesday night to “affirm” the endeavor, there is no dissent, but neither is there much excitement.

Two years later, giving has not increased but expenses certainly have.  Attendance is down.  The church is not meeting budget.  The impact on the community has not been realized.  Few church members volunteer to be involved, and the staff is carrying an extra load trying to make this endeavor happen.  Squabbles have broken out all over the church.  Even the staff is fighting now.  The pastor sits in his office and prays, “God, what is going on?” 

Sound familiar?  I’ll bet all you have to do is insert your particular “endeavor” and you have a story about a church that could fit this pattern.  If not, you are blessed indeed.  So what went wrong, and how do the different church players view it?

What is the pastor's view?  Maybe his assessment is that the church members just aren’t serious enough disciples -- that they don’t understand that God expects a commitment out of us.  He may believe that this church is no different than so many others and that it has grown cold, complacent, and contentious.  The pastor wonders if he should entertain that inquiry from a search committee after all. 

What is the view from the pew?  What are the church members thinking?  Undoubtedly, some of them will cringe and withdraw anytime they hear the words “sacrifice”.  Others will say, “OK, I’m good if that’s what the pastor thinks is best” knowing they will never be involved anyway.  Mature believers want to listen to the pastor, but they want more to hear from God – individually and corporately.  They know that pastors can sometimes be wrong.   Serious disciples will follow their church's leadership, but not at the expense of silence from the Spirit. 

There is a big difference between leading and just getting your way.  Leadership brings people with you.  Leadership waits when the congregation is not ready.  Leadership reassesses when mistaken.  Leadership persuades by the weight of God’s Word and through earned trust.  So, am I saying it’s always the pastor’s fault when things go wrong?  No – absolutely not.  But what I am saying is that the pastor and staff can save themselves a world of trouble by honestly dealing with people’s concerns before embarking on big endeavors.  

Church leadership is often a messy business.  There are always contentious people who will pick at any decision, but a pastor doesn't have to go it alone.  Mature believers will swat down the trouble-makers for the pastor when they see his humility and trust his heart.  My point is this:  it does a pastor no good to wrangle an approval if the people aren’t with him.  It just creates resentment and guarantees conflict down the road.  Even a pastor's supporters have a hard time defending a good thing handled the wrong way.  If God is in an endeavor, the people will get on board.  It's true for small churches and large churches alike.

What is a big decision that warrants the church’s involvement?  Where should the pastor have freedom?  How should a layman go about seeking what he wants to see in the church?  I’ll explore these questions in subsequent posts.

SBC Layman