Bushwhacked by the Board

Background:
I have just completed 10 years at First Church. I have been in the pastoral ministry for 20 years and these past 18 months have been the most difficult in my years of serving churches.

First Church, prior to my leadership, had experienced 10 years of a slow decline. Upon coming, I began to refocus the attention of the congregation to outreach. During these past 10 years, the church has experienced consistent growth – numerically and financially.

In January 2007 the “wheels came off.”

The Elder Board moved against me, calling for my resignation and forcing the resignation of my son who had served as youth pastor for 4 years.

After hiring a consultant to look at where we stood, and what we needed to do, we had added a
§ Saturday worship service
§ Assistant Pastor
§ Admin Asst in Children’s dept.

We also had discussed extensive governance changes -- moving our church from a congregational model to an elder model of governance. We were about ready to present to the congregation for implementation.

The church consultant we hired had found our church, on his evaluative tools, to be “very healthy.” Our highest scores were in the areas of Member Satisfaction, Mission / Outreach / Evangelism, and Church as Community.

In October 2006 we had a change to our elder board. There were 2 new people elected that were not part of the planning process. These individuals were given all the materials to bring them up to speed and a board member offered to coach them about our process of planning and initiatives. I discovered some time following that that one of the new board members declined.

I also discovered that my senior associate pastor, when exiting the planning meetings with the consultant, had disparaged the meetings, the process and the results to some staff and elders.

One of the elders took the responsibility upon himself to talk to some people that have left the church. No, we have not had a "mass exodus."
He had confronted me at a December board meeting about these people that were so hurting and asked me what I thought about that. I told him I would like to talk with him more but I would not be able to speak clearly about it unless I knew who he was referring to. He has a history of coming to the board meetings with an issue and then confronting me rather aggressively, without the courtesy of telling me ahead of time or discussing with me so I can be prepared to respond.

On Sunday, following a meeting of the elders w/o me, he delivered a packet of his "findings". It included a three page letter from him along with letters from about 10 people that had left the church that he had interviewed along with one letter (unsigned) from a support staff and a few letters from some people who are still attending that basically vilified me.

You would not have believed how he presented the "findings" at the board meeting. After he and another board member read 5 different scriptures, making allusions to pastors taking advantage of sheep and not doing their job and God judging them, he then began listing a bunch of words and said, "how do you respond to these issues?"

I had to stop him and say, "I'm sorry, I thought you were still reading Revelation 2:4, would you list those "issues" again please?" I began writing as he listed them... "Intimidating, manipulative, unethical, deceptive, inaction, confidentiality broken, division, lying, nepotism, my way or else, use the pulpit, power corrupts."
He stated, "these are the issues, how do you respond to them?"

I was flabbergasted. Sunday night I had read through the letters from the people who had left and the others and I found that several had inaccurate statements, half-truths and outright fabrications.

I asked why he had chosen to not come in and speak with me as he had said in the last board meeting he would do. He sidestepped my question.
The encounter was adversarial and accusatory immediately.

I asked if they wanted me to address each of the letters individually or just to share my comments. They replied, "speak to the issues." So, I began to address them. As I began to speak, I was interrupted and one of two elders would go off on a long diatribe about my failings and the hurt of these people or bringing up things/issues I had never even heard of before.

I am so grieved by the lack of respect offered, for the lack of biblical process. I asked them if my comments were going to make any difference or were their minds made up already. I started with one. He said I was putting words in his mouth. I stated that my perception was that he had arrived at that meeting with his mind made up. I then asked another if his mind was made up already. He made a few comments and then said, "My mind is already made up." I stated, "So nothing I can say or my commenting on these letters is going to make any difference?" He said, "No". "So you are going to make up your mind having only heard one perspective?" He replied, "yes."

I then went to some of my prepared comments:

1. You need to know that many of these letters contain lies/fiction and half-truths.
In fact, they are not based on facts, but emotions and perceptions.

2. Some of you have arrived at a decision after hearing, reading these letters – that was listening only to one side.

3. Some of you had a decision formed and then went out and found supporting arguments and testimony.

4. In any court system, both sides are heard from before a decision is made.

In fact, scripture is very clear about how these things are to be done.
And that has not been done in this case, at all.

Is my speaking to you tonight going to make any difference?

Do you want to know the truth?

I then began polling some of the other men.

The bottom line at the end of the meeting was one elder was calling for my son (who had been hired to do the youth ministry) to be fired. He said the board had a right to do that. He and two others were calling for me to resign. I referred to the Constitution and Bylaws reminding them that they could not remove me. That could only be done by the membership.
They went ahead and made a motion to go on record of asking for my resignation. It passed 5 in favor, 2 opposed. I have contacted our district leadership and will decide what I am going to do. I can call for a vote from the membership.

In February 2007, I invited our district denominational officials to come and give assistance and intervention (as a result of the elders calling for my resignation). There were five elders who were opposing me and two who supported me.

The district intervention team came and took testimony from myself, my son, staff and the elders. The five adversarial elders demanded binding arbitration.

The district intervention team recommended that the church come under district supervision and the elder board be dissolved. Their first draft of recommendation also included the dismissal of the senior associate pastor.

The district intervention team has also requested that I go through an assessment and coaching process and that the church go through another assessment.

The senior associate pastor was part of ongoing discussions among himself and the opposing elders about my removal. He also polarized people that were loyal to him. He has now left and taken a church out of the area.

How could I have handled this staff person differently or more effectively?

How could I have handled this crisis differently?

What should be my next step?

Stories of Success

If you have the opportunity to visit the Transforming Church web site you will read about our Transforming Church Institute. The Institute is comprised of pastors like your self. The men and women who make up the institute are located throughout the country and serve congregations of all sizes and denominations. One of our purposes in starting our blog is to provide a forum where these men and women can share with all of us some of the challenges they have faced, what they have learned and how they used the crisis or conflict to heal rather than divide their community.
Please share with us your story so all of us can learn and grow from your experience. Or share with us a challenge you are currently facing with a question or two so that we could offer a few ideas for you to consider.

Joe J

A pastor in trouble

TAG received a call from the Reverend Bill, Rector of St. Ann’s Episcopal Church, requesting help understanding the organizational dynamics of his church. The rector felt there were unresolved conflicts undermining the growth and development of the parish and hoped that an impartial outside perspective might provide some ideas that would allow the parish to move forward and realize its potential.

The assessment phase of the consultation consisted of; meeting and interviewing the Vestry of St Ann’s, interviewing the Rector and his wife and interviewing the rector’s staff. Everyone was very open and cooperative and clearly had the best interest of St. Ann’s in their heart. Each person shared their thoughts with me about what they had observed regarding the developing tension in the parish. And as is often the case there was a general consensus about the problems of St. Ann’s. But in very rare cases is the agreed upon “identified problem” the actual problem. At Tag we are looking for the actual underlying problem that we call the “Thing in the Bushes”. It is this conflict that is affecting the entire system dynamic but unknown and unrecognized by those closest to the situation.

Understanding the principles and dynamics of your own group or organization after a problem has arisen is nearly impossible, hence the need for an outside perspective. Everyone interviewed identified some or most of the following issues:

· Most parish members strongly supported Father Bill and his ideas
· There were only a few members of the parish in conflict with Father Bill.
· These were people who had been influential in the life and direction of the parish in the past.
· This small group felt displaced by Father Bill
· This group of long time members resented the new ideals that Father Bill brought to the church...
· Father Bill worried too much about the feelings of this small group.
· Father Bill had become too sensitive to the criticism of this group.
· Father Bill needs to handle these particular parish members in a different way.
· There was a general fear that Father Bill would become so discouraged that he would leave St Ann’s.
· Father Mark (the former rector) was loved by everybody and is a hard act to follow.
· People liked the way Father Mark ran the parish.
· Father Mark did not change much in the church.
· Father Mark let some things slide in order to keep peace
· Father Bill confronts many issues and introduces many changes.

While most of the above issues contain some elements of truth many of them contradict each other and provide no real direction for solving the current conflict. More importantly the current conflict as stated may only be a symptom of something that the church as well as the community is facing; something deeper and more difficult to address. There is always the danger of providing symptomatic solutions for symptomatic problems. Solutions that don’t address the underlying conflict may initially relieve tension but invariably create another set of problems that can prove to be even more difficult to resolve.

Voices of dissent in any system, in any organization, provide clues about the more deeply felt but unexpressed pain in the community. However these voices are misinterpreted because they are seen as oppositional or undermining or attacking. It is hard to hear the message when one is being personally attacked, and almost any response to the attack makes the situation worse.

Father Bill finds himself trapped in this very dilemma. He has not really understood the resistance to his initiatives, especially when most of the parishioners apparently agree with his values and vision. No matter what he has tried, no matter how he has handled the conflicts, the situation has grown steadily worse and he has suffered and his family has suffered. Consequently this suffering has created doubt in Father Bill –doubt about his ability to lead and doubt about his vocation. As he has grown more and more depressed he has also struggled with growing bitterness and resentment. He has found it hard to preach the gospel each Sunday. When our hearts are filled with anger it is hard to preach the gospel of love.

Yet Father Bill is hardly alone in this experience of doubt and seeming failure. Many rectors could identify with Father Bill and his struggles. All people in leadership especially those called to deal with the suffering of their people, face these problems. Unfortunately their seminary training does not provide them with even the basic skills necessary to deal with the problems they will encounter in their work. Most folks in these situations do not know where to turn for help. They struggle alone until they are too tired, too beaten, to continue. They resign because they are ineffective and exhausted. With resignation comes failure and failure of course brings with it shame so they are reluctant to share their experience with anyone and they carry the wound forever. I hope we are not to late to help Father Bill. He is a wonderful man and by the way the right man for the job.


What is the problem at St. Ann’s? I can say without any reservation that the problem is not Father Bill, although he as leader has become the lightening rod, the scapegoat if you will. The problems of St. Ann’s began long before Father Bill became rector. Father Mark I am sure experienced the problems as well and might even identify them in the same way as they are now identified. But Father Mark did not threaten the members of the church in the way that Father Bill does. Father Bill has challenged the status quo. He just never realized what he was doing. He never realized that he would stir up such resistance… And when he did, neither he nor the community understood that the gospel and not Father Bill was the real threat. Even more confusing he thought he was doing exactly what the community of St Ann’s called him to do. He thought he was called to bring the gospel, to teach the gospel, to preach the gospel, and hold his self and hold the members of the community accountable for living the gospel. This is what excited him about becoming the rector of the church of St. Ann’s.

The search committee that recommended Father Bill never fully understood that living the gospel would require a change in their behavior. Father Mark was a pastor who tended lovingly to the needs of his flock but he did not challenge them to live the gospel in the way that Father Bill does. The search committee knew they needed a leader that would challenge the community. They knew instinctively that Father Bill would challenge inherent contradictions whenever he saw them. This does not make one popular. Father Bill’s great error was innocence. He was very, very naïve. He thought because the community needed and said they wanted change they would embrace change. They would embrace him and his family. Instead as he confronted the contradictions he saw in Christian values he was attacked. He did not understand this. He felt betrayed and wounded. He personalized the attacks. This only confused him and created shame and guilt in the members of the parish.

The members of the church who had been doing certain things for years and had never been confronted about their behavior felt wounded and betrayed by Father Bill. They did not understand what he was doing or why he was upset. They felt personally attacked by Father Bill. Father Mark had never confronted them in this way and their only response to Father Bill was to attack back.

As this dynamic unfolds a recursive pattern is immediately set in place because people in the community misperceive the conflict. The conflict is played out in the community as more and more people take sides. And because the discussion in the community is never at the level of the conflict (about the living the gospel, and not Father Bill) the situation worsens and the divisions grow. The outcome if unchecked is always bad. Everything supports the problem. In this case even the surrounding economic context serves to intensify the feelings of failure that everyone is now experiencing. Corrective action is needed and needed now. Here is a list of recommendations to begin the healing process and preserve the community of St. Ann’s.


Recommendations

Near Term

· Father Bill must begin to de-intensify the conflict
· He must begin to re-build relationships one at a time and over time
· He must initiate discussions with those that disagree with him.
· Father Bill must depersonalize the situation. The conflict is about values not people. (He misunderstood the conflict was directed at his role, not at his person). He did not have to embrace the attacks as personal, even though they came packaged this way.
· He must realize that those who attack him do not really understand what the real conflict is.
· He must work to clarify the conflict for all the community.
· He must recognize his own emotional responses
· He must become aware of when others are reacting to him.
· He must recognize the weight of the authority he carries and how people respond to his authority.
· He must recognize situations in which he creates anxiety for the community
· He must change the pace of change. He felt he had a mandate to change St. Ann’s overnight. That simply was not going to happen. The anxiety created by this pace was too high.

Long Term

· Father Bill must build shared vision in the community.
· Building shared vision requires building a shared values structure and that requires building consensus in the community for those values.
· Developing a strategic plan with the vestry and other church leaders for the future direction of the St. Ann’s. (Mission and Vision)

Notes

· In this article we’ve used terms that can be more fully explained by going to our website, http://www.transformingchurch.net/. Our book, Thriving Through Ministry Conflict should prove helpful.We’re also posting explanations of key concepts that should also b

Welcome

Welcome to our new blog called clashing clergy. Our intent is to support church leaders who are dealing with conflict on a daily basis but do not feel they have the skills needed to navigate these turbulent waters. It is our belief that ministry IS conflict. Conflict is not something to be avoided at all costs. It is a necessary, and potentially useful tool that allows the community to make progress on their deepest concerns. Welcome to the journey.

To get started, you might like to take in our website at www.transformingchurch.net. There you will find the book we've written, Thriving Through Ministry Conflict.