Pastor, how important is credibility?

Posted on November 03, 2010
Viewed 822 times
(27) comments

We're having a great discussion over yesterday's post about whether or not a pastor who is discovered to have an addiction should be fired. In the discussion, Cal Habig brought up a great point (I think) when he says that pastors who find themselves in these types of situations have not lost their ABILITY to shepherd the flock, but have instead lost their CREDIBILITY to lead the flock.

I think this is a great point. Much of the discussion yesterday revolved around whether or not a pastor involved in some type of addiction (alcohol is the specific one we're discussing) should resign, be fired, or be left in the position while he seeks treatment.

I think a case could be made for each one of those scenarios, according to the church involved, the severity of the addiction, and the heart of the addicted.

But Cal's point is this: more important than whether a pastor who's dealing with this should have his job or not, when does he lose his credibility to lead? And once the credibility is gone, it's probably best for the leader AND the church for him to move on (regardless of how great a Bible teacher he is or his other ability to lead).

When credibility is lost, so is the core effectiveness of the leader.

So... let's take this situation we talked about yesterday. A pastor is found to be hiding an addiction to alcohol for years; and is only found out when he has a very serious liver problem.

Has this pastor lost his ability to lead? Probably not. He's been leading with this problem... evidently for years.

Has this pastor lost his credibility with the congregation? I would argue: absolutely.

The first thought many people have is: what else has he been hiding. And when he preaches the Word, some people are thinking: "Yeah... but..."

This, more than any other reason, I think, is why a pastor caught in a public addiction or sin must step down, at least for a time.

The response of the leader involved in this situation is vitally important. Hopefully, I'll dive into that tomorrow here at MMI.

Credibility and trust can be restored. But it will take time. And in this case, probably lots of it. And I'm not sure it can be done while the pastor remains in his position.

What are your thoughts?

Is there a difference in having the ABILITY and having the CREDIBILITY to lead a church?

When a leader loses CREDIBILITY, what should he do? And how should he do it?

Todd

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.

Q. on Thu, November 04, 2010

Todd, I just wanted to say that I see that you are commenting more these days (or I could just be noticing it more)-and I think that’s a very cool thing… Thank you brother…
Cliff on Thu, November 04, 2010

Todd wrote: “The church in Acts 2 added to their numbers daily. That�s AT LEAST 365 in growth in a year. That�s some pretty aggressive results (or effectiveness) I would say. On second thought, I�ll leave the definition of effectiveness to God, I guess. There are 300,000 churches in America. I think most of the pastors of most of those churches feel they are doing what they should be doing. Yet very few churches are growing. Few churches are reaching new people. Few churches are growing the people they have in a way that changes much of anything. Do you think most churches are effective? Are most pastors effective?”

Todd, I think you’ve given a great challenge to us as pastors and to our churches. However, I’m hesitant to equate “effectiveness” strictly with numbers. No doubt, in writing Acts, Luke was indicating that the growth that happened with the early church was an act of the Holy Spirit working through faithful and effective church leaders (the apostles). But Luke doesn’t mention any growth at the Jerusalem church after the persecution begins (Acts 8:1). Does that mean the apostles stopped being effective leaders once times got hard?

I think effectiveness can happen even when growth in numbers does not. Jesus gave some pointed evaluations of seven churches and their leaders (some interpret “to the angel of the church in…” to represent the leader/pastor of that church) in Revelation 2-3. Jesus apparently felt the church/leader in Philadelphia was effective despite every indication that they were not aggressively growing. In fact, it seems they were simply enduring and hanging on during intense persecution. “I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name…I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have so that no one will take your crown.” (Revelation 3:8, 11)

If effectiveness gets measured differently during times of persecution, that tells me it’s not just about numbers. I also think of the Old Testament prophets (especially Jeremiah), who had miserable results (in numbers) to their ministry, but who were nonetheless very effective in faithfully presenting the Word of God.

But to bring it back around to your point…I’m not under persecution and I’m not being tossed into a cistern like Jeremiah…so what’s my excuse?
Leonard on Thu, November 04, 2010

Effective churches under the power of the Holy Spirit bring about three results.

They consistently bring people to Christ…

They consistently bring people to maturity in Christ…

They consistently develop leaders in the world and kingdom.

Most churches have no plan for these things and focus only on growing Christians. I cant stand growing Christians, I want maturing Christians.

Every year a group of leaders in our church will spend a couple days praying and working to set goals in each of these three areas.

We ask - What will we do in the next 12 months to bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ?
The answers include training, events, equipping, prayer movements… Then we set goals, get people responsible to make them happen and prayerfully live into the plan. in 2 years we have seen 160+ first time decisions for Christ. PTL

We ask - What will be do in the next 12 months to produce maturity in the lives of those at our church? The answers include discipleship groups, help for those struggling with addictions, what we teach on Sundays, getting people involved in ministry, training people in doctrine, bible study skills, developing a meaningful prayer life…

We ask - What will we do in the next 12 months to develop people who live on purpose for Christ in their church and world… (our working definition of leadership) The answers include training in leadership skills like conflict resolution, training others, recruiting volunteers, developing and mentoring others, discovery of gifts and leadership personalities, integrating Christ and your work world and being an owner of your churches mission and vision.

This helps us stay focused and makes us effective and gives us a measurement in real time for our effectiveness. All we have to do to measure is ask… Is anyone coming to Christ. are people maturing, are people leading and are we executing our goals.

The team of people that create this is about 50-60 people. Just finished ours in August and then we set our budget to reflect the goals.
CS on Thu, November 04, 2010

Todd:

“I don’t think that’s a reasonable scenario. [...] First of all, the pastor is the only one who was obedient to God? Everyone else left and wasn’t? Doesn’t seem possible to me.”

I can think of a reasonable scenario. You pastor in a small town. People go out and faithfully share the Gospel with their friends, neighbors, and strangers. No one comes to faith in Christ. Due to finances, people move away. The church decides to partner with another congregation and close its doors. That church was obedient, but by your definition, not effective.

Leonard:

“Effective churches under the power of the Holy Spirit bring about three results. They consistently bring people to Christ… They consistently bring people to maturity in Christ… They consistently develop leaders in the world and kingdom.”

I could see a biblical argument for the first two, but not the third. Could you please point me to where you would see that in Scripture?
Leonard on Thu, November 04, 2010

CS, Great question! Here is where I see it in the NT. The choosing of the 12 and then the development process Jesus took them through for 3+ years.

The church process, while not specifically laid out produced leaders… 7 of them called deacons. he development of Sothstheneses (sp) in Corinth and through out the NT leaders were developed. Priscilla and Aquilla developed Apalos. People do not often become pastors, leaders in the church or leaders in the world. Developing leaders is a byproduct of healthy relationships going somewhere.

When I am in Africa or India or Latin America, the churches with the most impact are the ones who are raising up the most leaders. They are the ones who are taking young men and women and teaching them to use their influence for Christ in their church, family and world.

Paul certainly was committed to building leaders, Barnabas was, Jesus was and several others in scripture. Teaching faithful men who will teach others a form of leadership development.

Here is what I grew up with CS. I grew up in a church that had no formal or even a casual vision to develop leaders. Leadership in my church was primarily the byproduct of age. I remember when I sensed my call to ministry as a kid, asking for someone in my church to mentor me. My request was met with silence. We had godly men as deacons and elders, but all of them learned their leadership skills from their jobs or the military.
CS on Thu, November 04, 2010

Leonard:

I guess my perception is that there is more of a direction in the Bible to be followers, rather than leaders or teachers. Hence all of the references of us being sheep and obedient to Christ, and commands to, “be not many masters.” I see very few instances about becoming leaders in the sense of the words as it is used today.

Sorry to hear that your church had no discipleship when it comes to training up the next generation of pastors. That would be a letdown. And I’m sorry that it has also affected your views on more fundamentalist churches.

—
CS
Leonard on Thu, November 04, 2010

CS, don’t look now but I think we are getting along. Why you… Oh well.

I get where you are coming from, however, every institution has degrees of leadership. Movements without leadership die off. The church has a leadership structure. There is a gift of leadership. Several other gifts point to leadership abilities.

All that said, yes there are some serious problems with some of the leadership development models we see in some churches today. I observe in my experience in the church, most churches have no plan or model.

Both these approaches are dangerous at best and wrong at worst. We are followers, but didn’t someone say, follow me because I follow Christ? Isn’t that leadership and in some ways leadership development.

We are called sheep, this does not mean we glean our whole structure of church from the label. We are also called a Family, I have a plan to grow my kids as leaders. We are called an army. There is a plan in every military to grow leaders. We are called a city… Cities have plans to grow leaders.

Every people system set in motion by God has a structure that involves leaders. Some lead large groups others lead small groups but these systems have leaders. What it interesting is most churches I deal with when I coach have no plan to develop the leadership of those leaders.

It seems that in rejection of a model you see as unbiblical, it makes the language of leadership development hard to wrap your mind around.

My heritage is a pretty great one for the most part. I am very theologically conservative and this is because of my fundamentalist background. I gained a wealth of scripture and appreciation for the majesty of God and his power.

what I left behind is the attitude and rules. I left behind the need in the fundamentalist world to watchdog others to death. I just want people saved, maturing and living out what they were made by God to live out. I don’t care much about hair, music, clothes, tattoos and a dozen other issues we had rules about.

In the place I serve now I am much more likely to confess a struggle and get help than the places I grew up. The difference is not theological. I still hold the same theology and my training is from MacArthers School. The difference is a fundamental understanding of how grace and truth are expressed.

Thanks for the dialog.
CS on Fri, November 05, 2010

Leonard:

“CS, don�t look now but I think we are getting along. Why you� Oh well.”

Let me fix that. You are a doody doo-doo head! There. Is that better?

“It seems that in rejection of a model you see as unbiblical, it makes the language of leadership development hard to wrap your mind around.”

I don’t see leadership as unbiblical at all. But the total promotion of it and this emphasis to lead, lead, lead, complete with schools of leadership, leadership seminars, blogs about leadership, books about leadership, bath soaps for leadership, cereal mascots for leadership, and leadership Valentine’s Day cards for everyone is where I have some issues with it.

—
CS
Leonard on Fri, November 05, 2010

I guess I wont be getting that card from you now.

I think the church has for too long ignored developing leaders and left the training and equipping of leaders to the outside world. It is kind of funny, when we see a great leader in the world and someone finds out he or she is a Christian, they seem surprised.

The courage of Peter and John surprised the Sanhedrin. They did not expect such courage and I say leadership from such mindless guys who were not trained. Yet the disciples exhibited marks of leadership that were and are by all standards impressive.

I think the kind of leaders the church should produce are described in Philippians 2. Humble servants…
Peter Hamm on Fri, November 05, 2010

CS,

I for one am glad there are all those resources so those with a gift of leadership can “govern with all diligence”. Yes, there is an embarrassment of riches in the leadership development department, but not everybody has to avail themselves of every single one of those opportunities, do they?

Plus, leadership in the church seems to me to be the most neglected of all the gifts in terms of development, so I’m glad we’re finally correcting this.
Dr Bob on Sat, November 06, 2010

I want to get back to the credibility of a Pastor with an addiction. Having struggled through a porn addiction and being a pastor I have often wondered about the value of bringing your church through recovery. Realistically the church is full of people with bad behaviors, habits and addictions. Would your journey of grace and recovery bring hope to that congregation tobe able to openly admit that we are all fallen and on this journey of holiness together. Paul speaks of his struggle with his desires and following God’s will. A repentant Pastor living in the light, leading his flock to not be afraid to confess his sins one to another without fear of rejection or ridicule.
“If that’s the way the church treats someone who confesses their sin, then I will just continue to keep it to myself.” We preach grace, but we have no idea how to give it. We preach when you confess your sins he is faithful and just to forgive” but that’s God, not the church. hmmm.
Rev. K. A. Christian on Wed, November 10, 2010

I believe both living and the ability to lead goes together. From a Biblical viewpoint, the Apostle Paul gives us the instructions on leaders. These instructions includes both the ability and creditability to lead. If one is mising then the congregation would suffer greatly.

To answer your question Todd, IMO if a preacher/leader faulters in leading with both ability and creditability, then that preacher should sit down and not be a hinderance to the Gospel.