MondayMorningInsight.com > “Conflict? Ask Ken”: When Hiring a Pastor Gets Ugly

HOME | CHURCH JOB OPENINGS | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT US

church conflict

“Conflict? Ask Ken”: When Hiring a Pastor Gets Ugly

Orginally published on Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:00 AM
by Todd Rhoades

Today I’m happy to premiere a new weekly feature here on the blog called "Conflict? Connect with Ken", featuring Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist. Each week Ken will tackle a new question regarding problems and conflicts that are happening in churches across the country. (At the end of today’s blog you can find out how to submit your confidential "Ask Ken" question. Here’s our first question...Dear Ken,

Fighting has erupted over the election of a new pastor. We are a Baptist church and our bylaws require a 75% majority vote to call a new minister. For the past six months, the bylaws have been routinely ignored by the vocal minority until last night when, at a congregational meeting, the current candidate received 74.3% vote. Then you would have thought that the bylaws were written in stone along side the Ten Commandments. Fisticuffs broke out. Help!

North Carolina ---

North Carolina,

In just a few sentences you have highlighted deep problems. The fact that the bylaws are used only when it serves one side or the other tells me that the 'fight' is not about the candidate, but about control. When people can make up the rules as they go, a steady stream of conflict and behind-the-scene power plays inevitably follow. The focus has to change from struggling over a specific outcome to finding agreement on process. By way of analogy, the reason why our country got through the 2000 presidential election unscathed is because there was a recognizable process in place to resolve the issues. Our country did not devolve into civil war, as other nations under similar circumstances have, because the citizenry considered the process legitimate whether they agreed with the outcome or not.

The fact that fisticuffs broke out can be made to work in the church's favor. Everyone is undoubtedly in agreement that a line was crossed that should not have been. Recognizing that your church is in trouble may be the only thing that all sides agree upon. Given that this conflict has engulfed the entire church, including leadership, the board should call upon the services of a skilled congregational conflict resolution mediator / facilitator. A mediator can help the parties come to agreement on the steps that will guide the pastoral selection process from beginning to end. Happily, if accord is reached on this level, few, if any, will have a legitimate complaint regarding the outcome and the candidate who is selected. Moreover, a foundation will be built upon which both sides can begin to constructively resolve their other differences.

Ken

Upon Reflection . . .

After reading your comments on this subject, here are some follow-up comments from Ken:

Much of the discussion centered around the voting percentage that a candidate should receive when starting in a new church. Many thought that nothing less than a 100% vote was acceptable. Marta Allison (10/7/04, 3:33 pm) told of the church where her husband was called with 99% of the vote. But it turned out that the 1% against had a lot of influence in the church and local Christian community and made our lives and ministry a living hell. The person managed to influence a good part of the church members against us and the result was a church split.? On the other hand, Randy (10/7/04, 09:31 pm) told of his church?s present Pastor who received a 61% majority vote, providing this description: ?The church was falling apart, it had gone down from 600 members to 400. When he accepted the call, I thought this will never last. I was so wrong. The church grew in seven years to 6000 members. I think any candidate better know what the Lord is saying first, then worry about men and their votes.? One of the most incredible accounts came from Kenny Brown (10/7/04, 11:03 pm). He insisted on obtaining a 100% vote of confidence which he received three times ? before, during, and at the end of a church split centering around his vision for the church! You?ll need to read this amazing story for yourself.

Apart from the discussion of percentages, an underlying premise to the majority of the postings is that an incoming pastor needs strong and solid support by the new church. Paul (10/7/04, 3:09 pm) provided sound practical reasoning. Referring to the case under discussion which required a 75% majority before calling a new pastor, he wrote, ?25% against you being the pastor could easily become 50% or more if you make a decision that requires some change to the "norm". 90% acceptance or more would be ideal. I wouldn't settle for anything less.?

LESSONS

By way of analogy, a general lesson to be drawn from the postings is if you are inevitably going to lose chips of good will after the honeymoon period is over, make sure you have an abundant supply to start with to stay in the game.

Let me add a second. Given that problems will eventually surface, a key question that should be asked during the candidating process is, ?when problems arise, how does this church typically handle them ? both within the congregation and the board?? Establishing agreement on how you will resolve difficulties before they arise will make their resolution all the more likely.

-----

Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist, earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United States. If your church needs individualized help, please visit Ken's website or call 301-253-8877.

To submit a question and connect with Ken, click here.

This post has been viewed 617 times so far.

TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 41 Comments:

Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 10:56 AM

Just a personal comment about when hiring a pastor gets ugly. If I were the candiate I would not want to accept a call to a church that would only give me a 75% vote. You would start out with 25% not in favor of your call. I would want over 90%.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 11:53 AM

I have to agree with Sandy’s comment. If they can’t get 75% to agree on the call, then the new pastor is really starting out with a major stumbling block. This church seems to have some deep seated leadership and control problems that need to be resolved before a dragging a new pastor into the mess. Professional and/or denominational help is sorely needed here.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 11:58 AM

I agree with Mr. Saunders, I would never move to a church with less than 90% vote, I might even stretch that to 95%. In this situation, you would have 1/4 of the church against you from the beginning, that could be too much of an obstacle for a new pastor to overcome.

One thing for sure about this situation that goes beyond the issue of the by-laws use or misuse, is that by vote of the congregation, there is not approval on this prospective pastor. Now the church has the opportunity to return to the table, and become proactive in preparing the congregation for the next candidate. This might mean an Intentional Interim to guide you through the process of rewriting your by-laws and restructuring the entire process of pastoral selection and presentation in order to build a stronger base of unity before the candidate is presented for vote.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:07 PM

I would assume that there is a Pulpit committee who is dedicated to finding a new Pastor. It would be best that the Pulpit Committee be on one accord before approaching the congregation. If the rule states that the majority must win at 75% then, the winning percentage is 75%, and nothing less than that. However, with 1/4 of the church voting against the new Pastor, I forsee problems. I would suggest that these rules be revised with a higher percentage. In the future, it would be best for the entire church membership to be in complete agreement on who the new Pastor should be. And when all is said and done, this question must be asked, “Was God edified in the method of selection of the new Pastor.”
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:17 PM

The situation described is a good example of one of the flaws in congregational government. The one man one vote sounds good, but it assumes that everyone has equal knowledge and equal spiritual preparation to address the difficult issues that ministries/churches face. If the leadership has prayerfully arrived at a consensus on a pastor, hopefully 100% of the board, then part of their job is to help the congregation understand how they got there. The government we use should help us accomplish the ministry God has given us (functional structure). The structure issue should probably be addressed before the pastor issue. Though very difficult and volatile, great things can happen when we humbly work through the difficult issues we are sometime called to sort out.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:31 PM

Allowing an entire church body to vote is very dangerous anyway. Seeing how most churches allow peolpe to vote because they are members. Being a member of a church does not mean he/she has spitual insight. However, if that is the system you created then live with it or make a change.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:40 PM

I was called to be the minister of music in a church with heirarchical governance - the pastor was in charge of hiring a musician. I knew I was coming in to a situation where there was major conflict over traditional-vs.-contemporary music. I am skilled in the more traditional side of church music (I have a master’s degree in organ performance and church music.) As the decision was up to the pastor, I had an organ audition, but not a choir audition. That should have been a clue!

When I arrived on scene with the choir, there was a significant contingent that decided they were not going to work with me - they did not want me there, and were angry that their previous music director had been, in their eyes, forced to leave.

In addition, I worked to make room for diverse music in the church. I love all kinds of music - thanks be to God! I developed an excellent working relationship with the part-time director of the contemporary music program, and also served as his accompanist. While I did bring peace to the music department as a whole, it was probably a mistake to take the position without the unconditional support of the choir.

In the meantime, I went back into electrical engineering, and am happily serving a small Episcopal Church that really needed an organist, and I have a priest who also has her own master’s degree in music (music education)! I am now where I am most needed, and I have strong support within my new congregation. What a difference! I would like to return to full-time music ministry at some point.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:54 PM

If a church is having blowups when a pastoral candidate is brought before the congregation, it can be evidence is that there are 2 churches meeting in the same building. By “2 churches” I mean that there are 2 different philosophies of ministry—both fighting for supremacy. Before another candidate is brought in, the church needs to be in one accord in this area. When a church clearly defines who they are, where they are going, and how they plan to get there, they may loose a few. But that’s good; because a house divided against itself will eventually fall apart, and a united house is the only kind that God can mightily work through.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:58 PM

I have to agree with the fact that beginning a new position as a leader anywhere with 25% of the followers against you is problematic. However, I am surprised that the only comments seem to be of the nature “This is what I would do if I were the candidate....”

North Carolina was not the candidate, but one of the members of the wounded congregation left in the community affected by the ruckus that took place. He is a member of the church that will now have a hard time witnessing to the lost because people in the church could not resolve their differences without physical assault on one another.

This problem is not a local problem confined to the church written about in the initial letter. This is a problem for the entire body of Christ. Do I believe that there will never be conflict in the church? No, because Jesus gave us a formula for dealing with conflict (Matthew 18:15-17). Do I believe that all Christians follow Jesus’ prescription? This story alone is enough to negate that assumption. I would rather call all who read this comment to pray for the unnamed church in North Carolina - and all of the other local churches plagued with power struggles, flawed policies, bitter members, and leaders that are a major part of the problem rather than the solution.

North Carolina, I pray that the love, peace, and forgiveness of God enter the hearts and minds of the members of your local church.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 12:58 PM

I have been a area pastor for over 25 years ...in Baptist Churches...I have found very effective what is called a “ vote for a vote” I always want to know what a vote is before it is taken ...thus holding up divisive actions.For example a simple survey could have been taken ahead..."Would you like to consider calling pastor X “as our pastor ...would your vote be yes or no”? What concerns would you like to share with the pulpit committee before they proceed ?
This method has proven very helpful
Thanks
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 1:05 PM

I, too, disagree with church voting, as I do not see it in the Bible. If you want to be technical about it, the believers in the early church were “of one heart” and had “all things in common.” The times my husband and I have candidated at voting churches (for music ministry), we have requested 100% vote and would not go without receiving it. We stood in faith that God would be faithful to give us unity before accepting a call to serve, and He was! With 100% vote, we didn’t have to face those who were against us from the start.

As the pastoral candidate that received 74.3%, I would be thankful it wasn’t 75%! God has a better plan for His servant than that! And the church in question needs a lot of prayer support and straight-forward admonishment from the Word!
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 1:10 PM

Churches need pastors during these times:

I was in a similar situation, 100% recommendation by the search committee, 100% by the elders, a 90% approval requirement, the vote gave only 86%.

Thy leadership was at a loss. I offered to pastor for several months while they worked through the conflicti. Though I felt that God had called us to serve this congregation, during that time I supported their dialogue and kept my own wishes out of the loop.

Eventually, the congregation authorized the elders to resolve the crisis as they felt appropriate.

Until the end, as they discussed with people the various issues they weren’t sure they could keep us, which they finally decided to do.

In all of this I was given the opportunity to show a leadership style of hands off my own interests, prefering the health of the church body.

It gave me a great headstart, the beginning of a wonderful ministry in that church. There was a membership of around 100.

The percentage is not that bad. If our candidating brother could and would want to be a part of the solution it would be a victory for the whole congregation.

I disagree with the above percentages. After 5 years, when a group really knows the man, a vote of confidence could be that high. Well, we all know that the whole process as we do it today can be so “frought with flesh” its a wonder it ever works.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 1:25 PM

When my Dad was called to the church he served as pastor for over 30 years, he felt very impressed that the vote needed to be 100%. The day of the vote came and the signed ballots were counted. 100% voted to extend the invitation for him to become their pastor. After he was settled in, one ballot was brought to his attention. The “no” box had been marked with an X and then erased. A new X had been marked in the “yes” box. Realizing that this one vote would have kept him from accepting the job, he went to the elderly lady to whom the ballot belonged. Mrs. Clayton (not her real name), would you mind me asking why you changed your “no” vote to a “yes”? “Well, she said with a slow country drawl,I didn’t much care for your sermon or the way you combed your hair, but God said you were the man, so I figured I had better go with his choice.” Dad went on to serve that church for over 30 years and saw 26 young people commit their lives to full-time ministry during that time. Mrs. Clayton was one of his strongest encouragers. The church grew from about 40 to 750. My brother and I are are in full time ministry and another brother is a nurse and when Dad died last Christmas, that new sanctuary was filled with people that were glad Mrs. Clayton changed her vote!
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 1:32 PM

It is time for the church to spend time on their direction and vision before calling a pastor to take them there. The vision is divided as is indicated in what gifts the new pastor needs to bring. An Intentional interim with mediation and communication skills would be my suggestion. Take time to discuss where you are headed before trying to hire the lead pastor.
Posted by Bernie Dehler

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 2:05 PM

Instead of focusing on percentages, how about focusing on the issues? What are the objections to the candidate? Godly reasons or personal reasons? You need to get below the surface…

...Bernie
http://www.freegoodnews.com
Posted by Peter Dodge

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 2:51 PM

All I have to say is this: Where is the fruit? Is the ministry saturated in PRAYER? In both the personal lives of the members and the church as a whole, prayer and spiritual fruit are a MUST. I have no doubt that if the local church cannot decide on a pastor, there are much larger issues to be considered and they are not ready for a pastor. Maybe an interim position should be created, and a search committee formed to fill that position. Allow the interim pastor (possibly one with gifts in conflict resolution) to help the church work through the conflicts, and by all means, change the divisive nature of the churches by-laws, especially if they are not biblically based like so many churches have done.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:10 PM

If I was the canidate, I would run like the wind! 25% against you being the pastor could easily become 50% or more if you make a decision that requires some change to the “norm”. 90% acceptance or more would be ideal. I wouldn’t settle for anything less.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:33 PM

My husband was hiried as a pastor in a church where the votes in his favor were 99%. We thought with this support in favor my husband was the “man of power for the hour” and a sign of God’s will for our lives. But as it turned out to be, later the 1% against had a lot of influence in the church and local Christian community and made our lives and ministry a living hell. The person managed to influence a good part of the church members against us and the result was a church split. My advice to the candidate is: Don’t go to work for this church at all! A temporary leadership with a good adviser is, in my oppinion, the way to go first. The new pastor should not be the person panished for this incident.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:40 PM

There are two principles at work in this situation:
1 The by laws of the church. If they are in place then presumably they have been approved by the membership and the governing denominational body of the church in question after much prayerful thought and after the seeking of God’s will on this matter. If that is true then the candidate did not receive a sufficient majority.

2 Regarding the mention of fisticuffs, surely no properly run church meeting that is meeting under the control of God should come to physical blows or even metephorical blows. The question must be settled in accordance with the by laws of the church presuming point 1 is in order.

3. The candidate should not consider taking up the appointment as there is disagreement in the church over this matter and consequently when he takes up the appointment he will immediately alienate at least 25% of the congregation. If it is the Lord’s will the vote will be near to 100% in favour.

4. The congregation needs to prayerfully examine itself before God because it would seem that they are in danger of falling into the trap of each one following his own will as outlined in Romans1 with a danger of consequential abandopnment of the church by God. I would urge the congregation to put themselves right with God and each other and then start the process of selection again bearing in mind the guidelines given in scripture on such matters and the need to be united before man and to be seen to be following God’s will.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:44 PM

I find myself asking one lone question. What is the will of God???? There is to much thought put into the vote for or against. If David had taken a vote at Ziklag the people would have stoned him, if Moses had taken a vote, they would have gone back to Egypt. If Jesus would have taken a vote the Disciples would have kept Him from the Cross… and all of us would have had to deal with a vote that was the will of the people and not of God. If a man of God is called to a place and a people he should not look to the people for his vote of confidence but to the One who called him. The problem most churches face is they vote on a populace vote and not on a Godly direction. This system is flawed, we need to seek the Face and direction of the Father. The Bible teaches us that God will give us Shepherds after His heart. If this candidate is called to be there he needs to seek the face of the Father for Divine guidance, for 3/4 of the congregation seem to feel that this is the man called for the task. The Gospel is good news, what kind of news does this send to a community that needs to hear from the Father and not from the politics of man.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 3:56 PM

Sounds like the church needed professional help and guidance from an intentional interim pastor for a while before even beginning the process of calling a pastor. There are issues involved that show their ugly heads when voting on a pastoral candidate.

One such group that is seeking to help churches that are in trouble is Titus Ministries, Prescott, AZ which is training interim pastors to lead churches into biblical health during the interim process.
Their web-site is titus-ministries.org.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 4:02 PM

Wow! A fight in church among church members. If I were the pastor that was being voted on I would have serious concerns over my possibly soon to be congregation acting very un Christ like. Where’s the love that we are supposed to have for each other?
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 4:04 PM

One of the biggest problems that I see in this situation is the absence of prayer and seeking God’s direction for the church. If the congregation had been praying I don’t believe that things would have deteriorated to the point of becoming violent and physical. Like so many churches today, God has been totally programmed out of the pastoral selection process. I do pray that this congregation focus in on moving together toward unity and then pray together that God would send his choice of undershepherd to them. I will be praying for this congregation!
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 4:21 PM

My heart goes out to this Church. Many have added their comments on strategies/advice in resolving or approaching this situation. In reading some of these, I believe the answer has already been presented. Prayer. We toss this verb out, yet it is the means by which we have been granted direct access to God AND His POWER. God doesn’t want His Church to be in disunity. But only prayer can change the heart of predisposed person toward their current course of action to reconsider and take a different and godly one.
HOWEVER, my main concern in reading the comments posted is with the number of pastors who hold the prerequisite in “having to have” a 100% voter approval before they sign on board. WHY? What is the purpose in “holding out” for 100%? Is it possible that this exposes our own personal issue with pride?
Truly consider this point. Is not having a 100% voter approval rating based on THIS PREMISE? The premise: everyone who turns out for that vote is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT with GOD in their personal walk. Every person has successfully been able to set aside their preconceived ideas and possible prejudices to CLEARLY HEAR GOD’S VOICE, and with ONE MIND, they all vote affirmatively for God’s will (whatever that might be.)
Do we realize this is the premise we are realistically thrusting upon a Church? Have we missed the fact that although the people showing up for the vote are probably all saved, do we really believe that every single one of them (the voters) is spiritually right, AND spiritually right AT THAT MOMENT (the business meeting) to accurately discern God’s will?
WOW, maybe God wants us to do a serious reality check. Where does a Church exist where 100% of its membership is spiritually right and absolute in their spiritual discernment where on any given Sunday EVERY VOTING MEMBER is able to disentangle themselves from their own challenges of life (and possible areas of active & ongoing sin) and be able to accurately discern God’s will? Do we realize this is what we’re asking from God when we demand a 100% vote?
What’s the real purpose of that demand anyway, self-gratification? That may seem harsh, but what is our core motive when we ask this demand? Do we not take into consideration that there are possibly a number of “saints” in the voting body who are not living right and are spiritually unable to clearly hear God’s voice in any matter, let alone God’s directive to positively vote for you?
It’s amazing to think that the one account posted of a person accepting a position may have turned it down had that lady not erased her voting mark from negative to positive. I believe God knew the predisposition of the pastor candidate who demanded the 100% vote(and yes, I believe it is a demand on our part and an unhealthy one at that) and would have walked away from that Church, although it proved to be a successful time of ministry for him and the Church. Praise be to God for His mercy in changing that ladies’ mind. Praise be to God FOR THAT LADY who was able to hear God’s voice, cut threw her own prejudice about not liking the message or his haircut, and responding in the way God wanted her to respond. But, in asking for 100% vote, aren’t we demanding God that 100% of His people gathered in that session are all going to be 100% spiritually right and correctly discern God’s voice?
My concern is for anyone reading this article and then the following comments to get “hooked” on the notion of having to have 100% voter approval before taking an assignment from the Lord. Now, if God grants you a 100% voter approval as He did for the lady who shared about her and her husband’s music ministry, THEN CELEBRATE IN HUMILITY that wonderful, tangible affirmation. But what does one do if one gets less than 100%, say 98%, or 92% or 90%? Does one look away, OR DOES ONE TRULY LOOK TO GOD for HIS RESPONSE AND DIRECTIVE.
Let me toss this last thought. My predisposition would be in agreement with the majority of commentators who have stated that going into a situation with more than 1/4 of the people against you is a highly undesirable situation. BUT, here is my one caveat: Is this God’s situation for that Pastor Candidate, or one of us out there?
In the natural, I would probably encourage someone to think long and hard before accepting this type of situation with that voting outcome. However, I would counsel that person to prayerfully seek the Lord, and quite possibly with fasting as well. This is not a decision based on what you see. This is a decision based on faith, and faith that is guided by the Holy Spirit’s leading.
For anyone who is looking for their next ministry position, my counsel to you is to not place any expectation about what you want regarding percentages. I do feel you can bring this issue to the Lord, and let Him place a percentage in your heart. Be sure to bathe and cover this area in prayer so you are able to look past your own predisposed position and discover God’s heartbeat on this matter. Then, armed with that number in your mind and heart, imagine your faith as the number comes back in the process at the exact number you discerned in prayer. Maybe God will give you 100%! Rejoice, because it doesn’t get any more affirming than that. But maybe God doesn’t grant you 100%, and could it be that God wants you to grow in some way, maybe in the area of dying out to one’s self, and receiving less than 100% is His first step.
Hopefully, you will hear my heart on this matter. I don’t want to offend anyone, but I seriously want to challenge us on this issue and prayerfully bring this to the Lord and ask Him, GOD WHAT SHOULD MY EXPECTATION BE ON THIS MATTER? That’s my main point.
To the Pastor Candidate for that Church in North Carolina, you are not in a desirable spot. More than likely, if the vote is retaken and let’s say you get to the above 75% requirement, I would put serious prayer along with your spouse into this matter. Let’s say you get a new vote, or a by-law change, the Church does extend an invitation, and you accept.
My strong exhortation to you is to become a person of dedicated prayer covering your spouse, your family if you have children, your ministry, your new church, and for God’s protection and intervention. You have a tough road, but that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong one.
The truth is, GOD DESPERATELY needs someone who will take the message of hope, salvation, and speak it in a manner covered in the spirit of love. Are you that person? Is this what God is requiring of you and your spouse and family to do? If so, recruit prayer warriors to pray for you EVERY DAY.
It could be that you will be called by God to be the one who takes many hits in bringing this Church together. How about the rest of you who are looking? Not every assignment God brings our way is an exciting one where EVERYONE is looking forward to our ministry. The question for us to discern is: Is this God’s next assignment, whether good, bad, or ugly that He wants us to take. Someone has to do it. Are you His chosen instrument “for such a time as this.”
In all we do, may we serve the Lord well in perfect obedience, even when it’s not a flattering assignment.
Posted by

Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 5:04 PM

Sounds to me like the pastor who got 74.3% is lucky he didn’t get more!!!!

Page 1 of 2 pages

1 2 >

Post Your Comments:

I'm a chronic workaholic, love to connect leaders with other leaders, and would consider myself somewhat of a 'maven'. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you'll like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step.