After the split, the rumors flew. It was amazing how much people knew that was true. It was more amazing how much people knew that wasn’t true.
Gerald, the associate pastor, knew more of the story than most church members did. Gerald was present when the board chair confronted the senior pastor with his indiscretions. The pastor had mismanaged church money, and some personal items had been charged against church accounts.
“Let’s let him pay the money back,” Gerald had pleaded, citing the family’s financial straits after one child’s long illness.
And Gerald was present when the pastor, refusing to repent and repay the money, took a third of the congregation with him and started another church. Gerald pastored those who remained.
Later Gerald was accused of many things, some in absentia, some to his face: Gerald was unsympathetic, he betrayed the pastor, he should have intervened sooner, he failed to confront the troublemakers on the board, he instigated the split, he was unqualified to lead.
A few of the charges came from people who remained with the congregation, but much of the rumor mongering was on the street and in the community. Everybody was getting sullied.
Gerald discussed the situation with a few key leaders. They were learning still more than had been shared publicly: The money juggling preceded the child’s illness. Some who left the church knew about the finagling, but had turned a blind eye.
None of it was illegal, exactly, but a report of unsound business practices might put the church’s standing with the bank in jeopardy.
Would telling the whole story stop the hurtful gossip?
After some debate, Gerald and the leaders agreed to keep it to themselves. They didn’t want to implicate others who had left the church. Or those who had stayed.
But the cruel rumors hurt.
Question: Under what circumstances, if any, should Gerald break his silence?
David Handley: Any pastor who is accused has a strong impulse to defend himself. Acting on that impulse usually makes things worse. The key issue is, What serves the best interests of both churches? Since it requires “purity of heart” beyond our natural instinct, I’d say that Gerald needs to be under spiritual direction; to pray with a trusted colleague and examine his motives. Having done that, then the bottom line for me is full disclosure of the whole truth to the elder board. How much should be disclosed to the whole church? That’s more tricky.
Erwin Lutzer: The elders need to know. And they must develop some kind of a consensus about further steps. If people are totally believing lies, then maybe they have a right to know. Maybe you don’t give all the details, but you can indicate that there’s more than they’re aware of.
What do we do about the fact that a third of the congregation leaves and they’re believing the pastor? And believing lies about Gerald and the elders who remained? I think Gerald, and the elders with him, need to communicate with the elders at the second congregation, saying, “This is what we know about the situation. You had better know it, too.”
I think, at that point, your job is done. What those elders at the other church do with the information, that’s up to them.
Stanley Grenz: In questions of disclosure, the key consideration is always: Who has a right to know? And that is a question of church polity.
One key dimension of that is: To whom is Gerald accountable? Under whose authority is he ministering? Those questions become crucial, especially in a the context where lawsuits fly. We get into trouble if we disclose information to people who don’t have a right to know.
If this is an elder-led church, he needs to disclose to the elder board. If it’s a congregational church, he can disclose to the congregation, but only in a duly called congregational meeting, not simply disclosed in a worship service or through unofficial channels like the church newsletter. Only through legally constituted channels.
Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
