Pastors are better prepared for church conflict if they know when it’s more likely to come.
—Speed Leas
Pastors have learned not to be discouraged the week after Christmas or the week after Easter. Those Sundays are traditionally the lowest in attendance. Coming as they do immediately after high points in the church year, the unprepared pastor sets himself up for despair if he doesn’t recognize the pattern.
In the same way, pastors are better prepared for church conflict if they know when it’s more likely to come. Certainly, pastors know that church conflict is coming—it has been part of the church since day one. Knowing when it’s apt to come is a different matter and one that pastors are wise to be alert to.
1. Easter
During Lent and just after Easter, the number of calls for help received by the Alban Institute rises substantially: up 28 percent over the normal number of calls per month.
Easter is usually the busiest time of year—even outdoing Advent and Christmas. Usually during Lent, a church offers more programs and worship services, and attendance is up. All that creates more stress and tension, and any underlying or submerged conflicts more easily surface.
In addition, when Easter arrives, church leaders realize that there are only a couple of months, before the summer slow-down, to take care of problems that have developed in the program year.
Perhaps the youth sponsors have been sporadic in their efforts with the high school group. The associate pastor doesn’t want to ignore this problem until the fall—otherwise he may end up letting it go another year. Better to nip it in the bud and start the next year’s program in a fresh way.
So he asks another couple to become youth sponsors and encourages the present sponsors to retire when summer comes.
The present sponsors are hurt and use the occasion to complain about the work of the associate, about which they’ve not been happy for some time. Pretty soon, the problem of high school sponsors becomes the entire church’s problem—another Eastertide conflict.
2. Stewardship campaigns/budget time
In November and December of each year, I receive several calls from pastors and/or lay leaders about what they discovered during their annual stewardship campaign: when the church callers spoke with the members of the congregation about their pledges, they not only received less money than was expected, they also learned that members were unhappy. The every-member canvass has uncovered some deeper problems in the church, and the problems may have little to do with money.
In a Michigan congregation, giving had dropped off markedly, and the position of some staff members was in jeopardy. So the board decided to call on all of the members of the church to request their financial support. They trained a cadre of leaders to visit every member: they wanted to listen to each member’s hopes and concerns for the church and then tell them what the church was doing, inviting them to increase their pledges.
When they asked for volunteers to make the calls, few people at first responded. When they finally did get enough callers and made the calls, the board was surprised at the response: the callers heard a great deal of dissatisfaction from the members—about the pastor’s preaching, the staff’s sloppy work in religious education, and the general dreariness of the worship services.
The board had been unaware of members’ feelings because, in general, church members usually did not speak directly to one another, let alone the board, about their dissatisfaction with the church. The every-member canvass provided a channel for their complaints.
3. Addition of new staff
The most frequent type of conflict in congregations is between the pastor and key leaders in the church. This is particularly true when a new pastoral staff member is called. New staff means not only changes in relationships and procedures but also changes in directions and priorities.
I worked with one congregation that had two interim pastors during its two-year search for a pastor. The interims were passive leaders who seldom interfered with the leadership of the church. As a result, eight laypeople emerged to carry the church through the interim.
These eight people were delighted when the new pastor arrived—at last they wouldn’t have to spend so much time at the church; they would get a rest as somebody else handled all the details.
But when the new pastor started to handle the details, the eight leaders found themselves sorely disappointed. The pastor made decisions all right, but differently than they would have. What was worse, he tended to listen to the views of others more than he did theirs!
4. Change in leadership style
In another congregation, the pastor was introverted—quiet, reserved, bookish, but thoughtful and caring. The problem was he followed a highly extroverted pastor who loved being with people in the church and in the community.
Members felt awkward having to take the initiative in conversation with the new pastor, and they became impatient for the new pastor to warm up to them. In fact, the pace of his interaction was simply different than what they were used to, and that took some adjustment.
When a congregation hires, either deliberately or by mistake, a pastor whose leadership style differs from his predecessor, conflict is a near certainty.
Leadership problems are often “followership” problems. For a leader to lead effectively, people must follow effectively—people must actively cooperate with the pastor’s style of leadership.
For example, some families experience more turmoil when their children become teenagers. It’s not that the parents have changed, but that the children, now teenagers, have. They no longer want to follow the style of leadership their parents have been exerting for years. Leadership is only as effective as its followers.
Often congregations will choose a new pastor with the express intent of picking someone who offers a style of leadership different than the previous pastor—let’s say the last pastor was an authoritative leader and the new pastor is participatory (a not unusual occurrence in congregations).
In this scenario, things may go well until there is a congregational crisis or major decision. Then people become anxious, and they revert to old patterns of behavior—and they expect others, like the pastor, to follow suit. They want the pastor suddenly to become decisive and bold. At this point, everyone becomes confused.
5. The pastor’s vacation
While the pastor of one Presbyterian congregation was away on his honeymoon, the session (church board) met to discuss his leadership. They decided it was serious enough to phone him in the middle of his honeymoon; they told him a delegation was being sent to the presbytery to ask help from the committee on ministry.
Ouch!
Is this typical? No. But if serious problems are festering in a church, it’s not surprising that the dissatisfied group will gather to discuss them while the pastor is away.
Also, some churches depend unduly on their pastor, so that when he or she does take a vacation, the people subconsciously panic. One group begins squabbling with another, or the associate says something offensive from the pulpit (“If you’re not giving a tithe to this church, you’re not fully committed to Christ!”), and people react. Before long, someone feels compelled to phone the vacationing pastor to tell him things are falling apart.
6. Changes in the pastor’s family
Often changes in a pastor’s family, even for the better, will cause conflict in the congregation.
One pastor for years devoted his primary energy and attention to the congregation. The congregation got used to his seventy- and eighty-hour weeks.
When the pastor’s daughter reached her teens, he and his daughter began quarreling more. She began to get into trouble at school. The pastor was concerned.
So he started to spend a great deal more time at home, and he began attending a weekly therapy session with his wife and daughter.
Well, the church started feeling neglected. Even though the pastor still put in some fifty hours a week, the congregation complained about his flagging interest in the church.
7. Introduction of baby boomers into the church
Over the last ten years, a new generation of churchgoers has begun to participate in congregational life. These so-called “baby boomers” tend to be more liberal than previous generations, and they live significantly different lifestyles: typically both parents work full-time, they have little free time, they hold only short-term commitments, they tend only to support programs that meet their needs, and they tend to be more forthright and outspoken.
This has presented many a problem to churches. Women’s groups find it difficult to attract working women; program planners are annoyed by the baby boomers’ unwillingness to make long-term commitments; committees are aggravated by baby boomers’ commitment to excellence, especially when it comes to programs and facilities for children, because excellence is a lot of trouble!
All this can be aggravating to the older generation.
8. The completion of a new building
When the Alban Institute researched pastoral firings, it discovered that after the completion of a new building, clergy were vulnerable to firing. Several factors are involved:
The leadership (including the pastor’s) has centered on a focused and specific task. Once completed, a new kind of leadership is required—usually leadership focused on program.
If the transition is not made, the church, which had experienced itself as successful, now feels it’s drifting. It wants the kind of energy and focus it had during the building project. Unless it finds a new focus, the frustration gets directed into a conflict.
9. Loss of church membership
Conflict is more likely when a church endures significant drops in membership. Membership is a scarce resource for many congregations; as resources—money or people—dwindle, tension increases.
Members of declining congregations often pin the blame for their problems on a person or group, even though the people they blame may have done little if anything to contribute to the difficulty.
In upstate New York, a downtown parish had suffered a slow, regular, and significant decrease in attendance for ten years. The pastor, who had been with the church for fifteen years, knew that part of the decline was due to urban renewal, which had removed much of the housing near the church. In addition, two new congregations of the same denomination had been started not far away in the suburbs.
Still, he was convinced that the real reason the church had been losing members was because of three older women of the congregation: They had controlled the church for twenty years. They resisted everything he tried. They were hostile and forbidding. They intimidated anyone who wanted to try something new, whether it was a new church school class, a program for the homeless, or innovations in worship.
While many of the members agreed that the problem was this formidable troika, an equally large group thought the problem lay with the pastor: he didn’t pay enough attention to the older members, he didn’t call on the members frequently enough, and he was too involved in controversial social issues about the poor.
Which group was “right”? Both and neither. But the pain of membership loss was so great, each felt the need to blame someone.
I pointed out to both sides that although the women and the pastor could each improve how they worked in the church, the membership problems were largely caused by factors beyond the control of any individual or group. Consequently, I encouraged them to identify ways they might strengthen their church’s work in their community and discouraged their attempts to improve each other.
10. Increase in church membership
On the other hand, an increase in church membership can also trigger conflict, because as congregations grow, their personalities change. People happy with the old personality usually don’t like the new personality that emerges.
As do others, I classify congregations into four sizes: family, pastoral, program, and corporate.
Family size. These congregations average less than fifty on Sunday morning. They tend to be single-cell organizations with only one dominant leader—usually not the pastor, rather a long-term and active member of the congregation. Family-size congregations tend to look to the past, to what has or has not worked, to guide their decisions.
Pastoral size. These churches average 50 to 150 people on Sunday morning. They have several cells, or primary groups. These cells tend to relate to each other through the pastor.
The pastor links the congregation. Usually it is the pastor who calls on newcomers and acquaints them with others in the congregation. He orients them to congregational life and helps them find a place to land—a committee, a Bible study, the choir. Furthermore, the pastor is about the only person who attends every church function.
The pastor, then, wields more authority in a pastoral-size congregation than in the family-size church. People look to the pastor for information and advice.
Planning in pastoral-size congregations is still determined by what has happened in the past, although not as much as in the family-size congregation.
As a church moves into the pastoral-size category, the matriarch or patriarch will lose his or her power to the pastor, and this transition will not be easy.
Also, as the congregation swells, it begins functioning in distinct groups. Those who formerly liked the unified, family feel of the church are likely to complain.
Program size. These congregations have from 150 to 350 on Sunday morning. Since duties exceed the physical capabilities of a single pastor, the church hires other staff and delegates more work to boards and committees.
Not everyone in the congregation works directly with the senior pastor, but some relate to the music personnel, others to the Christian education director, and others still to the associate pastor. Thus, to some the congregation feels like an “organization” rather than a church.
Exigencies often determine planning. Members get in trouble with one another for scheduling two events in the same room on the same day, or attempting to take the young people on a weekend retreat on the Sunday of the all-church picnic. Planning worship is more complex, since the interests of the music personnel, the preacher, and the worship committee all have to be coordinated.
(Actually, congregations with more than 150 on Sunday morning can function like a pastoral-size church. Such a church usually has few committees and offers few programs. The church essentially revolves around the Sunday morning worship service.)
The shift from a pastoral-size congregation to a program-size congregation is likely to be more disquieting still. The changes will be more visible, thus threatening to more people.
For example, changing from one worship service to two will likely be the most disturbing change for the church: “The church will no longer be unified.” “We won’t be able to see our friends if they attend another service.”
Usually congregations restructure their boards when they move from pastoral- to program-size congregations. The governing board no longer works as closely with all aspects of the congregation’s life. Some committees report less and some not at all to the governing board, and consequently many people feel increasingly alienated from church leadership.
The pastor restructures his schedule as well. He or she can no longer visit everyone who is sick and shut in, or meet with every committee. That is felt as a real loss to everyone, including the pastor.
Corporate size. These congregations, with more than 350 people on Sunday morning, are even more hierarchically organized than program-size churches. The pastor now relates only to program staff, certainly not all staff. Often the pastor focuses more on his unique ministry (usually preaching), and others have the administrative and program responsibilities.
Often cadres, groups, special ministries, or even pastoral-size churches emerge within the corporate-size congregation. The pastor becomes a symbol who holds the entire congregation together.
Planning is now more complex, but in addition to responding to the needs of the moment, corporate-size churches have the time and staff to base their decisions on future contingencies.
Many of the same tensions experienced in the previous size change are felt here as well.
What can be done to better deal with these predictable times of conflict?
Knowing the stages of grief helps; after all, nearly all of these occasions have something to do with letting go of something past.
Also, knowing that conflict and stress, at low levels anyway, are helpful for congregations, helps reduce some of the tension brought on by these transitions.
But in any event, just knowing what may come helps.
A football receiver often knows he’s going to be hit immediately after he makes a catch. Knowing that doesn’t lessen the impact of the hit, but it does help him to hold on to the ball and sometimes even maintain his balance, elude the tackler, and gain some extra ground.
Likewise with pastors, if they know when the church is likely to be hit, they’ll more likely be able to turn up-field for a few extra yards.
Copyright © 1997
