The world of email, blogs, and other electronic forums have complicated and magnified the potential for rumor, insinuation, and false reports. Sometimes church leaders get drawn into wars of online words, and before they know it, they've inadvertently done more harm than good.
One of the most dramatic cases of this began with a negative Google review of a church in the Pacific Northwest. A former member of that church posted:
"Although this church touts itself 'Garringberg Grace Community,' I found very little 'grace' there. This is a legalistic church where if you don't do things their way (the 'only' way), you will have challenges. Garringberg Grace shuns former members/attendees without giving an explanation. You will be fine in this church if you never question the elders or pastor. If you do not believe, worship, and evangelize 'their way,' they will let you know you are not a true Christian. Be wary of churches that proclaim they are one of the few remaining churches that preach the Word. Do not be deceived."
Other church members tried to rebut the negative Google reviews with positive reviews. One example: "Many churches today are entertaining goats instead of feeding sheep. Churches should be preaching repentance and faith (Acts 20:21). Garringberg Grace holds fast the faithful Word, that we may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict (Titus 1:9). Our pastor preaches the gospel and faithfully upholds the Word of God. My wife and I have been blessed by over ten years of his preaching and guidance. Our salvation is nearer than when we first believed (Rom. 13:11)."
As often happens in open online forums, the vocabulary got nastier and more mean-spirited. Anonymous posts began appearing: "Garbage church. No interest in teaching the word of God. The pastor just wants to mindrape the members for personal gratification."
Eventually the pastor and the church elders waded in: "To Whom It May Concern: Almost a year ago the woman who wrote the review and her husband were biblically put out of Garringberg Grace Community with a group of families and individuals that were engaged in ongoing divisive slander. After attending many churches and leaving them in a similar manner, the group has now splintered. Many of those in this fractious group no longer attend church at all. It is sad to see that she remains steadfast in her destructive behavior. For obvious reasons we exhort you to heed the following Scriptures: Prov. 6:16-19, 28. Rom. 16:17-18. Titus 3:9-11. It is our prayer that there will be no more wood thrown upon the fire of contentiousness, strife, and discord. If you have any questions, please contact the pastor and elders."
When the negative reviews continued, eventually the church's leaders appealed to Google to remove what they considered the most offensive comments. And, indeed, Google did remove some, including the one that started it all. But removing reviews on one website didn't solve the problem.
The author of the original review launched her own blog, "Garringberg Survivors," where she posted more of her own criticisms and stories of "spiritual abuse" from others who had been hurt by the church. The blog became a gathering place for the disaffected, the critical, and those who felt mistreated.
In one post, the blogger wrote: "I was abused as a child. I remember reaching out to adults who 'dissed' my story. They either didn't believe me or did not want to get involved. I get very angry when people sit by idly and allow abuse to continue. I remember so many times in my childhood asking God, 'Why is this happening to me?' Could God be using my childhood story for a higher purpose? I don't know. All I know is that somehow this story has taken off. I did not plan this. When I posted the review, it was to give my story, share my church experience so that people could come to their own conclusions. I did it because I wanted to protect others from what we had gone through.
Responses that are too defensive may backfire and only escalate the hostilities and extend the damage.
"Years ago, I went through counseling and one of the most difficult concepts for me to fathom was that adults heard my story and did nothing. Let me repeat, they heard the story and made the choice to do nothing. There were things they could have done with that information. But they didn't want to get involved. That is what ate at me for a year after we left the church. Nobody was doing anything. There was no one to turn to. The elders noticed no problems—we had already asked them. There was no one above the pastor to call. He was at the top of the chain. Google was the only thing I could do. I felt if the information in my review could help just one family, just one person, then it was worth it."
After three years of attacks, including charges that the church practiced spiritual abuse and that a known sex offender in the church was given access to children and the nursery, the church leaders went to court, suing the blogger and two other co-defendants for defamation.
This, of course, only heightened the sarcasm and venom on the Internet.
"Well, it's mighty Christ-like of the church's leaders to sue a woman over a damned Google review," wrote one anonymous commenter. "Talk about immature temper-tantrums! This is insane. Stop now before the Internet destroys your church. Wait, oops, too late."
The church proceeded with the lawsuit.
"It's an attempt to ruin us," the pastor said. "They have said the worst possible things you can say about a pastor, about a church."
While free speech is protected under the First Amendment, defamation is not. The church had to prove the blogger's words were both false and written to harm the pastor's reputation. The blogger's attorneys argued that she has a right to free speech and that there was no evidence of malice in the posts online. They argued that she wrote the truth to the best of her knowledge.
The judge decided in the blogger's favor, and the church had to pay for the blogger's court fees.
The old saw says, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." But in this case, words wound up hurting the church's reputation and costing $50,000 in legal fees.
Church fights spilling over into the public arena is not new. After all, in 1517 Martin Luther posted something on the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, thinking he was inviting academic debate over 95 points of practical theology. Nailing that document to the church door was the equivalent then of posting them on the Internet. The ideas were out there for everyone to read.
Church leaders cannot control what their people write on the Internet. In extreme cases, as the Garringberg story illustrates, a church can dismiss people from the congregation for being contentious, but that won't stop them from contentiously writing whatever they want online.
As a result, churches are on notice that they need to be wise in their responses to electronic attacks. Responses that are too defensive may backfire and escalate the hostilities and extend the damage.
Prone to Misunderstanding
Michael Brown was the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2005 when the overwhelming force of Hurricane Katrina swamped both New Orleans and, apparently, the abilities of FEMA to provide disaster relief.
In late August, on the day Katrina struck, Brown sent an email to a friend that read, in part, "Are you proud of me? Can I quit now? Can I go home?" He later wrote to a friend on September 2 that he could not meet her because "I'm trapped now [as FEMA head] … please rescue me." And at another time, "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire, you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god."
By November, Brown's email messages were made public after an investigation into the federal government's handling of the Katrina disaster. Critics claimed that Brown's emails displayed a lack of professionalism. While there certainly were other factors in this political drama, Brown eventually resigned his position, a casualty of his agency's shortcomings and the power of email to reach far beyond the intended recipient.
The same dangers lurk in the church, as one North Carolina pastor discovered.
"The e-mail seemed a simple request," he said. "In a sermon I'd mentioned seeing the Matrix movies. That had piqued the curiosity of this young woman, who'd read a review of the movie on a Christian family-values website and now wanted to know if I thought it was appropriate for Christians to see R-rated movies."
The pastor shot off a quick reply—saying that he saw nothing wrong with watching an R-rated movie if you can handle it, and many mature Christians find such "real-life" exposure helps rather than harms their spiritual walk by getting them out of "the Christian bubble."
"I hit the send button without another thought," he said. "By the end of the day, however, things had flared into a B-grade horror flick.
"Her reply charged me with condoning pornography, violence, and perversity. I was the one 'in the bubble,' she said, and I needed to consider what the Holy Spirit inside me was thinking while I watched such filth."
Her email ended: "Obviously I'm at the wrong church. You cannot be my pastor. I have no respect for you. You'll never see me at church again."
"The whole thing left me stunned," said the pastor. "My first reaction was Ouch. Did I mention she was 13 years old? (Double ouch.) And often babysat my daughter? (Triple ouch.) Then her mother and brothers dove in. The whole family e-agreed: I was an arrogant jerk with a questionable commitment to Christ who needed to repent of viewing seedy segments of the culture for entertainment. What I'd thought to be solid relationships deteriorated instantly."
What had gone wrong? Several things, starting with wrong assumptions (easy to make with email).
"I'd big-headedly assumed the teen believed I was right and wanted to watch R-rated movies herself," the pastor said. "I was wrong. I failed to discern the seriousness in her question. My flippant reply assumed that what was a small matter for me would be a small matter for anyone else.
I hit the send button without another thought, but by the end of the day, things had flared into a B-grade horror flick.
"I re-read my email response to her through the eyes of someone in love with Jesus and whose commitment to holiness led her to question our R-rated culture. When I did that, I couldn't believe what I had written. Of course it had offended. It would have been a miracle had it not offended.
"The smartest thing I'd done, it turns out, was to copy the teen's mother to my reply. I'd initially not planned to pull the mother into the conversation—after all, it was just a simple question. I cringe to think what it would have looked like had I not cc'd the mother and suggested the teen discuss such matters with her mom, 'the person most responsible for your Christian upbringing.'"
Once the pastor more clearly understood the dynamics at work, how was he to deal with the mess he'd created? There were several tempting ways to avoid the issue, he said. One was to return to the keyboard and defend his original position: "You misunderstood me; I'm really right." Another was to dismiss the family, at least emotionally, and encourage them to find another church more consistent with their worldview. Yet another temptation was to apologize and take the blame and tell the family they were completely right.
But the situation was a bit more complex than any of those tempting alternatives would fully address.
"Truth was I had been playing fast and loose with the risks inherent in any culture apart from heaven. In my zeal to engage pop culture, I'd dropped my guard to the danger of becoming numb to the threat it poses. I needed the reminder—and the humble-stick struck me all the harder having been swung by a 13-year-old girl.
"But it's also true that glimpses of God can be found in culture, even those parts that are seemingly opposed to him. Hollywood movies and pop songs reveal God even when they don't intend to, and they tell the human story in ways that our need for God comes through loud and clear. Though I'd presented this conviction badly and with a poor attitude, I could not toss it away just to salve this conflict. But this was clearly too much to put into an email."
So he wrote back to the girl and her mother: "I came across as a jerk because I can be one, and because I wasn't careful with my attitude and words. Can we get together and talk?"
A couple days later, the pastor met with the family. He apologized for his hasty and cavalier email, and he asked the girl what she felt when she heard him mention the Matrix in the sermon. And what concerns did that raise for her?
He listened. Along the way he affirmed her desire to live with a pure heart and to keep the values of God's kingdom front and center. When she and her mother had both been heard, he talked about his twin desires (1) to love God and (2) to reach people who are caught up in the world's culture. How those two commandments are lived out, simultaneously, often causes disagreements among Christians.
"I told the family that lovers of Christ could disagree on these things and asked them to respect my conviction as I would respect theirs. I also gave the family my permission to seek a new community of faith since I'd given them reason not to respect me.
"Surprisingly, they refused. They apologized for being quick to judge me, and they asked my forgiveness and said they would remain in the church if it was okay with me.
"We hugged and ended up laughing at ourselves. Email alone does not suffice in complex dynamics like this. Sometimes words have to be spoken that the people we love can hear. This family remains active in the church, and they serve to remind me of my need to avoid cultural compromise as well as self-centeredness."
—Adapted from Ministering to Problem People in the Church by Marshall Shelley (Bethany House, 2013), a new and updated edition of Shelley's classic Well-Intentioned Dragons, due out November 2013.
Marshall Shelley is editor of Leadership Journal.
Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
