Pastors

THE SHADOW OF THE MIGHTY MEGACHURCH

“Come to our church this Sunday night to hear Rex Humbard,” the announcer urged over his church’s 100,000-watt radio station. “And for special music he’s bringing with him country music star Ricky Skaggs. That’s right, folks, I said Ricky Skaggs.”

“So what?” I demanded out loud to my car radio. “We’re having the ‘Converted Crooks’ Sunday at our church, and they play the ‘saved saw’ and the ‘Spirit-filled spoons.’ ” We had to look at this with a sense of humor. My husband was the pastor of a congregation of approximately 250 people, and there was no way we could afford superstars at our church.

I can praise God for burgeoning churches, for pastors building large ministries to further the kingdom. But statistics tell us most churches in America have fewer than one hundred members. What does the pastor of a little church do when a megachurch is nearby, one that can afford radio and television programs, full-page newspaper ads, and gorgeous buildings? How do we cope with the feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and yes, even bitterness?

When we began serving this church, we knew that fifteen miles down the road was fabulous Carpenter’s Home Church with its 10,000-seat auditorium. At first, we were in awe of the superchurch, but from seven years in its shadow, my husband and I have found several principles that help us cope:

-Understand our calling. We had to ask ourselves, “Has God called us to this place?” Since we felt he had, we rested in that and set about doing what he called us to do. That meant concentrating on the local needs. It’s easy to think, Compared with the superchurch, our church can’t do anything! and therefore not apply ourselves. With that attitude our church probably would not do anything for God.

-Realize who we’re working for. We aren’t working against the superchurch, we stress in our better moments, but with it in fulfilling the Great Commission. We both work for the Lord.

-Freely compliment the superchurch. When people ooh and aah over the superchurch or its pastor, we need to be big enough to hear the compliments without taking offense. Praying for that church’s success has a way of helping us maintain Christlike attitudes. It’s difficult to begrudge one whom we are consistently lifting up to the Lord.

-Free our people to be blessed by the superchurch. Their counseling staff, singles’ ministry, Christian school, radio station, and other ministries are superb. Our people can benefit and still help in our ministry. Yes, we accept that some people will leave our church for the superchurch. We can’t let that disillusion us, because then we become the losers. Besides, the superchurch also has turnover, and their turnover is far greater than ours. The people are all God’s sheep anyway, and if we’ve helped them and they reach heaven one day, it won’t matter where they attended church.

-Remember the superchurch pastor faces magnified stress. The more people, the more problems. We take some odd comfort in the fact that he has more staff tensions to solve, larger mortgage payments, and staggering utility bills to worry about.

-Learn from the superchurch’s successes. While many pastors have to travel hundreds of miles to visit superchurches to gain insights, we’re only a few miles away. We take advantage of this opportunity.

One Easter, our church service featured a guest concert pianist (no, it wasn’t Dino), and my husband preached a stirring Easter message. That afternoon the congregation ate dinner together, listened to musical groups from our church, and helped the children find Easter eggs. By late afternoon, everyone had left except a few families who were helping clean up.

“Want to go to Carpenter’s Home tonight and see their Easter extravaganza?” someone asked.

“Hey, sounds like fun,” someone else said.

“Let’s go together in the church van,” my husband suggested.

That night a whole row of us delighted in the magnificent presentation by the church’s 250-voice choir, fifty-piece orchestra, and cast of more than one hundred. I glanced at my husband, and his look said, “This is fabulous, and we’re a part of this body!”

As we left one of the twenty doors leading out of the massive sanctuary, one of our deacons spoke up: “I thought of a fund raiser for our ladies’ group.”

“What’s that?” we asked.

With a twinkle in his eye, he said, “Our ladies can stand in the lobby and rent binoculars.”

We laughed, but my thoughts turned back to the Christ-centered ministry we had just witnessed. I was convinced anew: We are all working for the Lord. If we follow him and keep our hearts pure, one day we will hear his words: “Well done, thou good and faithful [not famous] servant. … Enter thou into the joy of the Lord.”

-Kristy Roberts Dykes

First Assembly of God

Bartow, Florida

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

THE AGONY AND ECSTASY OF FEEDBACK

My preaching was getting better and better. People were captivated by my sermons every Sunday. I was nearing my maximum potential as a Christian communicator-at least I thought so.

My wife brought me crashing back to reality. “Darling, you have developed a couple of bad habits during your sermons that really detract from your content and presentation.”

Feedback. . . ouch!

I genuinely recoiled at the suggestion that I needed improvement. I was not at all certain I wanted to hear what she had to say. It was easier to see the church growing-almost every Sunday-than to acknowledge I needed to refine my skills.

Yet feedback is necessary, and we grow through it. But it is not always pleasant.

When I finally listened to my wife, I realized she was right. I had developed a habit of clapping my hands together to emphasize points. It seemed a nice touch, but I was hitting one ring against the other and creating a loud, irritating clank. And to help people through difficult points of Scripture, I was pointing to my head and saying, “We’ve got to think through this truth together.”

Hey, those were terrific gestures! I developed them myself. I had not stolen them from anyone! I really liked them.

Little did I know they were driving the congregation crazy. And no one would tell me except my wife.

In search of evaluation

With this in mind, and as part of a study program, I asked for evaluation of my preaching skills. I mailed evaluation forms to thirty-five people in the church whom I thought would be candid. Each one had heard at least two years’ worth of my sermons. The cover letter explained the project and emphasized my commitment to anonymity-no names on the surveys, stamped return envelopes.

My initial reaction to the feedback was anger and hurt. Though most of the feedback was positive, I saw only the negative. Why would these people hurt me like this? Who do they think they are? What do they know about preaching?

But once I began to think maturely about the situation, I realized they had done exactly what I’d hoped they’d do-give honest feedback. They cared enough about me to help me grow, even if the process hurt momentarily. Proverbs 27:6 helped me at this point: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.”

Also, I realized I had asked the opinions of perceptive and intelligent people who observe many public speakers in their careers. They were not about to give me answers that would not be direct and helpful.

I asked for evaluation of six areas:

 Do my introductions make a good first impression?

 Do I establish rapport with the audience?

 Do I reflect humility?

 Are my presentations conducive to learning?

 Am I logical?

 Am I biblical?

In each category my evaluators made helpful suggestions that would improve my sermons. Here is a sample of what they said and how I refined my sermon presentation accordingly.

1. A number of people said I needed to project my voice more during the introduction. I decided to give up some of the “service duties,” such as the offering, so during the early part of the service I could concentrate on my first few words. Through my friends’ feedback I realized I was not single-minded about the sermon when I walked to the pulpit. I now make a concerted effort to grab everyone’s attention during the introduction. I know this is basic, but I had lost sight of it.

2. I needed to improve my initial rapport with the audience by not talking down to them. So I became careful to smile throughout the introduction, use anecdotes that did not point to the audience’s frailties, and use the pronoun we instead of you. I did this by reminding myself during preparation time that we are in this growth process together.

3. The reactions were mixed on whether I reflected humility. But since a number of people commented on my lack of humility, I took their word for it. I asked God to purge me of any pride over the church’s health.

As I prayed and thought about this area, I also realized some people were misunderstanding my humor. My friends tell me my sense of humor is sardonic, bordering on caustic, and sometimes misunderstood by those who don’t know me well or don’t see the twinkle in my eye. I thought I was being witty, but I was perceived as sarcastic. For example, one day when I was stumbling over my words and not explaining my point well, I said, “Intelligent people will understand me.” I meant it to be funny because I obviously was at fault, but many in the audience interpreted it as a put-down. I began to delete some things that were better left unsaid.

4. There were no negative comments on how conducive my sermons were to learning. People said I was honest in admitting my shortcomings. They perceived me as wanting to learn, and this inspired them to learn. This confirmed I was on the right track in sharing myself in my sermons.

The evaluators also perceived me as being biblical and careful to delineate between my insights and God’s wisdom. They considered me logical and structured in what I had to say. This positive feedback actually made me work harder to ensure I remained on track.

Breaking out of a closed system

Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, says, “A life of total dedication to the truth also means a life of willingness to be personally challenged. The only way that we can be certain that our map of reality is valid is to expose it to the criticism and challenge of the other map-makers. Otherwise, we live in a closed system … rebreathing our own fetid air, more and more subject to delusion.”

People tell me I have become a better preacher since I asked for evaluation. The feedback pointed out areas where I did not know I needed to grow and confirmed strengths I thought I had. Indeed, the process has been so helpful I am compiling another list of people to survey. I intend to have people evaluate my preaching on a regular basis for the balance of my ministry.

Oh, by the way, I have broken those two habits to which my wife alerted me. But just to make certain she is still paying close attention, I’m developing a couple of new annoying habits. I’ll see if she can spot them.

-John Vawter

Wayzata Evangelical Free Church

Minneapolis, Minnesota

TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE SURVEYS

To be most effective, a survey requires careful planning and analysis. Offering counsel on how to obtain reliable feedback through a sermon survey is Virginia Vagt, director of research and planning for Christianity Today, Inc.

Surveys provide not only comments on where to improve but also two uplifting results: what your people gained from your sermons, and representative feedback. Representative comments-from a cross-section of church people-help keep you from placing undue weight on the scathing individual comment that comes to every pastor from time to time.

To get started, I recommend a written, one-page, anonymous survey focused on a specific sermon. It is easiest for people to respond to something concrete, such as this morning’s sermon. And you will gain specific feedback. Here is a sample survey. (An actual survey would allow space for answers.)

Sermon Survey

The pastor is seeking feedback from people within the congregation. Please take a minute or two right now to complete this survey. Thank you.

1. Overall, how would you rate today’s sermon?

__Excellent      __Good      __Fair            __Poor

2. How would you compare today’s sermon to most of the pastor’s sermons?

__Better      __About the same      __Poorer

If today’s sermon seemed better or poorer than usual, why?

3. What are the main points you remember from today’s sermon?

4. What, if anything, did you gain from the sermon?

5. What, if anything, did you think was weak about the sermon?

6. Do you think today’s sermon will change your life in any concrete way? (e.g., change an attitude, cause you to do anything differently, etc.)

__Definitely yes      __Probably yes          __Maybe      __Probably not

If yes, what do you think will change?

7. If you could tell the pastor one positive thing about his/her sermons, what would it be?

8. If you could give the pastor one suggestion about sermon content or delivery, what would it be?

9. Please add any other comments you may have about today’s sermon or other sermons.

10. Are you:  __Male      __Female

11. Your age:  __Under 30      __30 – 49    __50 or over

12. How long have you attended this church?

__Less than 1 year      __1 – 3 years      __More than 3 years.

Suggested procedures

Number of surveys: Regardless of the size of your church, fewer than twenty returns may not be enough feedback, and more than fifty per Sunday is not necessary to get representative opinions. You won’t get every survey back, so pass out twenty-five to fifty.

Distribution: Pick one or more personable and trustworthy people to distribute the survey.

I suggest these people approach individuals as they leave the sanctuary, asking them if they would like to help the pastor by taking a few minutes to complete a survey on today’s sermon. (Because of the recall questions, it will be most accurate and helpful if people complete the survey right away.)

The persons should hand them out to a mix of young and old, men and women, leaders and nonleaders, and new and long-term members. The survey distributors can personally collect the surveys or tell people where to place them. A cardboard box nearby marked SURVEYS would ensure anonymity.

The distributors should thank people for their time.

It’s possible that a few people may not be honest or fair, so I recommend surveying a cross section of church members on at least three or four Sundays.

Tabulating and analyzing the results: While you may want to just read through all the survey forms, tabulating the answers gives you a better understanding of what the feedback really means. You will see what percentage of your respondents felt positively or negatively about the sermon.

Some tips:

-Use a blank copy of the survey to record your tabulations and analysis.

-If you see major differences in the way people answer based on age, sex, or length of time at your church, you may want to tabulate each group separately. For example, separately tabulate surveys from male and female respondents, or those under thirty and those over thirty.

-On questions 1, 2a, and 6a, find percentages for each answer. Save these percentages and compare them to the answers to your next sermon survey. If the next message is a different type, and you receive a significantly higher or lower score (more than 10 percentage points), you can conclude something about your congregation’s receptivity to these two types of sermons.

-On the remaining questions, it would be helpful to count the number of times a response is repeated. For example, on question 3, count which point in your sermon was remembered by the greatest number of people and which was remembered by the least number of people.

Throughout the tabulation, pay attention to the repeated comments. These represent the typical response to your sermons. Don’t place lots of weight on the single complaint. Perhaps you can’t help taking such comments to heart, but remember, they represent only one person’s view, not the church’s as a whole.

Using the results: Think back. Using question 3 again, was the most remembered point the first point? Did it have the most graphic image associated with it? There may be more than one reason why it was most remembered. These reasons will tell you something about your congregation and how to best communicate with them.

The results may make intuitive sense to you. They may not. If there is something truly baffling about the results to any question, you may want to talk it over with an elder you trust. It’s always helpful to have more than one interpretation of survey results.

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

SHOULD I GO BACK TO SCHOOL?

Thinking about advanced studies? In this age of extension studies, D.Min. programs, and the general openness of graduate schools, many church leaders are considering a return to the academic world for further education and training. Is it right for you?

When I was wrestling with this issue, I realized my reasons for continuing education were as important as my choice of school. Below are some of the questions I asked myself.

Do I have a specific goal in mind? Melanie wanted to learn Spanish fluently in order to minister in a Hispanic community. John acquired a master’s degree in counseling beyond his M.Div. so he could open a practice. Albert entered doctoral work in theology so he could teach in a seminary. What do all of these people have in common? They all had a clear idea of why they were studying. They had seen a need and were offering themselves to fill it.

I need a clear sense of vocation to reenter the student life; otherwise I’m wasting precious time and money. Unlike the undergraduate world, the graduate world offers no “generic” studies. Graduate study is focused on specific topics or research, and hence I should have specific reasons for undertaking it.

Do I have the support of family and church? Graduate school requires more than personal effort and sacrifice. It requires the support of my loved ones in terms of love, patience, and cold hard cash. Time and finances will be taxed heavily. The family, congregation, and denomination must be aware of this or they might quickly lose patience with this new student. Supporting a student is not easy. When church and family are willing to help the returning student, the effort can be joyful, but they should be aware continuing education is a costly undertaking.

Is this an escape from the church? A number of clergy go back to graduate school because they want to retain their ministerial status but are unhappy in parish ministry. The icon of the scholar-priest is an attractive one, and many saints have lived that life.

The problem is that the academic world has all of the vices and torments present in parish life. Scholars have their own politics, infighting, and pettiness. The parts of congregational life that I might like to flee are probably waiting in another form on campus.

I must find peace within myself in my ministry before I change it, not after. Otherwise I’ll be like the man who “fled from a lion and a bear met him” (Amos 5:19).

Am I fixed in my own ideas? If I am not willing to change my thinking, then why pay people to try to change it for me? Study should not only inform our faith, it should challenge and transform it. There are some subjects about which the unbeliever knows a good deal more than the Christian does. A student must be willing to hear strange ideas from odd sources and wrestle with them in the light of the gospel.

Am I trying to glorify myself? The acquisition of degrees is a source of pride. Additional letters after my name may look smashing on the church bulletin or resume, but they do not bring me one inch closer to Christ. Certainly, anyone who enters graduate study aspires to honor, but there must be other reasons for getting a degree as well. Otherwise I am seeking my own glory and not that of him who sent me.

Degrees are the modern equivalent of the broad phylacteries and fringes of which our Lord spoke-not bad in themselves, but potentially dangerous. Before enrolling in a class, I must ask myself, “Am I doing this for anyone besides myself?” The honest answer is the beginning of my education.

-Gregory P. Elder

Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church

Del Mar, California

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

IN THE PASTORAL PASTORATE

The benefits of the rural church far outweigh its disadvantages.

A visitor from a large city shook my hand after the service. “Isn’t it ridiculous,” she said, “that this little church even stays open? The smartest thing would be to shut it down.”

I suspect many people would agree with her.

I would not.

Rural churches offer great opportunities for witness and ministry. By their very nature, they have positive qualities that are difficult to develop in an urban setting.

But for some reason when the rural church is mentioned, more people think about problems than about potential. They have visions of infighting, minuscule budgets, and maligned, underpaid pastors. Perhaps from the vantage point of a large urban church, the small rural church seems far removed from the center of Christian mission. But in my years of rural ministry, I’ve seen the powerful witness and ministry of the country church. Many notions about the country church need adaptation.

Myths

Most people assume rural churches are small churches. But are they? Sometimes, but not always. I am pastor of two rural churches, one with twenty-four members and the other with ninety-nine. In our denomination, 68 percent of the churches have fewer than seventy-five members, and many of these churches are found in urban areas. Just being rural does not mean small.

Well then, at least we know the members are all farmers. Think again. One of my frustrations is guest speakers who come loaded with farm humor and animal illustrations. These speakers seem to expect people to arrive for church straight from the pumpkin patch.

Farming is important to the economy of our area. My churches are in the center of the potato industry, and the parsonage is surrounded by a huge potato field. Some church members are farmers. But most are businesspeople, teachers, housewives, trades-people, and so on. Even the farmers are businessmen with huge capital investments and complex operations. The vocational makeup of a rural congregation can be as diverse as in any urban church.

The young people all move away. Many do. Rut many stay in the community or return after university because they are looking for a rural setting for their family. My experience is that just as many young people stay in a rural area as do in an urban area.

Small churches can’t grow is one of the most serious myths surrounding the rural church. Once the pastor believes it, the people in the church become convinced. Then the myth becomes self-fulfilling. It needn’t be so.

Once these myths are dispelled, we can look honestly at the problems and potential of the country church.

Idiosyncrasies

Often rural churches function without long-range goals. When I arrived at my current pastorate, neither church had even an annual budget. The only “budgeted” item was my salary. No long-range plans directed the churches’ ministries. Expenses were planned “one day at a time.” At best, evangelistic campaigns were planned three months in advance.

Part of the problem is that the average stay of a rural pastor is short-in our denomination thirty-three months by my calculation. That means a child growing up in a rural church will have had seven pastors by age eighteen. Five-year goals cannot be seriously considered because pastors know they won’t be around that long, and the congregation knows it too.

Little or ineffective outreach is a second problem. The rural church tends to expect the pastor to visit the members regularly and to make a nuisance of himself with the sick and elderly. Visiting nonmembers too often may cause jealousy: “They’re not paying his salary!” Likewise, the Sunday school becomes the means of educating “our” children, not the tool to reach out to others.

Third, I find rural churches are often slow to prepare for growth because they don’t anticipate needs. The church nursery is a good example: “We don’t need a nursery, because no small children attend our church.” People sometimes miss the cause-and-effect relationship.

I well remember the first Sunday school meeting I attended here. The junior high teacher complained that her class was down to two students, and one of the two was not attending regularly. The superintendent’s solution was simple: “We’ll close that class until more students start attending.” Of course none did until a new teacher took on that age group and went after a class.

Part of the problem is that “everybody knows everybody” in a rural area, so the members feel they would know if there were anyone else who would come to church or Sunday school. Frequently they have written off those they “know” wouldn’t attend.

A fourth problem is poor congregational self-image. The pastor leaves after two or three years, and people assume he must not like the church. The city churches attract the guest speakers and put on the special programs. Denominational events are held in larger towns. People in rural churches begin to think, Something must be wrong with us.

I visited a man who told me all pastors prefer urban churches. When I protested, he made a good point: “When did you last see a pastor move from an urban church to a rural pastorate?” I couldn’t think of any.

Fifth, a survival mentality holds back some rural churches. Even though survival often motivates evangelism, it is the wrong motive. On the one hand, the church is desperate for new members “or the church will close in ten years.” On the other, repairs and renovations to the building are delayed “in case the church is closed in ten years.”

During my first year here, one woman in the smaller church commented at every meeting, “Well, the church will be closed in five years anyway.” In that atmosphere, it was hard to encourage a lot of enthusiasm. Finally I went to her privately and said, “Listen, if the church is going to close in five years anyway, why waste more money and effort? Let’s close it this week.” She never made the comment again publicly.

Seven years later, the church membership is both larger and younger, and the building has been upgraded to enable the church to meet future community needs.

We had to remember to promote evangelism not just to maintain membership and keep the church open, but because people in the community need the Savior.

The “family compact” style of government can also be a problem. In many rural churches, one large family or several cooperating families control the affairs of the church, and they rarely want to relinquish control to newcomers (members of less than twenty years), the pastor, or anyone else.

When I first came, one family made up one-third of the Sunday morning congregation of my larger church. They taught five of eight Sunday school classes and included among their ranks the treasurer, the Sunday school superintendent, half the deacons, a trustee, the president of the missionary society, and the director of vacation Bible school. Such a consolidation of power is not unusual.

Finally, I’ll mention poorly maintained or furnished buildings, a problem related to the lack of long-range goals. Often there is not enough money to paint the church this year, so it is delayed until next year. But no money is set aside this year, so next year there still is not enough money, and so on. I didn’t know what a backache was until I sat in hundred-year-old pews! Some rural churches don’t even have indoor plumbing.

In the smaller of my two churches we recently completed several projects considered ambitious for a church of twenty-four members. We installed a rest room, replaced the windows, carpeted the basement, rewired the building, and renovated the entrance. None of these projects could have been accomplished had we not planned at least four years in advance to give us time to budget and raise the necessary funds. We are looking forward to upholstered pews in 1988.

Advantages

Far greater than the problems, however, are the advantages of rural ministry.

 Long-range goals are easier to set and carry out in a rural church because of the stability of the membership and of the community. The only person moving in many congregations is the pastor. In fact, long-range planning is, in my experience, the easiest way to make a significant difference in a rural church.

I have found five-year goals most effective. They may not seem very long-range, but in a rural church accustomed to a new pastor every thirty-three months, five-year goals have a huge impact. They signal that there will be some stability: Maybe this pastor will stay until the goals are met. Such goals also indicate carefully planned changes, not just the demands of another impatient pastor who expects immediate changes in the church’s ministry or building.

The most positive result is the church gains a sense of mission. No longer do they view themselves as just a subsidized organization that is going to close someday; they are a church ministering to the community’s needs in Jesus’ name.

Because of setting and publicizing five-year goals, we have successfully completed building projects, trained new Sunday school teachers, assembled a resource library for youth leaders, begun three new Sunday school classes, hired a part-time secretary, and employed a college student in the summer months. Meanwhile, the membership of both churches has increased.

 I have great opportunities given me by virtue of my role. In rural communities, the pastor often benefits from the reverence for the pastoral position that has built up over the years. I can build bridges to people in the community through everything from community fairs to wedding showers. I’m afforded contacts with people through strong family ties. Often almost every resident of a rural community will file into the church for a funeral, while in an urban area only family and close friends will attend. A funeral director recently told me “The number of people attending a funeral is inversely proportional to the size of the community where they live.” These and other events give me many opportunities for ministry and outreach.

 In a rural church, small things can have a great effect on people’s attitudes. I’ve seen a poor self-image changed markedly by my visibly thankful attitude as pastor. When I let the church know I love the community and each one of them individually, parishioners have a much better attitude toward working with me to accomplish goals together.

Even simple gestures like seeing that veteran Sunday school teachers have a month or two off each year can work wonders in their attitudes toward serving. I try to encourage my congregations by helping them to see that theirs isn’t an insignificant church at all. They can feel good about what their church can accomplish.

 Improving organization helps dramatically. If church meetings are always held during the Sunday school opening, or the church constitution was last amended in 1915 (if there is a constitution!), or the Sunday school picnic is a dreaded affair that springs up on everyone with only a week’s warning, improved organization can make a noticeable-and welcome-improvement.

I have worked to apply good organizational skills to make our ministry more effective. Take the nursery, for example. The operative plan was “If someone with a baby comes, we’ll get someone for the nursery.” With that plan, I wasn’t going to hold my breath until young couples came. Simply by organizing a nursery schedule, we announced to the community: “Couples with small children are welcome here.”

 People know one another well, and that promotes fellowship. Anyone not in church is missed. People know one another’s abilities and so are able to work together effectively. But most important, members know they are accepted into the fellowship of the church by people who know their faults.

In an urban setting it may be possible to live a double life, pretending to those at church that I live a good life during the other six days when I’m never seen. In a rural church, members know one another for the persons they are, because everyone sees them throughout the week. Although the world tries to tell us there is freedom in anonymity-people will like us if they don’t really know us-the Bible teaches that real freedom comes through honesty and forgiveness. That is the freedom found in the fellowship of a rural church, where everyone knows everyone-and learns to forgive.

 Opportunities for witness are abundant in rural society. Because “everyone knows everyone,” those who are not Christians clearly see the lives of church members. Of course, effective witness means church members must be transparent and honest in living their Christian lives. If they pretend to be better than they are, or make the church into a sanctuary of the saints, their neighbors will know them well enough to see their hypocrisy. But if the community sees that the church welcomes sinners, and that needs are met in that fellowship, it is a powerful witness for the gospel.

Unlike those in urban apartment buildings who must make an effort to befriend their neighbor, my neighbor a mile down the road knows me well enough to see the effect of Christ on my life. Often people here have become Christians not because of hearing a sermon or because of one particular presentation of the gospel but through the witness of church members over the years.

 This may surprise some, but rural churches have real opportunities for growth. They do not have to spend as much time preventing (or reclaiming) dropouts. In over seven years of ministry in my current pastorate, I have seen only one member drop out entirely. Thus we can afford to place less emphasis on member maintenance and more on outreach.

Even attendance patterns provide outreach opportunities. In many urban churches, it’s not unusual for a congregation with a thousand members to have seven hundred at worship. But in a rural church with sixty members, it wouldn’t be surprising to count one hundred regularly attending worship. Enrollment in a rural Sunday school is often considerably higher than the membership of the church. What great potential for growth! The prospective new members are already in the church building.

And people who would feel like outsiders in the church building already feel like insiders in their neighbor’s kitchen. So small groups provide other opportunities for growth. In my church of twenty-four members, we started three small groups, with one for people not regularly attending the church. Within six months, two people joined the church from that group.

 Rural churches are caricatured as institutions impervious to change, but I’ve found people open to changes and new ideas-provided I’ve consulted them. I also had to provide a positive reason for wanting the changes (“We will better meet the needs of the community”) rather than a negative one (“The way you’ve done this up to now isn’t working”).

People were candid when I suggested ideas: “Well, what we’ve done before hasn’t worked all that well, so let’s try the pastor’s idea.” This pastor’s ideas don’t always work either, but I’ve found people willing to try them.

 Improvement is readily noticed. People often have become accustomed to seeing things done in a second-rate fashion. The choir doesn’t practice; they just “run through” the anthem before the service. The Christmas pageant is expected to be a time when the adults will laugh heartily at the poorly rehearsed efforts of the preschool class.

But this provides a tremendous opportunity, for it makes excellence shine.

Seven years ago we struggled to gather a choir of twenty people to prepare a high-quality Christmas musical service. Once that small choir had practiced diligently for three months, we had to stump to get a good crowd out to hear them. But the last few years, we’ve had to provide two Christmas services to accommodate the crowd, and the choir has grown to nearly fifty.

It happened because people knew when they attended, they wouldn’t see an embarrassed choir that threw together a few pieces of music a couple of weeks before Christmas. They could invite their friends to a service where everything would be done well, to the glory of God.

As people in the church began to see their efforts were not second-rate but were honoring to God, our church’s attitude improved. People became enthused about inviting visitors, relatives, neighbors, and coworkers to a church where excellence had become a priority.

I enjoy pastoring these two rural churches, and I am convinced rural churches have no more problems and no less potential than any other church. I have been encouraged as the churches have grown, as goals have been met and lives changed.

Recently we invited a former pastor to return for a preaching series. He now pastors an urban church with a large turnover in the membership every few years. But twenty years after he left here, much of this congregation and community has remained the same. As people met him at the door, I reflected on the fact that many who were children when he was pastor are now Sunday school teachers and youth leaders. Those who were leaders twenty years ago are still here. And many who were not Christians have since committed their lives to the Lord, to a great extent because of his ministry. The congregation’s love for him, shared in their reminiscences, was obvious.

This is the joy of the rural church: its stability, its intimate fellowship, its relationship to the pastor. And this is the rural church’s great potential.

Stephen McMullin is pastor of Waterside United Baptist Church and Victoria United Baptist Church in Waterville and Victoria, New Brunswick.

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

BUT ITS’S NOT MY GIFT

Why would God give me a gift but not let me use it? The question kept nipping at me, and in response I opened the throttle wider on my Kawasaki dirt bike. My wife and I were headed home following a church service in one of the small villages near our mission station in Sierra Leone, West Africa. I had never felt such frustration, and I expressed it by rapidly dodging rocks and gullies on the dirt road until my wife begged, “Please, slow down.”

Growing up in a pastor’s home, I had learned early the importance of giving myself to the ministry. Like my father, I felt the call to preach. But now I was handcuffed in exercising that gift.

One frustration was the general confusion in an African village service: mothers move in and out to check on children playing outside, men walk to the window to spit, an occasional dog wanders in for a look around, the ever-present crowd of noisy children wait outside for a closer look at the white man. Sometimes in the hubbub I’d lose my concentration and forget what I was trying to say.

A bigger frustration was the language. After two years of learning one local dialect, I was transferred to a new position, which meant learning a different dialect. I had to preach in the trade language, and the parish pastor would translate into the local dialect. But the pastor didn’t always understand what I was saying.

That Sunday as I had begun, my wife, Edie, who was born and raised in Sierra Leone and understood this dialect, shook her head. That meant the pastor had mistranslated something, so I said it again. Again she shook her head. On the fourth or fifth try, he translated it correctly, and I continued. On the way home she explained what had happened. I had said, “I apologize that because of other commitments it has been some time since I have visited you.” His translation: “Do not be surprised if you never see me again.”

Another frustration was the cultural gap. I like to make my messages apply to situations people face, and I use contemporary illustrations whenever possible. One Sunday I preached a sermon on tithing and said that if a Christian cuts ten bushels of rice, one bushel belongs to God. Later the pastor told me, “Dale, what you said was true, but the people know you have never cut ten bushels of rice by hand, and your living does not depend on those ten bushels of rice. So they find it hard to accept what you have to say.” Though I was scripturally correct, culturally I could not identify. I began to feel unsure of my illustrations, and then the other parts of my preaching.

While the joy of preaching was slipping away, I was up to my neck in administration, an area in which I’ve never shown great aptitude. In my first pastorate, board meetings were sometimes called at the last minute, agenda items were left out, or calls weren’t made. Now in Sierra Leone I was our mission’s field director. The stateside director was an organized man who expected the same from the field directors. One of my requirements was to send a monthly praise and prayer list. Months began to have forty-five or fifty days. Since he was five thousand miles away, and mail took at least three weeks to arrive, there was little he could do.

Finally I found myself in a situation I couldn’t ignore. I was chairing meetings where we would work for several hours to make a decision, only to change that decision two months later because we had not considered all the angles the first time Both missionaries and church leaders were frustrated with the constantly changing policies, and they began to share their frustrations with me in a language anyone could understand.

Our director began to ask pointed questions about why, for example, we decided to pay a literacy teacher so much per class, then changed it to so much per student? We had thought paying per class was best. Then the teachers decided that instead of having one class of twenty students they would have ten classes of two students each, and make ten times the money. If we had thought about the situation longer, we might have seen the problem coming, but we had missed it.

Frustration reached the point where I wanted to scream, “Administration is not my gift!” and get out. But I decided to try to adapt, and in the process I learned I could strengthen a secondary gift.

First, I admitted my weakness. I sent letters to several friends in the States, explaining my situation and asking for their prayers as I “administered.” It wasn’t easy to allow them to see this weakness, but at that point I just needed help. God began to answer their prayers.

Second, I began to ask questions of good administrators. Other mission leaders in Sierra Leone also had to send reports, write evaluations, and draft budgets, and it seemed they were doing a better job of it than I. So I quizzed them on specific problems, and I received countless other ideas from Peace Corps volunteers and United Nations staff.

One idea I picked up was to schedule a regular phone call to my home director. This not only saved time, but it cleared the air better than two or three letters. It also made me more accountable. If a report was due on a certain date, I made sure it was sent before the phone call so I could honestly say, “It’s in the mail.”

Third, I analyzed my mistakes, such as the constant second-guessing of decisions. Our meetings involved staff from two distinct areas, and one of the groups gathered more often. While together they would discuss possible programs. Then at the next committee meeting they would bring some proposal. Because they were excited and appeared to have thought it out, we would adopt their plan. Two months later we would have to change what had proved to be a hasty decision.

So I began writing idea papers. As I visited missionaries, I listened to their proposals. On returning home, I would write a paper describing the idea and send it to each missionary before the next committee meeting. They had time to think about it before the meeting, so when we met, we weren’t making a decision on something we were hearing for the first time. We found decisions usually were not as urgent as we’d thought, and we began to make better decisions.

I would never be listed among Sierra Leone’s best administrators, but things did begin to go better. I even found myself liking some aspects of administration. Meetings were more enjoyable: We didn’t feel pressed into decisions, our discussions were better because people had time to consider an idea beforehand, and we had more time to pray together.

We began to project needs for vehicles five to ten years ahead, rather than from year to year, and as a result saved money and kept our missionaries from wasting so much time and energy with broken-down vehicles.

I started a monthly (well, almost) memo containing news and notes from around the field. These tidbits of information made people feel part of what was happening, and relationships functioned more smoothly. Somehow the staff was quicker to follow my leadership when I communicated better.

Now I have returned to a pastorate in the States. I enjoy being able to freely use my gift of preaching again. I doubt I will ever claim administration as my primary gift, but my heart no longer stops when faced with administrative duties. I am following the same formula I used in Sierra Leone: asking other people to pray for my administrative skills, bouncing ideas off them and listening to how they handle situations, and analyzing meetings to see how we work together and where improvements might be made.

Surprisingly, developing this secondary gift has enhanced my primary one. Being better organized, I’m usually finished with my sermons by Thursday now, rather than frantically typing them early Sunday mornings, as I used to. I am able to give them more study time and prayer.

Are there other secondary gifts I will be forced to develop? I don’t know, and to be honest, I’m not looking too hard for any. But if I’m ever again faced with that prospect, at least I won’t have to hide behind the excuse, “It’s not my gift.”

-Dale L. Leinbach

Missionary Church

North Manchester, Indiana

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

THE ENERGIZING POWER OF SOCIAL NETWORKS

Volleyball was to start at 7 P.M., and I steered my VW Bug into the nearly empty parking lot right on the hour. Pulling in behind me were the Johnsons, first-time visitors I had invited on Sunday.

“Hi, Pastor!” they called as they tumbled out of their car, decked out in the latest Puma fashions and eager to play. “Where is everybody?”

“We already have enough for a good time, and more are on the way!” I replied with a salesman’s smile. But inside I was furious and embarrassed. Eventually a few more people arrived, but the letdown’s damage was done.

The Johnsons stuck it out for six months and then left. I sadly made that “We missed you” phone call that followed the “We missed you” note. They said they didn’t want to get stuck with all the church work others had evaded.

Disappointing participation. We’ve all known it. A chairperson begins the meeting with those deadly words, “Let’s wait for a few more people to get here.” Or the question, “Are there any volunteers?” is met by bowed heads and silence. I began to seriously wonder, How can I energize a lethargic church?

Energy in relationships

My question drove me to a church consultant, who suggested I analyze the social networks of the membership. Friendships were functioning among members; people were getting together some on their own. Perhaps these networks could benefit the church.

The idea of fellowship along friendship lines is not new. Many of those closest to Jesus were relatives or friends of one another. Seven of the twelve disciples shared the same occupation.

Studies show today’s flourishing churches have strong relational networks. One study showed relatives accounted for 52 percent of new recruits; another 29 percent were close friends, and the remainder had some kind of tie such as a neighborhood or business connection. And numerous studies show people who drop out of church do so because of strain in their associational ties or because sufficient ties never developed.

I also learned about sociometry, a sociological science pioneered earlier in this century by J. L. Moreno that studies these relational patterns. He looked at the way a person selects potential friends and discovered interpersonal bonds in a group by counting the number of times a person is selected as a friend, charting the choice patterns, and noting mutual choices.

I wondered if the same type of study could help energize our fellowship. Armed with my new-found knowledge, I set out to analyze the younger middle-aged couples. I knew their social network had potential; they shared common values, interests, concerns, and friendships. But I had already made four futile attempts at starting a fellowship group among them.

My goal was to find leaders among them who could galvanize the group and draw in new members. I put together a list of fifteen couples and arranged to interview them in their homes. I introduced my purpose as a personal attempt to understand friendship patterns in order to help plan a fellowship group. Then I asked three questions:

-Whom would you enjoy spending time with in a fellowship group?

-Confidentially speaking, whom would you avoid?

-Whom among your unchurched friends would you feel comfortable inviting?

These were not easy questions, and sometimes I felt like a detective delicately interviewing key witnesses. I needed to be tactful, but I also had to probe enough to elicit sufficient and truthful information. Fortunately each couple was cooperative and congenial. My hour visit rarely concluded on time.

As you can imagine, most people were reluctant to answer the second question about whom they would avoid. But I clarified the question by explaining the difference between avoidance and hatred. Reluctant respondents then opened up, and some named more than one person they definitely would not seek out. The third question about inviting “outsiders” was the real stumper. I heard many say, “I don’t have any idea.”

I charted the results in a diagram similar to diagram 1. Couples were listed twice, once down the side and once across the top. Starting with couple A on the side, I scanned across the line and checked off the columns representing the couples they chose. The final column on the right is the number of selections each couple made. The bottom line represents the number of times a couple was chosen.

I thought after several years in the congregation I would know the pulse of member interaction, but my hunches fared poorly. My wife and I received the most friendship votes, but I imagine the scores were somewhat biased with me as scorekeeper as well as player. But the biggest surprise was next.

The first runner-up couple had been attending only nine months! But they were friendly and socially adept, and they embodied the values of the group. Just behind them was another outgoing couple, who had attended for only a year. The three top couples had mutually chosen one another, indicating the strongest friendship bond. None received any negative choices.

When I plotted the friendship connections, I discovered two subgroups among the couples. I also saw a few isolates, couples who received no friendship votes. In diagram 2, the center circle depicts the highest number of times chosen-for this limited example, twice. The next ring is for those chosen once. Arrows are drawn from one couple to another to show friendship ties. Mutual choices appear as a double line. In this way, the subgroups, the loners, the mutual choices, and the key leaders to connect them all appeared before my eyes.

Sociometry uncovered another surprise, which answered why the group had failed up to that point. In each previous attempt to begin a fellowship, I had asked four couples to each host a meeting. I chose them because they were long-time members, ostensibly loyal and with well-developed church friendships. But the analysis showed these people in the bottom half of popularity, and some were in the negative-choice group. Rarely does one of them attend the fellowship group even now!

Energy at work

Fortunately the newly discovered leaders were willing to lead a fellowship group. The group’s style and program was easily established because the leaders were the core of the social network. Each meeting averaged half of the fifteen couples I originally interviewed, and the enthusiasm of this group sparked two more groups to begin.

Sociometry is not without its hazards. I had to be careful not to engender a feeling of cliquishness or social superiority. That’s why I ruled out questionnaires. I needed to interpret the rather stark questions with pastoral concern. Tact, understanding, and patient explanation had to dominate my interviews. And of course, I showed no one my diagrams.

In churches with rapid turnover, the results of sociometry might have too short a shelf life. But for us it was worth the time and care. Finding the right social mix, we now have a thriving couples group. Yes, occasionally symptoms of lethargy still echo around the church. But like my one-time TV repairman brother, now I first check to be sure the social network is plugged in.

-Gary Ricart

Grace Presbyterian Church

Wayne, New Jersey

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

IS LISTENING WORSHIP?

It has been the boast of some that high churchmen go to their churches to pray and worship God, but that low churchmen merely assemble to hear sermons.

Our reply is this: that albeit there may be some professing Christians who are guilty of this evil, it is not true of the people of God among us, and these are the only persons who ever will, in any church, really enjoy devotion.

Moreover, if the observation be meant to imply that the hearing of sermons is not worshiping God, it is founded on a gross mistake, for rightly to listen to the gospel is one of the noblest parts of the adoration of the Most High. It is a mental exercise, when rightly performed, in which all the faculties of the spiritual man are called into devotional action.

Reverently hearing the Word exercises our humility, instructs our faith, irradiates us with joy, inflames us with love, inspires us with zeal, and lifts us up towards heaven.

Many a time a sermon has been a kind of Jacob’s ladder upon which we have seen angels of God ascending and descending, and the covenant God himself at the top thereof. We have often felt when God has spoken through his servants into our souls, “This is none other than the house of God, and the very gate of heaven.” We have magnified the name of the Lord and praised him with all our heart while he has spoken to us by his Spirit.

Hence there is not the wide distinction to be drawn between preaching and worship that some would suggest; for the one part of the service softly blends into the other, and the sermon frequently inspires the prayer and the hymn. True preaching is an acceptable adoration of God by the manifestation of his gracious attributes: the testimony of his gospel, which preeminently glorifies him, and the obedient hearing of revealed truth are an acceptable form of worship to the Most High and perhaps one of the most spiritual in which the human mind can be engaged.

-Charles Haddon Spurgeon

in Lectures to My Students

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN SAFETY

When destructive people head for another church, do you warn the next pastor?

Names and identifying details have been changed in this true account to protect the people involved.

Something was wrong with Faith Baptist Church. When I planted the church fresh out of seminary, I was short on practical experience but long on enthusiasm. The congregation grew slowly but steadily from a handful of people to a morning attendance of 140.

But now, four years later, there was a deadly malaise of negative, critical attitudes seeping through the church. And it seemed centered in the Bilo family

Claude Bilo, his wife, Vivian, and their two boys, Brad and Toby, had moved to town from out of state two years before. They joined the church and quickly became key leaders in our youth program. In a young church with many new believers, the Bilos were just the sort of Christians I needed. They had been believers for many years and were graduates of a Bible college. Even better, they’d been involved in a new church in their previous community, so they were no strangers to church planting.

But our relationship began showing strain. I wasn’t sure why. I assumed the problem was my pastoral inexperience. After all, they were both older than I, with more years in church work-a fact they had pointed out more than once.

I began calling Claude every week just to keep in touch. Claude was invariably polite, but he kept his distance.

My wife, Dionne, and I had Claude and Vivian and the boys over for dinner. The evening was pleasant enough, but after they left, Dionne said to me, “Do you think we’ll ever move beyond chit-chat with them? We don’t have this problem with anyone else in the church.”

I could only shrug my shoulders.

One Saturday morning Phil and Marge Kennedy came to see me. Their fifteen-year-old daughter, Amber, and the Bilos’ sixteen-year-old son, Brad, had become sexually involved. They were angry at both Brad and his parents, who they felt granted unwise liberties at home.

I assured them I would try to help them and the Bilos through this together without hurting the young people. Then I made an error. I mentioned that the board and I normally met for prayer on Sunday mornings before services, so I would enlist their help and prayer support, and we would work through this together. The Kennedys went their way, considerably more tranquil than when they came.

The next morning I told the five members of our deacon board the story, and asked for their prayers and counsel. Later, after the morning service, I took Claude aside.

“Claude,” I said, “the Kennedys were in to see me yesterday about Brad and Amber. I told the board this morning so they could pray about the situation. I want you to know you have our full support.”

Claude looked stunned, and then muttered a thank you.

That afternoon Claude called me at home. He informed me that he and Vivian were upset that I had so grossly mishandled the situation with Brad and Amber, and demanded to see me that night. With stomach tightening, I agreed to see them after the evening service.

When I arrived, they took turns attacking me, saying how wrong I was to tell the board about their son without getting their permission.

I learned some valuable lessons about discretion and timing. I mumbled my apology over and over, and finally left, exhausted. At least the problem has been faced, and I have apologized, I thought.

I went to work repairing the damage as best I could. I scrupulously avoided mentioning Brad and Amber to anyone else. The Kennedys, the Bilos, and the board agreed to keep the matter confidential. Both families insisted the young people would not see one another again. I met separately with Amber and with Brad, and they were open to what I had to say and repentant. Thankfully Amber was not pregnant. I was only too glad to be finished with the issue.

Not long after, though, I began to hear from other church members comments like these: “Are the Bilos still upset with you about the thing with Brad and Amber?” “I guess you botched that deal with the Bilos, huh?” The source of the information was always Claude and Vivian. They’d been furious about the possibility of other people in the church finding out, but they were the ones spreading the story!

“It feels like they’re using this as a weapon,” I told my wife one night.

Then Claude was elected to the board a few months later and used his position to take out his anger on me. Nearly everything I proposed, he opposed. Our minutes recorded many 6-1 votes.

After six months of frosty communication, my wife and I set up a meeting with the Bilos. They seemed eager to get together. We met at our home for dinner and spoke frankly about our damaged communication. Once again I apologized. Claude and Vivian graciously accepted the apology and offered their forgiveness. We prayed together, and Claude hugged me as they left.

Soon after, our youth director cornered me and asked, “Why are you praying that the Bilos would leave the church?”

“That simply is not true!” I said. “Where did you hear that?”

“From Claude.”

A few days later another church member asked me, “Pastor, I don’t understand why you never asked forgiveness for the situation with Brad and Amber.”

“I have asked forgiveness-many times!” I said.

“But Vivian said you weren’t sincere.”

From still another person I heard that Claude had told the adult Sunday school class that “I’m not sure the pastor is good for this church. He holds a powerful sway over new Christians. I hope we don’t have another Jim Jones on our hands.”

At that point, I called Greg Bradley, the board chairman, and asked for his help. I said I had attempted private reconciliation with Claude and Vivian, but now I was afraid anything I said to them would be twisted and used against me. We certainly couldn’t have them attacking me in a Sunday school class.

The board met six times with Claude and Vivian, and six times with me and Dionne, to hear our differing versions of the problem. They concluded that Claude and Vivian were using slander and outright lies to force my resignation.

Then Greg Bradley telephoned the Bilos’ previous church and was stunned to discover they’d been involved in an almost-identical conflict five years earlier and fifteen hundred miles away. Claude and Vivian Bilo had been asked to leave the church because of their critical, destructive attitudes toward church leadership.

After weeks of prayer, investigation, and discussion, our board saw nothing left to do but to begin the process of church discipline. Greg and two other deacons met with Claude and Vivian and urged them to stop the lies and attacks. Claude and Vivian didn’t feel they were doing anything wrong and refused to repent or quietly resign.

Eventually the board set up a special church meeting to recommend their dismissal, and again talked with Claude and Vivian, urging them to repent.

Saturday morning before the meeting, Claude showed up at my door and handed me a resignation letter. The board agreed to proceed with the meeting anyway, to give the church a complete explanation and to put to rest the charges that were flying around.

At the meeting, the church voted unanimously to accept the Bilos’ resignation.

Four years later, I received an unusual phone call.

Claude and Vivian and five other families had ended up at Trinity Bible Church, a new, independent church in town. Now one of these former members was asking my forgiveness and wanting permission to attend FBC again.

“Of course,” I said, “but aren’t you at Trinity?”

“Well, Pastor,” he said, “Trinity has disbanded.”

Disbanded? I’d heard of churches splitting, but dissolving?

I called the pastor and a key lay leader. Both identified Claude and Vivian as the prime movers in Trinity’s demise. The pastor confessed he had almost stopped to see me several times when the Bilos began to create problems, but he just couldn’t bring himself to do it.

I felt guilty that I hadn’t called him when the Bilos began to attend there, but at the time I was so weary of them and hadn’t wanted to rehash the issue with anyone. I’d also hoped a new church environment might prove healthy for the Bilos, and I didn’t want to jeopardize that.

But the main reason I hadn’t called, I realized, was fear-fear of a lawsuit. The night after our meeting, Claude had called Greg Bradley and angrily talked about “slander.”

Then, after hearing that Trinity had disbanded, I soon discovered the Bilos had started attending yet another church in town, Grace Community. The pastor of Trinity had moved out of state, so I was the logical person to warn Grace Community. But the same fears reappeared. The news was full of stories of disgruntled members suing churches and pastors. How could I help a fellow pastor by telling the truth-without jeopardizing the financial stability of the church, or my family? Could I actually mention the Bilos by name? If I couldn’t, would a cryptic warning only cause more problems? Where was the line between the Bilos’ right to privacy, and this church’s need to know?

It came down to a single wrenching decision: Should I call or not?

Calling for Help

This pastor’s perplexing situation may be unique, but it raises a host of common questions and issues that pastors face. In each, church leaders must wrestle with how much to say-and leave unsaid-about current and former members.

What happens, for example, when nominations for board positions roll around? How much can a pastor safely say about a potentially disruptive nominee?

Or many times, troublesome members are simply “prayed out of the church.” They are not reelected to the deacon board, or not asked to teach Sunday school again. Soon the family feels the cool reception and leaves. When that family winds up at another church, and a letter of recommendation is requested, what should the pastor say? No formal discipline was administered; nothing exists on a public record that could be safely reported.

Or how about the member who comes for counseling about entrenched problems with stealing, or drinking? The person later asks for a recommendation for a prospective new job. Does the pastor not mention what he knows, in hopes the job will be the big break for the person, a boost of confidence that will help him lick the problem once and for all? Or does he mention the problem, almost assuredly ruling out the person for employment?

Telling the truth has always been difficult, but in today’s litigious society it’s dangerous. To get help on the sticky issue of what pastors can safely say in delicate situations, LEADERSHIP decided to go to two sources.

The first is Tom Brandon, general counsel and regional director of the Christian Legal Society. Here is his counsel on how to avoid slander.

Safeguards Against Slander

Slander is oral defamation of someone’s character, impugning their reputation in the community. Several statements are considered slander per se-their utterance presumes damage. Accusing a pastor of sexual immorality, for example, may well fall into that category, because it says he’s not qualified to do his job.

So how can pastors talk honestly about disruptive members without defaming their character? Make sure whatever they say falls within these guidelines:

It is truthful. Truth is always a defense against slander.

It is said only to those who need to know. The situation the pastor above faced is analogous to an employer-employee relationship. Say I find an employee is stealing from me, and I fire him. I then check his references and discover he stole from two or three previous employers. If the employee tries to be hired at another firm and I am contacted as a reference, what can I say? The courts have generally held that employers have the right to say why they let the person go-because this prospective employer has a clear right to know.

It’s wise, therefore, to always keep the declarations or disclosures to the few people who must know. Published statements and public meetings are much more open to charges of invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

In the renowned Guinn church discipline case in Oklahoma, for example, the church sent out a letter, after she was disfellowshiped, to several surrounding Churches of Christ. While that was not a violation in and of itself, it was one of the elements the jury looked at to determine if there was intentional affliction of emotional distress.

It is a response to questions from those who need to know, rather than volunteered information. Volunteering information is much more hazardous from a legal standpoint than responding to questions from, say, a pastor considering someone for membership.

The traditional letter of transfer is often perfunctory, but it does two important things: helps the receiving pastor be aware of potential problems, and allows the sending pastor to communicate delicate information in the realm of what is called a “privileged communication.”

If a letter is requested for former members who undermined your ministry, you could relate something like the following: “I understand so-and-so are applying for membership in your church. You should know that we cannot give a good recommendation because they did not leave here as members in good standing.” If asked for further information, you can then give the essentials. Such a conversation would be considered a privileged communication, because it involves people who have a clear responsibility to know.

In a case like the one above, in which the pastor feels an ethical obligation to volunteer information to a fellow pastor, it would be wise not to share details but simply to offer yourself as a resource if he or she desires more information. Perhaps like this: “Pastor Jones, I care about your ministry, and so you should know that Joe and Mary Smith were members of our congregation at one point, and there were some problems for which we exercised discipline. Let me encourage you to talk to them about it and see if they would be willing for you to ask me specifically about it.” This wisely doesn’t disclose the details. The pastor may not want to know them; he or she may even be a close friend or relative of the people. But it does let the pastor know you’re available to answer questions-to respond to his initiative.

The whole process is made much easier, of course, if there are informal ties between local ministers.

Situations You Face

The second resource we’d like to hear from is pastors who have been through such situations. Describe the key events. How did you handle them? Looking back, did you say more than you’d wished? Or not enough? Did you fear being sued?

What counsel would you offer someone facing a similar situation?

We’ll publish portions of readers’ experiences and insights in a forthcoming issue of LEADERSHIP. Anonymity, if desired, will be maintained. If you’ve faced a situation where it was difficult to speak the truth safely, please take a few moments to send your responses to LEADERSHIP, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188. Your experience may benefit your colleagues in ministry.

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

PREPARING A CONGREGATION FOR DEATH

Perhaps the church’s greatest ministry is helping people get ready for the final enemy.

In seminary the rallying cry of my circle of classmates was "Life-giving ministry!" We were determined to extend that ministry in all circumstances and against all obstacles.

When I got into my first pastorate, however, I encountered three funerals in the first four months. And a terminal case of cancer was slowly killing one of the key lay leaders. Suddenly my rallying cry seemed incomplete. I needed to prepare myself and my congregation to face death.

I shared my frustrations with various colleagues and discovered to my surprise that many of them could tell similar stories. They felt the same concerns I did, but few had been trained to prepare their congregations in any substantial way for the assaults of our final enemy, death.

It helped, as I studied the Epistles, to find Paul himself came late to realize the need to prepare a congregation for the loss of fellow members, family, and friends. Believers at both Corinth and Thessalonica were badly shaken by the deaths of some of their members before the soon-expected return of Jesus. Both groups had questions and concerns. Such questions, if left unanswered, threatened to undermine these congregations he had worked so hard to establish. So Paul found it necessary to prepare both churches for the certainty of more deaths within their ranks.

I have found Paul's response a good one to follow. Paul begins to prepare the Corinthians and Thessalonians for death by laying a theological foundation.

Laying the Essential Foundation

I have become convinced this is exactly where our preparatory work must begin, and it is probably best done before tragedy is confronting a congregation.

Death is a metaphysical issue, a theological issue. Indeed, for most people, it is the theological issue. Folks who want nothing to do with theology-"Boring," "Too dry," "I want something practical"-automatically shift into theological high gear when death intrudes into their lives. People want answers that will enable them to carry on when they have been sent reeling by the death of a loved one. Death demands a theological response.

This would be easier if we could start from scratch, but almost everyone in my church already has an operational theology of death.

It may be well-studied or gathered from clips of conversation when Grandma died. It may be grounded in Scripture or in pop psychology paperbacks. But no matter how hurtful or sub-Christian some of these lay theologies may be, it's important to proceed with care in replacing them with a healthier, more Christian theology of death.

In my first year of ministry, one of our church's heroes of the faith was struggling with terminal cancer. Many people in the congregation were troubled by the extent of the suffering she was forced to endure. Most troubled, naturally, was her husband, Rudy. During one visit he echoed what others in the congregation had said more than once: "God has some purpose in Katherine's death. I know he's going to use it in a great way. Otherwise, why would she be forced to endure such agony day after day?"

My first instinct was to challenge that notion. I don't believe God's actions are meaningless; nor do I doubt that he or we can carve meaning out of tragedy. But I'm quite certain we can never fully interpret the meaning of anyone's agonizing death this side of eternity. Even if we can see a beneficial outcome from someone's death, this theology of "God is using her death" has a side that darkens many people's faith. What goodness can we see in a God who employs such terrible means to accomplish his ends?

Fortunately, I bit my tongue that afternoon. Some wise Voice whispered against the arguments I was fashioning: If you take this away from him now, what comfort will he have at the prospect of losing his life partner of fifty years?

I began to see that taking the wrecking ball to people's theologies would tear down not only their ideas but their feelings and hopes as well. Through teaching and preaching, I was going to have to build patiently for them a new theological framework, one that would join faith and reality. I believe this framework includes three main concepts.

The foundational concept is the goodness of God. If Scripture teaches anything about God, it teaches that he is good. If people are to love and trust God in times of grief, they must be convinced of God's goodness. So it's become my practice whenever I make a statement about God-whether about his sovereignty, his justice, or even his wrath-to include in some way the message that our God is good and to be trusted. More than once I've told my congregation, "If I had only one sermon to preach, I would preach the goodness of God."

The second key concept is that death is evil. That seems obvious enough, but I find many lay people saying things like, "Death is a part of life. Dying is as natural as being born." Scripture declares that death and pain and grief are unnatural, contrary to God's intentions for his creation. Paul refers to death as an enemy. Jesus came to conquer sin and death and hell. To be sure, for the Christian, death is the experience by which one passes into eternal life, but Scripture would have us view death primarily as an ugly and painful intrusion into God's creation.

Grieving people know this only too well already. It's when we deny that death is evil that we hurt them. Richard, a friend and fellow minister, lost his daughter Sarah a few years ago. Only five years old, she died of unexpected complications from a simple virus. Richard and his wife grieved deeply and openly. Many people in the community of faith were uncomfortable with Richard's openness; they chastised him because he called the death of his daughter tragic and senseless. "When I call the evil thing good, or a tragedy a blessing, I'm not telling the truth," he told me in exasperation.

Not that Richard was without hope. "My faith in the goodness of God enables me to cope with this tragic loss," he told me. "Because of that faith, I have hope I will one day see Sarah again."

That expression of hope is, of course, the crowning piece of any theological framework that enables a congregation to deal with death. "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead," Paul tells the Corinthians, and in this mighty event is the promise of our own resurrection to eternal life. My congregation, like the one in Corinth, tends to forget this remarkable truth. I'm sure it's because I don't trumpet it frequently and fervently enough. An event in my previous church convicted me of that.

Once I had a church member, a young, healthy mother of three, who contracted an extremely virulent cancer. Martha's doctors gave her a 5 percent chance of survival. When this was announced to the church, the congregation was devastated. The week after the announcement, we canceled adult Sunday school classes and gathered all the adults in the sanctuary to express feelings and to pray. During this time, one wise woman said, "What is happening to Martha is a terrible thing. If she is not miraculously cured, she will die. But we do have a hope beyond this world. The Lord has promised us a place where there is 'no more death or mourning or crying or pain.' Regardless of what happens to Martha as a result of this illness, this is a hope she can live on forever."

That word was not new to any of us that Sunday morning, but it was a word from the Lord in season. It called us, troubled as we were, to believe our unique belief, to hope our unique hope. It was not unlike the words Paul shared centuries ago with two troubled congregations in Thessalonica and Corinth. Belief in the goodness of God, and hope, based on his victory over death, give the people of God a theological foundation, a place to stand when facing the onslaughts of the final enemy.

Educational Programs

But at some point our great theology demands a methodology.

I've found few packaged programs to help prepare a congregation for death. Publishing houses are not altogether unlike the pastors to whom they sell their wares; most of us would rather think about life than death. There are, however, some intentional things a congregation can do to help its members prepare for the experience we'll all face.

The obvious, and perhaps best, strategy is to treat the topic in Sunday school lessons, youth group programs, and Sunday services. A member in one of my churches was a sociology professor at a local college. Mike specialized in several areas, including the subject of death and dying (he has been known to answer when called "Dr. Death"). Mike put together a six-week adult Sunday school elective called "Dealing with Issues of Death and Dying" that focused on stages in the grieving process, how to minister to someone who is dying, how to comfort the bereaved, what is important in planning a funeral. The class gave people not only fine information but the chance to think and talk about our culture's most taboo subject.

Obviously, we were fortunate to have a resident expert. There are, however, some curriculum packages available that deal with similar issues. The course by Joseph Bayly, "If I Should Die . . ." (David C. Cook) provides excellent resources for the non-expert to lead a class on this topic.

One of the best things Mike did with his class was take a field trip to a local funeral home. The trip was not hard to arrange; it is the rare funeral director who would turn down an opportunity to have local folks come through. While at the home, the group discussed how to arrange a funeral and what the funeral should accomplish. The experience helped people, while in a noncrisis situation, prepare for their next visit to the funeral home, whether in the role of one bereaved or one comforting the bereaved. Such a visit is also valuable for youth groups, and even for elementary Sunday school classes.

Another way to help our children begin thinking about this issue is for parents to take them to visitation sessions or funeral services for people to whom they are not intimately related.

Several years ago when an elderly lady in the congregation died, I suggested to my oldest son, Mark, that he come with me to the visitation. He agreed. On our way to the funeral home, I prepared him for what to expect-family members weeping or talking quietly, the flowers, the casket with the body in it. We rehearsed what he could say to the bereaved family members: "I'm sorry that Mrs. Sturm died." We talked about what my role would be that evening and the next day at the funeral. On the way home Mark and I talked about what he had seen and heard and felt.

There are many other things a church can do to help its members prepare for death. One summer a church I served sponsored a weekly study group using Rabbi Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People as a springboard for discussion. The author's perspective was certainly not Christian, but the best-selling book raised issues timely for our congregation; many members at that time had parents or other family members who were seriously ill. The group provided a forum to construct together a Christian framework for dealing with death and, more important, it provided support for those already grieving anticipated losses. Members of the group spoke often about the significance of that summertime experience.

I know a congregation that did a six-week Sunday evening series on preparing for death. Rather than preaching on the topic, the pastor used short case studies on death-related issues (available through the Case Study Institute, The Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, Soldiers' Field, Boston, MA 02163). He also had a married couple talk about a "near-death experience" when their canoe capsized on a white-water expedition, and arranged a presentation on making a will by a Christian financial consultant (nearly half of all people in this country leave no will). For six weeks the topic of death and dying was on the front burner for that congregation. That series triggered dinner conversations, stimulated reflection, and helped a wise pastor share the load of grief counseling for many years to come.

Context for Grieving

Some of the most significant preparations for death, however, involve not scheduled programs or instruction but the context for grieving. If people in the congregation do not feel free to express honestly their hurt, the most orthodox theology and the best curriculum will help little when death strikes.

My previous church had long provided a time for sharing in the morning worship service. Tears were no more out of bounds during this time than was laughter. Real hurts, real doubts were expressed, as were real joys and real triumphs. I confess that when I first came to the church, this time made me a bit nervous. But soon I realized this sharing session announced to everyone present that real life and real faith could coexist.

This prepared people for death in several ways. A key one is it reminded us that some of life's experiences are bitter pills to swallow. We ought to expect that some experiences, even with all the resources of our faith, will be endured only with great difficulty. I recall hearing a Christian author tell about suffering a miscarriage quite late in a pregnancy. The next day her pastor stopped by with these words, "I know that because of your faith you're going to do just fine."

I contrast that story with one I heard from Gary, a member of my previous church, when I returned from a vacation. Gary had been conducting a weeklong basketball camp for high school boys, and during the opening moments of the first day of camp, one of the campers had a seizure. Gary performed CPR, but despite his efforts, the boy died in his arms.

After the ambulance had gone and the family had been notified, Gary called some members of his home growth group and asked for prayer-both for the boy's family and for himself. He told me later, "I must have had a dozen phone calls or visits that evening. People shared; they listened; they ministered. I've never gone through anything so painful as watching that boy die, and with you on vacation, I didn't know who to turn to. But you should be proud of this church. They came through!"

Creating this caring climate for grieving people can be done in many ways. The type of sharing we did on Sunday morning won't work everywhere. In a colleague's church that is a bastion of reserved Norwegian Lutheranism, a context for healthy grieving has been fostered through the congregation's involvement with the local hospital's hospice program. Several key organizers of the program were from this church; they recruited volunteers within their congregation to minister to those dying and to comfort their grieving families. In a church with several hundred members who are senior citizens, this involvement has helped prepare the congregation for death.

Crisis Responses

Sometimes the best preparations for death come through our last-minute responses in the midst of a crisis.

Earlier I mentioned our decision to cancel adult Sunday school classes and hold a group session for prayer the week after the congregation learned of Martha's troubling prognosis. This decision was made with her permission and full support. The time allowed the church to support Martha and her family in prayer and to stand with one another in the midst of the fear and faith, confidence and confusion, hope and hurt we all were feeling. Out of that session it was suggested that a smaller, committed group continue to meet with the family on a regular basis to walk through the crisis with them.

Another last-minute response that helped prepare the congregation to face death came on (of all Sundays) Easter morning a few years ago. We had planned about as high a service as one can pull off in a Baptist church, and I had honed my sermon to a razor's edge. Just before I was about to ascend to the pulpit, I was handed a note: one of our members had taken a turn for the worse and was not expected to survive the day.

Alice was held in high-esteem in our congregation. Just about everyone in the church had a half dozen "Do you remember when Alice . . ." stories to tell. We had watched a debilitating case of Alzheimer's Disease strip this fifty-nine-year-old woman of nearly all her adult capacities. But few people in the congregation knew Alice had entered the hospital Friday afternoon, let alone how close she was to death.

I wrestled with what to do, then decided to scrap almost all my sermon. I announced the grim news and invited one or two people to lead in prayer for Alice and her family, many of whom were in the service. Then I began to preach an Easter sermon out of the deeply felt grief of the moment and spoke of the risen Savior who invites us to share in his conquest of the grave. I didn't produce any well-polished points or dramatic illustrations. Nor did I have quick answers to the "Why?" I read on the two hundred faces. I just tried to point the congregation to the one who was raised from the grave that first Easter morning. I asked them to reflect on what he had accomplished for Alice and for the rest of us who believe.

They were shaken; so was I. But those few, unprepared responses helped us face the death that did indeed come that afternoon. Though last minute, those actions were life giving.

Congregations need to be equipped to face the trauma of death with both realism and faith. With proper preparation, congregations can discover that even our final enemy is unable to kill a lively faith or deaden a life-giving ministry.

Rick McKinniss is pastor of Kensington Baptist Church in Kensington, Connecticut.

A HEALING TOUCH FOR GRIEVING FAMILIES

When a loved one dies, families need pastoral comfort. We want to be especially sensitive and effective during this time. I've discovered one "touch" that can personalize and enrich our ministry to grieving families.

Before the funeral, I arrange for a structured time with the family to reminisce about the deceased. I begin by asking some questions about the deceased's life. Open-ended questions encourage descriptive answers. Especially helpful to hear are anecdotes, stories and treasured memories that can be woven into the service. I develop the conversation chronologically and take detailed notes. Here are some of the questions I use.

Where was the deceased born? Tell me about his birth.

What was he or she like during childhood? Any favorite games and activities?

How did he make it through the teen years? Involvement with sports? School subjects? Memorable vacations? Friends?

How did the deceased and spouse meet? How did they decide to get married? To the surviving spouse: "What was it that attracted you to this person?"

What about the birth of the children? What was it like raising them? To the children: "What was it like growing up with your parent? What do you most enjoy doing with your parent?"

What were this person's spiritual beliefs and practices?

Did he talk about death and what happens after death?

What were the qualities of the deceased that most impressed or influenced you? How will the deceased be remembered by others in the community?

What would you say was the person's greatest contribution to life?

Everyone has good points and bad points. There were some things about this person that could have been improved. Honestly, what were they?

What will you miss most about the deceased?

What would you say to the deceased if you had one more chance? What do you think the deceased would say to you? Would he have any requests? Did he express any last requests?

Originally these family meetings were arranged just to get information for the funeral sermon. But I've discovered the meetings are a real ministry to the family. This structured family conversation creates a "safe" environment for discussing the deceased. Permission has been given to relate their remembrances and feelings in a supportive atmosphere.

Family members usually relax and talk openly about the deceased, sometimes crying, sometimes laughing. It's good even to tape these sessions and leave the recording with the family. Helping the family remember and learn about the loved one is a ministry to those who remain.

-Doug Self

The Church at Redstone

Redstone, Colorado

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

FROM THE EDITORS

Remember the ads where a soprano hits a stratospheric note, a crystal goblet shatters, and the announcer asks, “Is it live, or is it Memorex?”

I recently taught a twelve-week class on “Theology in Plain Language” to the combined junior high and senior high students at our church. Several times during those weeks as I performed mental (sometimes physical) gyrations in an effort to make doctrine come alive for this hard-to-impress bunch, I felt the disadvantages of having to perform “live.”

One drawback, of course, is being compared to the people on Memorex. The class atmosphere would never be confused with the sight-and-sound experience of an Amy Grant concert.

My well-meaning but low-budget (not to mention low-talent) efforts would never be as spellbinding as the professional up-front communicators.

I sensed again what one pastor expressed this way: “It’s tough to preach when I know some big-name preacher has already covered this topic-and done it better than I ever will.” The experience forced me to rethink the advantages of teaching live rather than simply replaying some Memorex recording at our people.

Then I read about a teachers’ conference where a consultant was explaining how videos could improve education. When he finished, one older teacher raised his hand and said, “But a VCR can’t put its hand on a boy’s shoulder and tell him, ‘You can do better, Dave.’ “

The teacher knew that life-long change is more likely when the message comes person-to-person.

My friend Mark is a pipefitter. Two years ago a job took him away from home for a few weeks. Alone in his motel room, Mark turned on the television and found himself watching a TV evangelist. The message got through, and Mark knew he needed to turn his life God’s direction.

But, according to Mark, that decision didn’t “take” until a few weeks later when he injured his back and required surgery. People from the church where he’d begun attending repeatedly visited him in the hospital.

“My wife and I couldn’t believe that these people, who didn’t know us all that well, would care enough to bring us flowers or a book, or simply sit and pray with us. That’s what convinced me of God’s love-seeing it in these people.”

It’s been said, “People don’t care how much we know until they know how much we care.” Live teachers care better than tapes.

But perhaps the greater advantage of live teaching is the long-term effect.

Recently a pastor in Arkansas wrote: “It’s been a hard month. One family is moving away. Another’s business is failing. And Chet died this morning. I’ve been forced to come to grips with the brokenness of life. There is so much pain, and no simple happy-ever-after endings.

“But I’m coming to understand the human struggle and discover God’s presence in it. I hugged my children today, laughed with some friends, prayed with Mr. Aker who continues his struggle with lung cancer, and stood before hurting people to speak a word of hope and encouragement. I think I’m growing up.”

That ministry can only happen live.

Most of us know that the most powerful sermon we preach may not come from behind a pulpit; it may be a marriage well tended-our marriage. The best lesson we teach may not rely on an overhead projector, handouts, or discussion questions; it may be the way we conduct ourselves when we’re attacked, unappreciated, or rejected.

One thing pastors can do that no other media can is to model, up close and personal, the Christian faith in the jolts and jumble of daily life.

Over time, people will see us disappointed and successful, rattled and elated, discouraged and silly. They’ll see how we’re affected by grief and by joy. Perhaps most important, they will see how we handle the routine-the daily chores, purchases, and friendships that occupy the bulk of our lives.

The one thing a local pastor can do better than any media teacher is to be a living example of a godly life, week in, week out, year in, year out. As Woody Allen said, “Eighty percent of success is just showing up.”

This may be the most significant lesson we ever teach. Perhaps being “live” is better than being Memorex.

* * *

At LEADERSHIP, we’re also happy to announce the arrival of a new associate editor, Larry Weeden, who comes to us from Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, Tennessee, where he was involved in book acquisition and editing. In that capacity he worked closely with a number of prominent Christian authors.

We welcome Larry, his wife, Beth, and their son, Matthew, and I know you’ll enjoy Larry’s contributions to the pages of LEADERSHIP in the days ahead.

Marshall Shelley is managing editor of LEADERSHIP.

Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube