2. A pastor cannot deal with his attackers in the congregation without making matters worse.
Someone is upset at the preacher for something he did or did not do, something they wrongly perceive him as doing or not doing, something they heard, or something they think they know. They are spreading the infection to friends and family. This cannot go on and must be dealt with.
The question is how to deal with it.
Who is the best trouble-shooter in the church? My answer: Whoever it is, it ain’t the pastor. In fact, sometimes he is the last one who should stand up and deal with these slanderers.
The pastor has several weaknesses that make him the worst candidate for the position of Church Troubleshooter:
a) Pastors will generally let the attacks go on too long before finally deciding to act. They wait for the Lord, the leadership or circumstances to deal with the troublemakers, and when it seems that is not going to happen, finally, with no other recourse, they do it themselves. By then, the problems have spread beyond his ability to fix it.
b) Since he is the target of the attack, anything the preacher says or does will seem self-serving to some.
c) Would-be rulers can work to get the pastor fired, which makes him vulnerable and frequently hesitant. However, they cannot fire another layperson. This gives the deacons and other leaders a greater freedom in approaching the troublemaker. It also demands that those leaders be people of great courage, willing to confront any person in the church for the greater good of the Lord’s ministry.
The best ones to confront those attacking (or slandering) the pastor are the half-dozen people generally conceded to be the finest and godliest men and women in the church. In most cases, this would include (but not be limited to) the deacons or elders. The one person who should stay away from this issue is anyone who loves a good fight. We’re looking for the Christlike here, the peacemakers.
On this blog, we have spoken numerous times to how they should approach the troublemaker. In essence, two or three should make a personal visit to the source of the trouble, and humbly ask, “What’s going on?” The individual will act innocent and claim nothing is going on, want to know what you mean, and so forth. The group answers, “We understand you are unhappy with the pastor.”
Then, they are quiet, but hear him out. They are to listen intently. It may be the troublemaker has a point and they can promise to look into the matter. But if not, they should quietly but firmly inform him or her that, “This has to stop. We are asking you to let this go no further.”
If it becomes necessary to visit this individual again, the second time, they should take their spouses. Something about both men and women being in the group increases its impact. This time, they extend loving care to the attackers and call them to repentance and insist on a cease-fire immediately.
At each stage, they are in touch with the pastor, making sure he knows of the conversations and details. Nothing the group does or says should ever be in confidence; everything that happens in their visits with the attacker should be told to the pastor and is subject to being repeated later before a larger forum if it becomes necessary. (This group should not be a party to the anonymous sniping of some in the church. Infections must be laid open to sunlight if healing is to occur.)
Invariably, someone will respond to ask, “What if the pastor is the troublemaker?”
Same thing. Two or three leaders must visit him, but only after prayer and fasting and with their spouses praying back at home. If a second visit is necessary, twice the number (both men and women) should make up the group. Prayer and fasting should be a part of all this.
