 It happened again. A major staffing change - a Senior leader stepped down, followed by a cryptic public statement.
No moral failure No disqualifying sin A written statement - we wish the best for all involved Nothing to see here - the congregation is told. Except the smoke rising in the background. I ran across this story a few weeks back, saw some commentary on Facebook and read the weeks later unfolding story. This quote smelled familiar. “Personnel turnover is the smoke. The leadership style is the fire.” I’m not writing with any one Pastor or church in mind, but let the reader understand, I’m writing from personal experience as a staff member and a denominational consultant with several churches in mind. Their Pastors The Staff Their Board or Elder or Deacons or Committees This will be hard. THERE ARE NO PERFECT CHURCHES This goes without saying. (My Freshman English Teacher would say - then why say it?) Here’s why. Some of you may read the following with offense.You are or may be a Pastor, or a staff member or a lay leader. What follows might sting. Some of it should, you probably know it’s true-you’ve thought it during the moments when you can’t sleep or are trying to justify in your mind-to later justify to others why another staff member, board member or other church leader decided to leave, resign or is otherwise getting off the “bus.” Some of what follows, especially the parts that don’t apply to you, should roll off your back. Every church leadership structure will be impacted by our sin and imperfection. Let’s get one thing straight. We’re all sinners. This is an undisputable biblical fact. Romans 3:23 But, we forget it. And we forget this. Our sin, small, mild, big, strong, excused or hidden or running loose like a wild fire has an impact on our church, its leadership structures, our colleagues and congregations. With that in view - let’s get honest. WHEN LEADERS SIN - THE IMPACT IS FELT “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” Proverbs 29:2 Every leader, and those who serve with them has a first day. And then, sometime after that first day the leaders and the staff together - have “one of those” days. A day in which realities become clear. The imperfections and the failures of one or both, harshness, lack of character, duplicitiness, incompetence, manipulation, unrighteous anger, just about anything that makes you think - hiring this person or taking this role might have been a big mistake. I remember in one ministry stop “my day” involved cursing and an almost physical altercation in a crowded local restaurant. I felt sick, I wanted to throw up. I’d just moved my family to a new ministry setting, this wasn’t gonna be good. I met a man, a former staff member, who, on his first day in his new role, was commanded to go into the office of another staff member and fire them. He said that was the day he started looking for a new job. He left six months later. THE QUESTION TO ASK - IS THIS A PATTERN OR IS IT A ONE OFF? We shouldn’t be held prisoner for having a bad day. We all have them. But, here me out. If the actions/reactions on that one day are disqualifying - you should absolutely be held accountable. If illegal, immoral or unbiblical, likely fired. If you have a consistent pattern of having those kinds of days, and no one is able to hold you accountable, if those days are excused away because of the pressure that you’re under or if you get a pass for unbiblical and unchristlike behavior from those who should hold you accountable - you’re not getting what you deserve. Please note: what I’m speaking about here is not a single day. But, observable behaviors, over time, which reveal consistent patterns consistent with your character, how you perform and how you treat others. A SURE SIGN OF SMOKE If the organization has had a lot of churn and burn, if it has a high turnover rate, if every departure is the departing staff member’s fault, if they are spoken of negatively after they’ve left ... .publically and privately… And…. The immediate supervisor: Be it a Senior Leader, Team Leader or department Head along with the Board always seem to stay in place and take no participatory responsibility in the churn. It’s definitely a pattern. Constant reorganizations, new hiring practices, new upper and middle management with short tenures all betray this reality: This organization, business or church is likely toxic. If they say they are just the victim of “bad hiring” how many times can that excuse be employed? They are either are incompetentent or toxic. THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROTECT THE PERSON, BRAND OR ORGANIZATION If a church or organization is built on the cult of personality, platform skills or notoriety of the public person, if its durability is tied to their executing their craft, accountability will be difficult. Why? That key person is seen as the engine, the glue, the product or commodity. The fear-if that staff member, that key leader disappears everything ends. Faith in God to build his church - by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus - absent. Perhaps that’s why some of these churches fall like a house of cards when the key person falls. What is built on man always falls - because God doesn’t share his Glory. Back to the accountability part. A leader like this often flies at an altitude that rises above concerns and is not subject to regular or real accountability. Perhaps out of fear, sometimes it's because the leader has manipulated the system. Toxic leaders are experts at sniffing out and creating “blind loyalty” among those who orbit them. They trade favors, access, positions and attention to gain sure footing and shun real accountability. Then they position those paid for such loyalty in places where they will protect them and their behavior and performance from scrutiny. One leader I’m familiar with surrounded himself with others who formed a shield insulating him from real evaluation and legitimate critique. He spiritualized his position and role adding an extra layer of protection - his guardians learned to say; “only God can hold him accountable.” IN A SYSTEM LIKE THIS - CLASHES ARE IS INEVITABLE, CRASHES ARE CERTAIN Be it the leader or the church, one day it will all come crashing down. Here’s why. The inner circle is always in flux. Sooner or later people start to wake up. The once devoted become disillusioned, they “defect” by asking real questions. They are met with sharp resistance, if they persist they are ousted, blackballed, reorged and removed. An ever changing inner circle will eventually grow weak - the sharpest leaders will leave the church, what remains is a group with less history, competency and capacity. The Leader grows confident, complacent and cocky. In this season, they will eventually make a mistake, a fatal one, leading to their fall. Another potential scenario is the leader finally being held to account. The accountability group, be it a committee, a Board, Elders, Deacons or eventually the Congregation has enough. If it’s one of the former smaller groups they’ve likely been having conversations, interviews with those hurt by the leader and the system and they’ve been working behind the scenes to remedy what’s broken so that health and vitality can be achieved. When it's the congregation holding a toxic leader accountable the hurt and harm will break out like wildfire. And after a structure is burned - it often crashes. THE RECOVERY — WHAT MAKES IT HARD, WHAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE Recovery begins with honesty.
A church cannot recover from what it refuses to name. If leaders have sinned, the sin must be acknowledged. If people have been mistreated, their experiences must be heard. If a pattern has developed, it must be evaluated as a pattern—not dismissed as a collection of unrelated misunderstandings, personality conflicts or unfortunate departures. This is where recovery often stalls. The leaders responsible for addressing the problem are sometimes the same leaders who ignored it, enabled it or benefited from it. They may have protected the leader, defended the system or participated in keeping the congregation in the dark. They may now be asked to evaluate decisions in which they were deeply invested. That is difficult. It may require them to admit:
Those admissions are costly—but necessary. There can be no real recovery without a true evaluation of everyone in leadership. Not only the senior leader. Not only the person whose resignation made the news. The board, elders, deacons, personnel committee, executive staff and others who held meaningful responsibility must also be evaluated. What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do? What did they fail to do? Did they ask hard questions? Did they investigate concerns? Did they silence or discredit those who raised them? Did they confuse protecting the church with protecting the leader? Did they participate in severance agreements, confidentiality demands or carefully constructed public statements that kept the congregation from understanding what had actually happened? These are not pleasant questions. But without them, the church may remove one person while leaving the entire enabling system intact. And if the system remains, the problem will return. It may return with a different leader, a different title and a different set of victims—but it will return. THE SYSTEM MUST BE EXAMINED Toxic cultures are rarely created by one person alone. A destructive leader may be the fire, but systems provide the fuel and oxygen. Recovery requires evaluating the processes that allowed misconduct, manipulation, incompetence or abusive leadership to continue unchecked. That evaluation should include:
THE CONGREGATION MUST BE TOLD THE TRUTH There are legitimate limits to what can be shared publicly. Personnel matters require wisdom. Victims deserve privacy. Legal counsel may properly advise restraint. Not every detail belongs in a congregational meeting or public statement. But confidentiality must not become concealment. There is a difference between protecting private information and deliberately keeping a congregation in the dark. Church members do not need every detail, but they do need the truth. They need to know whether there was misconduct. They need to know whether a pattern existed. They need to know whether leaders failed to act. They need to know what has changed. They need to know how future concerns will be handled. They need to know that the church values truth more than institutional reputation. Cryptic statements create suspicion because people can smell smoke. They see the sudden resignations.
Then they are told there is nothing to see. That approach does not protect trust. It destroys it. Trust is not rebuilt by asking people to stop asking questions. Trust is rebuilt by leaders giving honest answers. THOSE WHO WERE HURT MUST BE HEARD A church cannot recover while continuing to marginalize the people who experienced the harm. Former staff members should be contacted. Departed leaders should be interviewed. Those who raised concerns should be heard again—this time without defensiveness. Patterns often become visible only when multiple stories are placed beside one another. What was previously dismissed as one disgruntled employee may be revealed as a repeated pattern.
Listening does not mean accepting every allegation without examination. Claims must be tested. Facts must be verified. People can misremember, exaggerate or misunderstand. But dismissing every negative account as bitterness is not discernment. It is avoidance. Healthy leaders do not fear honest evaluation. They welcome it because they care more about truth and holiness than reputation and position. REPENTANCE MUST BE SPECIFIC Churches often use the language of grace to avoid the work of repentance.
All of those statements can be true—and all of them can be misused. Biblical repentance is not vague.
A leader who says, “Mistakes were made,” has not necessarily repented. A board that says, “We could have communicated better,” may be minimizing a far deeper failure. A church that asks wounded people to forgive while refusing to tell the truth is demanding reconciliation without repentance. That is not grace. It is spiritual manipulation. Forgiveness does not eliminate accountability. Grace does not make leadership qualifications optional. Restoration to fellowship does not automatically mean restoration to office. A leader may be forgiven and still be disqualified from leadership. A leader may repent and still need to resign. A board member may be sincere and still need to step down because he repeatedly failed in his responsibility to protect the church. Consequences are not the enemy of grace. Sometimes consequences are the means by which grace produces genuine change. SOME LEADERS WILL NEED TO LEAVE This is one of the hardest realities of recovery. Sometimes removing the senior leader is not enough. Those who enabled, concealed or repeatedly excused the behavior may also need to leave their positions. This does not mean every person who missed something must be removed. Leadership requires discernment.
But when governing leaders have lost the trust of the congregation, refuse honest evaluation or remain committed to the old system, their continued presence may prevent recovery. The church must be willing to ask whether those who led it into dysfunction are capable of leading it into health. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. A title does not create the right to remain in leadership. Neither longevity, loyalty, generosity nor friendship exempts someone from accountability. INDEPENDENT HELP MAY BE NECESSARY Churches in crisis often believe they can fix themselves. Sometimes they can. Often they cannot. The relational history is too complicated. The alliances are too strong. The fear is too great. The facts are too contested. The leaders are too invested. Outside help may be necessary. A qualified denominational leader, church consultant, investigator, attorney, counselor or conflict specialist can bring perspective that insiders lack. The key word is independent. An outside advisor who is personally loyal to the leader, financially dependent on the church or committed to protecting the institution may only reinforce the problem. The church needs people willing to ask hard questions, follow the evidence and tell the truth—even when the truth is costly. This may involve:
Outside help is not an admission that the church has failed beyond repair. It is an admission that humility is necessary. RECOVERY TAKES LONGER THAN PEOPLE WANT A toxic culture can be created over years. It will not be repaired in a few weeks.
Recovery is slow because trust is rebuilt through repeated evidence. People need to see that concerns are now taken seriously. Staff members need to see that speaking honestly no longer results in retaliation. The congregation needs to see that leaders tell the truth even when it is embarrassing. Future leaders need to be evaluated for character, not merely charisma. Accountability structures need to function before the next crisis, not be invented during it. The church must learn that health is not measured only by attendance, giving, baptisms, buildings, influence or online reach. A church can be growing numerically while decaying spiritually. It can appear successful and still be deeply unhealthy. It can celebrate public victories while privately crushing people. Recovery requires redefining success. WHAT MAKES RECOVERY POSSIBLE Recovery is possible when leaders fear God more than they fear public embarrassment.
And ultimately, recovery is possible because the church belongs to Jesus.
Jesus is the head of the church. He is not threatened by the truth. He is not honored by concealment. He is not glorified when leaders use spiritual language to protect themselves. He is glorified when sin is confessed, when justice is pursued, when the wounded are cared for and when his people walk in the light. DO NOT WASTE THE FIRE When the smoke finally clears, the temptation will be to rebuild quickly. Get back to normal. Hire someone new. Restore attendance. Reassure donors. Quiet the critics. Move forward. But returning to normal may mean returning to the very culture that produced the crisis. The goal should not be normal. The goal should be health. Do not waste the fire by rebuilding the same structure with different names. Do not replace one charismatic leader with another while leaving accountability unchanged. Do not punish those who spoke up and reward those who remained loyal to dysfunction. Do not confuse silence with unity. Do not confuse survival with recovery. Do not confuse a full room with a healthy church. The smoke was a warning. The fire revealed what the church had refused to see. The collapse exposed what was structurally unsound. Now there is an opportunity to rebuild differently. More honestly. More humbly. More biblically. More carefully. With real accountability. With qualified leaders. With clear processes. With a congregation that understands what happened. With care for those who were harmed. And with confidence—not in a personality, platform or brand—but in Jesus Christ, who loves his church enough to expose what is hidden and graciously call his people back into the light. .
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
July 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed