Will one in four SBC churches be closed by 2030?

Occasionally, I run across an assertion or a statistic that stops me cold. Here is one that did just that:

"Fear of change is one of the reasons one in four congregations will close during the next 15 years..."

Let me digest this: Twenty-five percent of American congregations will not be present fifteen years hence?

Jeff Brumley of Associated Baptist Press has an interesting article on the future of churches, Experts seek balance between optimism and pessimism in future of congregations, in which he quotes Bill Wilson, founder of The Center for Healthy Churches, as making the assertion above. I have found Wilson's material to be quite insightful and helpful generally but do not know where he got this figure. In the same piece Thom Ranier says that 20% of American Protestant churches will close in the next two decades. George Bullard, who was a South Carolina Baptist Convention executive when I served in that state, is featured in the article. I have read a good bit of his material and find that he has some astute observations about churches and denominations. You can find links in the ABP piece for all of these people.

There are about 46,000 SBC churches. If Wilson is correct then we can expect to see 11,500 SBC churches disappear by 2030. I suspect that the 25% figure was for all US congregations and rates of closing would differ among the different groups. Almost certainly, we will not be seeing two SBC churches per day closing their doors; however, I suspect that we will see increasing numbers in the years ahead. (Note here that we are not talking about net growth or loss. We are starting churches so no one expects the total number to decline by one-fourth.)

Which brings me to the concept of church revitalization, a perennial topic and thrust in SBC life and one that everyone favors. The various SBC and state convention organizations have church revitalization programs and personnel and have for decades. Alas, I am unaware of any effective top-down revitalization program. There is no national or even state convention program for revitalization of congregations that I see as holding much promise. If your state has one, and has a track record of success, I'd like to know about it. It makes sense to me that the most effective program for church revitalization would be found at the level closest to churches - the association. My local association has a program that is very attractive. It is also very new and without any history, so there are no results to evaluate, but I like what I know about it.

I've preached in a few very small churches whose future is extremely precarious. I'd not be surprised if some of these go defunct but, who knows? With our recipe of local church autonomy (and the fact that churches have no tax bill to pay every year) it is not difficult for a couple of dozen people to hang on to their building and church for years and years. You can always get a supply preacher cheaply.

The question is do these churches desire to be healthy, effective, ministering churches?

Some do. Some don't.

We should put some resources in those that do and let those that don't die a natural death. Things change. Demographics change. Geographic population distributions change. Churches should change as well. Some should close.

If we have sums of money to spend it is more likely that our best results will come from starting new churches rather than trying to resuscitate old ones. One of the points that all the experts agree upon is that it is extremely difficult to revitalize a church and few are successful at it.

I see nothing that dissuades me from agreeing with that.

Alas, our Sacred Clergy Tax Break declared unconstitutional

Is it unfair to say that few things get the attention of clergy quicker than pocketbook issues?

Thus, the decision handed down Friday by U. S. District Judge Barbara Crabb has riveted the attention of my Southern Baptist colleagues along with most every group who has been a beneficiary of the tax break we call the clergy housing allowance.

My interest in the housing allowance goes back several decades, since I have always used it to exclude a portion of my income from the churches I have pastored but my focus on the intricacies, history, and abuses of it are only a few years old. I heard the clear notes of a trumpet calling me to look closely at it. I credit my CPA blogging friend, Peter Reilly, for alerting me to most of the stuff happening with the housing allowance.

So, here we are with the housing allowance being ruled unconstitutional when paid in cash to a minister. Those clergy living in pastoriums weren't affected by the decision.

The reactions have been interesting.

Southern Baptists have two main entities that concern themselves with the allowance, our annuity board, GuideStone Financial Services and our lobbying arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The former provides clergy and churches with counsel on how to manage the allowance so as to keep the IRS happy and the latter is supposed to be a watchdog over our interests.

I get the feeling that both GuideStone and the ERLC were caught flatfooted by this decision. The two CEOs of the entities issued a joint statement and GS head, O. S. Hawkins even stated that the decision was "not unanticipated." I suppose that such anticipation was expressed around the water cooler in GuideStone's executive suite because nothing was said about it before the decision was handed down. I expect both entities to sharpen their focus now. It is incidental but both entity leaders are among the higher paid SBC clergy and likely exclude nice sums from their income tax through the housing allowance.

Naturally, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., plaintiff in the lawsuit is elated with the decision.

“May we say hallelujah!" sayeth the FFRF.

"Hallelujah" translates to "praise the Lord" so I am gratified that our fellow citizens at the FFRF aren't completely free from religion. Although, we hate to have our sacred tax break ox gored by the FFRF, those associated whom I have exchanged comments with have always been perspicacious, cordial and not unkind. Some Baptists commenters might take a lesson.

Judging from comments among the brethren, a good many Southern Baptist ministers believe that a Masters of Divinity degree conveys on them the ability to be an expert in constitutional law; hence, numerous pronouncements about rogue judges and what an establishment of religion really is. Let's be honest, this is a prickly issue with many components, precedents, and facets. While I disagree with the judge here, I cannot say flatly that any appeal is a slam dunk in our favor. We will see.

No reasonable, thinking Southern Baptist minister can avoid one conclusion in all this: the manner in which our housing allowance has been used borders on clergy malpractice. A growing subset of ministers who are very highly paid and who live in multi-million dollar mansions are able to exclude hundreds of thousands of dollars from income taxation. While this is perfectly legal, I would expect that most of us would think it to be bad policy for both government tax law and for maintaining clergy goodwill in the community. Do we really think it fair to shift taxes from wealthy clergy living in mansions to the less highly compensated? Surely not. Add to that the practice of churches ordaining ministry associates in administrative or peripheral church jobs solely so that they can be qualified for the housing allowance.

Not helpful, brethren. An overseer is required to be above reproach and have a good reputation in the community. Let's not forget that.

I wrote over two years ago,

Augie Boto, Frank Page, the SBC Executive Committee and our favorite SBC lobbyist, Richard Land, ought to be proactive on this matter and find a way to support legislation that will preserve the Housing Allowance in a reasonable fashion while excluding the ridiculous abuses, legal though they may be, by people like Phil Driscoll and Kenneth Copeland.

While this would not affect the constitutional issue, right is right and fair is fair. It's time to get our act together on this.

We will see what happens down the road. For now nothing is changed although Thom Ranier, head of our publishing and bookstore entity, LifeWay Christian Resources, said this:

Rainer advised ministers to be conservative as they deal with the issue. "If at all possible, do not be dependent on the tax benefits garnered from having a housing allowance," he wrote. "Look carefully at the tax benefits you gain with the housing allowance. Be prepared to know what to do if the benefit goes away."

No so simple for ministers who aren't as highly paid as Ranier, but this is good advice.

Do pastors lie when surveyed about work habits?

Just asking, my fellow soldiers of the Lord, just asking.

Thom Ranier did an informal survey of two measures of pastor work habits recently. Here are the results:

How many hours weekly does a pastor work?

2013 Twitter Poll(Full-time Pastors)
Less than 40 hours	3%
40-49 hours	47%
50-59 hours	40%
60-69 hours	7%
70 hours or more	3%

My observations on this.

• No full time pastor will ever admit to working less than a 40 hour week. He will figure out a way to rationalize 40+ even if he has to count "quiet, meditative time" in a boat fishing.
• Laypeople may underestimate the time their pastor works but laypeople I know well all speak of how church offices are always empty of clergy staff on Fridays. And then there's golf.
• Most SBC churches are single staff and while many do not need a full time pastor, they have one anyway. In those churches pastors have lots of time for reading, hunting, fishing, and running errands. But I'd bet few would ever admit to "working" less than 40 hours because that is the minimum the church expects.
• Some of Ranier's respondents gave a range, say 40-80 hours, and he took the midpoint. I suspect that   a pastor who has a series of crises one week and puts in 80 hours would use that figure, thereby skewing the average.
• Ranier said the midpoint was around 50 hours and that sounds about right. 
• Oh, when I would lead mission trips, I would report about a 120 hour work week but, alas, wouldn't be able to take the next two weeks as comp time. 

How much time do pastor spend preparing a sermon?

1 to 3 hours — 1%

4 to 6 hours — 9%

7 to 9 hours — 15%

10 to 12 hours — 22%

13 to 15 hours — 24%

16 to 18 hours — 23%

19 to 21 hours — 2%

22 to 24 hours — 0%

25 to 27 hours — 1%

28 to 30 hours — 2%

31 to 33 hours — 1%

My observations:

• These two surveys cannot coexist. Half of pastors can't work a 50 hour week and spend 26-36 hours of that in sermon preparation and pastor a church. If only 14-24 hours is left for visiting, counseling, office work, meetings, Sunday non-pulpit work, minister's conferences, etc then he's either not pastoring the church or is fudging the numbers.
• I've done many sermons in 1-3 hours, some of those may be repeats. Plodder offers the wild conjecture than many of the brethren dust off an old sermon, spend 30 minutes on it and then let it rip on Sunday.
• I've spent 35 years preparing a number of sermons. How does that skew things?
• Most weeks I had four times of preaching/teaching but would only count Sunday AM and PM as sermons.
• As I have visited other churches and church websites and have listened and read sermons, I'm seeing a lot of familiar sermon outlines as pastors use online resources. While a pastor might use someone else's outline and flesh it out with his original stuff, I suspect that many are taking someone else's prep work and winging it from there. I always cringe a bit when I see the same outlines from several different pastors.

I think pastors are like other folks. When asked a question that is personal, it's tough to get the whole truth. 

Is that lying? Sometimes.

The better way to get the true facts is to observe, but then who wants someone looking over their shoulder all week?

These are interesting things to think about and Thom Ranier does a good job with anecdotal and informal if not scientific writing on such.

Baptism miasma? Here's a possibility for a cure

The preconvention reporting of SBC statistics usually triggers a spate of old fashioned Baptist hand-wringing.  This year's total baptism figure puts it on steroids.

Baptist Press reports that baptisms for 2012 were at their lowest level since 1948 when the earliest Baby Boomers were toddlers. Total baptisms, 314,956 for 2012, are down over 18k from the previous year. The 5.5% drop is the largest percentage decline in quite some time.

"Woe is us" sayeth any and all SBC leaders and others:

"heartbreaking"  Thom Ranier, head of LifeWay

 "God forgive us and God help us." Frank Page, Executive Committee CEO

While the figure for 2012 is a continuation of the well-established, long term trend of declining baptism, this has been evident for decades, no one wants to say that it is business as usual and to be expected, even though it is.

The SBC is a declining denomination and has been for five years or so. We reluctantly join the other mainline denominations in a slow statistical slog southward. In spite of assurances otherwise, The Conservative Resurgence didn't stave off a decline but merely conserved the status quo a little longer.

Baptists may not be good at baptizing folks these days we we are still pretty good at finger pointing and there is no end to morbid self-introspection about declining baptisms: we're not reaching youth like we used to, we're not evangelistic, pastors are not aggressive enough, were not praying enough, we're not going door-to-door with big, thick, heavy King James Bibles like we used to, we are too culturally irrelevant, we are too culturally relevant, we sing to many hymns, we sing too many peppy contemporary dittys, we don't use vocational evangelists any longer, God just needs to send revival etc. etc., ad nauseum.

Overwhelmed and drowned out, pardon the pun, by the sagging baptism figure was the fact that the SBC showed an increase in the total number of churches. It was slight, 270 or a 0.6% increase from the previous year, but slightly up is better than markedly down.

That's good.


I offer the possibility that Southern Baptists are already doing something that has the potential to improve our baptism statistics. 

To not an inordinate bit of complaining, our North American Mission Board has redirected a considerable part of their budget and retooled much of their emphasis towards the planting of churches. Their flagship church planting initiative is Send North America. My association near Atlanta is part of this and there are already new churches being funded and planned through SNA.

Is it not settled that new churches grow faster than mature churches and that new churches baptize more with fewer members than legacy churches?

Yep.

And while various state conventions have church revitalization programs that are aimed at reinvigorating the thousands of sepulchral congregations around the SBC, most of us would predict failure in that lugubrious task, chiefly because churches are happy where they are and simply do not wish to be revitalized.
        
So, is it reasonable to think that a goal of increasing baptisms will more likely be reached through new congregations than by trying to persuade, cajole, or badger existing churches to make changes?

Yep.

After we're done with our annual pre-convention hand wringing session over declining baptisms and church membership, perhaps we could put some energy into doing the things that might help reverse this trend.

It is too early to measure the success of NAMB's work but it is about the only thing we are doing right now that holds out the possibility for a positive increase.

Doleful talk and tired, boilerplate warnings about the future may make us feel good but will not put more people in the baptistery.

Send North America probably will. Any church, any pastor will find a place to contribute through this, so take a day or two to be disconsolate about the latest baptism statistics and then start doing something positive about it. 

Are church splits a thing of the past?

I am forced to vote 'yes' they are a thing of the past...but...

Only because we have a new nomenclature for them

Unfriendly Church Starts

I'm not sure what is going on in our denomination but somehow, some way, Plodder did not get the memo on this. Apparently word is out that we no longer have church "splits."

Nosirree. When a group of jut-jawed, disgruntled church members grab a pastor or staff member in the middle of a church squabble and go down the street to start their own church, by gum, we shall speak hereafter and forevermore of this action as an "unfriendly church start."

There. That prickly little problem is fixed. No more splits.

I suppose I lead a sheltered life in the Southern Baptist hinterlands, since the first time I ran across the phrase "unfriendly church start" was last week on Thom Ranier's blog, Four Thoughts on Unfriendly Church Starts.

When I read the headline, my thinking was, "Hmmm, good topic. A church start in an unfriendly area, perhaps amongst the Mormons or Hasidim. I'd like to know more." Instead Ranier was giving advice on the old fashioned, thoroughly Southern Baptist methodology of starting many of our new churches through ugly and angry splits out of existing churches.

Church planting strategists used to enjoy using this line at minister's conferences and evangelism rallys: "You guys know that a sizable proportion of our church starts are actually splits?"

No, I didn't know way back when I first heard that stated. Now I do, although I have not seen anyone toss out actual numbers lately. Such would be rather embarrassing. I certainly hope it is not true today.

Regardless, consider that we clever Southern Baptists have solved yet another thorny ecclesiastical problem with the old Baptists, tried-and-true fix-all tool: Just rename the doggone thing and plow blithely ahead with kingdom work. To wit:

Southern Baptist Convention  :  Great Commission Baptists

Calvinism  :  Doctrines of Grace

Traditionalists  :  Traditionalists (need a bit more work on this one)

Think of it. If we all got on board there would be no more Calvinists in the SBC just doctrines of gracers. Ah, silly dreamer, the Calvinists are already trying this and it ain't working.

Perhaps we could instead buckle down, pray fervently, talk to each other, listen to each other, put a halt to the expectorating contests, and actually fix the problem.

Come to think of it, that would work on the local church and on the denominational level.

Why not try it?

Will LifeWay connect this man to Glorieta? Updated

Baptist Press now has a story, LifeWay awaits study pending Glorieta sale,  based on the Christianity Today article linked below.  

The CT article makes it very difficult, in my opinion, for LifeWay to go through with this. One notes that Al Mohler and Danny Akin have very recently resigned their affiliation with Jang-related organizations. It makes it complicated that Olivet University is already renting a large chunk of Glorieta even now. What happens to all that if the sale is deep sixed?

Life is complicated for LifeWay...

_____________

I'm five states away and have never been to what I'm told is a very nice facility - Glorieta Baptist Conference Center. You know, the one that has lost money for 24 of the last 25 years and about which LifeWay says that there's just not much demand for the stuff offered at the center.

So, LifeWay puts it on the market for sale with considerable stipulations (details and links in an earlier blog of mine here).

Sounds both reasonable and responsible to me.

The best sale prospect, the Baptist Convention of New Mexico, said the price quoted them, one dollar, was ten to twenty million dollars too high so LifeWay finds another potential buyer, a real buyer who presumably will write a real check to LifeWay - Olivet University in California, who is even now renting Glorieta facilities for about 200 students and faculty.

But it seems there is a question about theological compatibility with Olivet, sufficient for LifeWay to retain, as in spend good money, the National Association of Evangelicals "to conduct a thorough review of their theological views to determine compatibility with ours”, as a LifeWay executive put it in an Associated Baptist Press story. Baptist Press reported in July that a third party investigation was under way but did not name NAE.


Scrutiny on the potential deal may just have increased exponentially as a result of a Christianity Today article, The Second Coming Controversy, which names a Korean pastor and Olivet founder, David Jang, likely unknown to almost all Southern Baptists, as the questionable figure lurking behind the potential sale. The article, co-authored by the considerable Ted Olson, is no superficial treatment of the matter and is rather lengthy. I'm guessing that LifeWay's folks have read every syllable of it.

Jang's critics point to his involvement with the Korean religious figure and organization that most SBCers have heard of, Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church, the mere mention of which may poison the Glorieta deal. Others have declared Jang to be completely orthodox.

Some of the landed gentry at Glorieta, residents with long term land leases whom LifeWay says they will protect in any sale, are already dropping Jang's name.

One wonders, do not Southern Baptists have people of sufficient erudition and import to conduct such a study, or is a third party needed because some prominent SBCers, Al Mohler and Richard Land and formerly Jimmy Draper and LifeWay's current CEO, Thom Ranier, among others have tangential ties to some of Jang's sprawling organization?

I'm merely a curious Eastern seaboard Southern Baptist who doesn't venture west of the muddy Mississippi, much less the Pecos, who wonders if LifeWay may have roped a tornado on this deal.

I have no reason not to believe that LifeWay trustees, who exhibited some hasty skittishness in pulling the wonderful movie Blind Side from their stores (a predictor of a decision on this matter?), will make the proper decision on this and I trust that the NAE study, when completed and reviewed by LifeWay executives and trustees, will be made public.

Plodder predicts: no deal...but I'm just reading the Korean tea leaves on this. One this is for certain, LifeWay better find a way to get ahead of the publicity on this.

Plodder summoned to the Baptist Vatican

I was privileged last week to attend the service in Nashville where 101 new missionaries appointed by IMB and will be going overseas soon.

Baptist Press (story linked above) never fails to cover these events and well they should. The stories follow a familiar template: no real names are given, no name of countries where these will be serving, and short quotes about missionary calling for a few of them.

Frank Page was there and introduced himself as the SBC Executive Committee's "Chief Encouraging Officer." I like the guy, partly for stuff like that. I didn't see Thom Ranier. Tom Elliff preached. SBC luminaries abounded. 

I don't get summoned to the Baptist Vatican for conferences with Frank Page, he doesn't know me from Adam's housecat, nor for consultations with LifeWay; however, I was summoned to this one because of a personal interest in two of the appointees.

There aren't many things SBC that do not interest me. The changes at NAMB deserve attention, the election of the next SBC president is important, the name non-change business is significant, and the ordinary, everyday SBC politics has innumerable junkies among us, but it might be helpful to remember that the SBC exists because, on a much, much smaller scale our predecessors wanted to see to it that some among them were put in other places in the world where the Gospel was desperately needed.

It still is. We still do. Thank God for that.

Pastor, quit whining about forced termination

Thom Ranier, LifeWay head, makes some observations about church staff. Among them are two that deal with pastor and staff terminations (emphasis mine):

...we are watching a recent trend that shows about four percent of church staff are terminated each year, a number much higher than that of senior pastors (see below).

Get that statistic? Church staff members in the SBC are terminated at a rate of 4% annually. One in twenty-five church staff members is out the door in SBC churches, and that every year.

So, how does the senior pastor fare, you know, the one in a pressure cooker, the one who gets all the complaints dumped on him, the one with all those unrealistic expectations, the one who has to deal with all the obstreperous deacons, church matriarchs and patriarchs?

The number of forced terminations of senior pastors has stabilized. For the past seven years, about 1.5 percent of senior pastors have lost their jobs each year due to forced terminations. That number is fairly stable.

Roughly one senior pastor in sixty-seven gets axed each year.

Staff: 1 in 25. Senior pastor: 1 in 67.

Staff over 2.5 times as likely to be fired as senior pastor.

In a weak moment I get to thinking that being a church staff member, not the senior pastor, would be a welcome change...then I think about staff members around my association and state. Clearly, my job security as pastor is far greater than that of a staff member.

I have some sympathy for my colleagues in the Christian ministry who serve on church staff. Sure, some are "under-performing" as Ranier euphemistically puts it. But I've been around long enough to know that I would rather have a pagan as my boss than quite a few senior pastors I have known.

Let the sad anecdotes roll in....

SBC Megachurches...

...love them, hate them, or be ambivalent about them. According to Thom Ranier, head of LifeWay there are 177 of them in the SBC. That is, 177 churches that report on the Annual Church Profile an average primary worship attendance of at least 2,000 weekly and who give something to the Cooperative Program. Not all churches reported, so there's probably a few missing from this list. Some that are on the list are probably only nominally SBC.

Some observations on the 177 megachurches:

About 0.4% of SBC churches are megachurches but on an average Lord’s Day of the 6.2 million people that attend worship in an SBC church, about ten percent of these are nestled in a megachurch.

If your worship is in one of the megachurches, you attend church on that given Sunday with about 3,500 other souls. You probably know very few of them and the pastor might but probably doesn't know who you are.

If your worship is in a non-megachurch, you worship with about 120 other people on that Sunday. You probably know most of them, by name. Your pastor almost certainly knows you and calls you by name when you leave church and tell him what a great sermon he preached.

There are as many as or more SBC megachurches in California (9) than in any of these SBC legacy states: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, or Kentucky.

Texas, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee have about 60% of all the megas in the SBC. Texas has by far the most but churches there are known to inflate their members just like ranchers there inflate their acreage and cattle. Georgians, however, are scrupulously honest.

You probably don't recognize some of the top ten megachurches:
1. Second Baptist, Houston
2. Saddleback Valley Community Church, CA
3. Woodlands Church, TX
4. Prestonwood Baptist, TX
5. Thomas Road, VA
6. Potential, Ft. Lauderdale
7. NewSpring Church, SC
8. The Fountain of Praise, Houston
9. Lake Pointe Church, TX
10. Saint Matthews Baptist, NJ

I recognize only half of them.

How many pastors of these churches could you name? Well, Ed Young, Sr. I know; Rick Warren, I recognize, and Falwell the Younger can't be missed. But the rest? Plodder may be deeply out of touch but he has never heard of several of the others.

Two of the top ten seem to be black churches.

Notably, only four of the ten feature ‘Baptist’ in their name.

Suppose you were fresh out of seminary, had a few years of a student pastorate under your belt and got a phone call that started,

"Brother Emdiv, this is Fred Smith. I'm chairman of the pastor search committee for Mud Creek Baptist in Hendersonville, NC. We like your resume and would like to talk to you."

I know what you might think.

'Ain't no way I'm taking my wife to any Mud Creek church. They are probably wonderful folks and a wonderful little church, but I'm edumacated, ordained, and seasoned and am ready for a greater challenge.' ('Greater challenge' is, of course, SBC preacher code language for a bigger church, bigger salary, and greater prestige.)

Better hold your tongue there, hotshot. Mud Creek is a megachurch. There are only three SBC churches in NC are larger than good ol' Mud Creek.

Er, I'd be glad to talk to you.

Then again, you might not be ready for a megachurch.

Check with Joel Gregory first.

Admit it. You've been depressed in your church.

Pastors get depressed.

Pastors’ wives get really depressed.

It’s Monday morning and I’m a little morose myself.

A steady stream of SBC folks write about pastors and depression. The latest is Thom Ranier whose recent article, When Pastors Experience Depression
offers helpful suggestions and informative links.

Ranier writes,

The articles [linked] note that the problem of depression in the ministry is not only real, but that it is growing. Further, the rate of depression among ministers is now higher than the rate of the general population.

He suggests ways laypeople can help their pastor: pray for him, make him take vacations and days off, pay him adequately. Good.

Other things I've read on depression recently are less helpful. A megachurch pastor who is depressed takes a several month sabbatical and some large church pastors near me get the month of July off.

Did I miss this trend in SBC life, where you get a month in the summer off? Guess so.

Average-sized church pastors don’t get a month off and they don’t have an ice cube’s chance in Gehenna of a sabbatical. They might live with a meager salary. They probably don’t have a staff to handle church things on his days off or vacation. Which leaves most of us without these options altogether.

If Ranier has good suggestions for laypeople, Plodder will step in with humble suggestions for pastors. No, I don’t have any special training or qualifications for such things, aside from observing some of my colleagues over the years:

1. Reevaluate how you handle ministry. Ranier suggests that one cause of clergy depression is unrealistic expectations. He's right about this.

Do you really need to be at the hospital for every type of medical issue for all of your congregation? I don’t think you can survive in a church if you try to meet everyone’s expectations.

There’s always one of your pastor predecessors who did more, more often, in ministry that you can possibly do. To some in your congregation he's a hero and you're lazy. Better to smile and ignore these people and do what you feel is proper in your ministry.

2. If called while on vacation, consider whether or not it is really necessary to cut it short. I like vacations. My wife really likes vacations. I like being away. I rather like not having the same weekly routine.

So, when on vacation and you get that phone call, is it really something that you need to get back for, immediately? How about a phone call? I admit to some anxiety when away but thinking back on almost thirty years of pastoring and vacations, there have been only a few times when I needed to drop everything and return. Most members will be understanding and considerate about this.

3. Rethink exactly what constitutes success in ministry. OK, neither you nor I can do anything to change the settled fact that the coin-of-the-realm in SBC life to many, perhaps most, pastors and laypeople, is church growth: Buildings, baptisms, budgets. If this is the measure of success, then since the great majority of SBC churches aren’t growing, most SBC pastors are unsuccessful. Depressing. Maybe we need to adjust our thinking on this.

4. GO TO THE DOCTOR. Ranier didn’t make this suggestion but should have. Depression can be a serious medical problem. Every community I’ve pastored in has a story about a pastor who committed suicide. A corollary to this is: DO WHAT THE DOCTOR SAYS. Sorry, but this one needs to be shouted. Men are stubborn about healthcare. Men pastors are doubly stubborn. If your doctor says you need it then get the prescription and take the doggone pills.

While Johnny Hunt can talk openly about his depression (and can get 11 weeks off), I don’t think most of us can. Maybe I’m wrong here but my view is that the church will view their pastor as damaged goods if he is under treatment for depression or asks for extra time off to deal with it. I'd like to think I'm wrong about this but I'm probably right.

I’d speculate that many members recognize when their pastor is in a funk and are kind and considerate enough to make allowances. They’ve been there and understand. Thank God for these people.

Of course, if one’s approach to pastoral ministry is that the pastor is superman, then ignore all this.

Thom Ranier on helpful criticism

Back in February, I, uh, criticized LifeWay head Thom Ranier for his blog on criticism. I thought that he erred in saying that those who cricicized the pastor might just be lost.

Well, Ranier, has a new blog on criticism in which he says criticism can be helpful.

FIRST-PERSON: 7 lessons we can learn from critics

He doesn't allude to Plodder's brilliant criticism of his earlier blog on criticism in which I called for advice to pastors about receiving criticism...but maybe he read my piece anyhow.

I give him credit for his present article on learning from criticism.

Criticize your pastor? You might be lost.

This according to Thom Ranier in a Baptist Press article,
FIRST-PERSON: When people criticize church leadership ...

In it he decries the "level and frequency" of criticism of pastors, something that he says "has increased significantly in the past several years." Maybe the level and intensity of criticism of pastors is up but no data is given.

Perhaps he has in mind some cases of calvinist pastors who have endured severe criticism after making changes consistent with their calvinistic views. Perhaps he has in mind the several cases of prominent SBC megachurch pastors who have to deal with anti-pastor blogs and websites. Steve Gaines at Bellevue, Mac Brunson at FBCJax, and Jerry Sutton formerly of Two Rivers all had or have members who operate or did operate such forums for criticism.

Or perhaps he has anecdotal evidence that the ordinary single staff pastor has a harder time with harsher critics these days.

It seems to me that the main difference with critics today, whether or not they are more frequent and harsh, is that they do have the option of a broader, more convenient, and more effective arena for criticism - blogs and websites and the like. A pastor in 2011 might wake up to a blog, even an anonymous blog that takes him to task. Welcome to the 21st century, pastor.

Ranier has some conclusions about the critics:

First, the standards of church membership have been low in many churches for many years. As a consequence our churches have more and more unregenerate members. Frankly, I would be not be surprised if some of the most vitriolic criticisms come from those who are not Christians.

First? I admit that it appeals to pastors if it is suggested that their critics may be pagans. But, is it proper to begin an address of criticism of pastors by raising the possibility that some critics are unbelievers? Sure, they may be, but it is a judgment that no pastor has the capability of making. It seems too self-serving to this pastor to "first" consider that some of my critics may just be lost. I don't think unregenerate members are the source of most criticism of pastors.

Second, church members have been unwilling to take a stand when they see and hear unwarranted criticism toward the pastor and other leaders.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are times when the pastor should be insulated, protected, defended, and bolstered by church members against critics. But, ah, the word “unwarranted” makes all the difference here. All of the cases mentioned above and, in cases I am familiar with, there is some degree of validity in criticism of the pastor. There are certainly some cases where such is unwarranted, as well.

Ranier continues by concluding,

It is truly a sin to remain silent when it is our God-given responsibility to confront those who ultimately would hinder the spread of the Gospel with the poison of their words.

Rather than classify criticism as “poison” and a "hindrance to the spread of the Gospel," what would be helpful would be an article on how a pastor and church should handle legitimate criticism. I would reluctantly admit that most of the criticism I have received over the decades has some degree of justification. I have benefited from some, have been hurt by some, and have found some worthy of being ingored. So, how should my church and I best handle critics?

A healthy church, a healthy pastor, and a pastor and church who have a healthy relationship will be one where criticism can be offered and handled properly by the both of them. A healthy church has channels for criticism. When members who criticize their pastor are treated dismissively, when they are called names, when the pastor flogs them from the pulpit rather than listen to them, when they (and sometimes their families) are crushed by heavyhanded tactics of the pastor or church leadership, something is wrong that our denominational leadership needs to recognize. Some pastors and churches need help in this area.

From where I stand and from what I see and read, it is completely understandable that critics, aware that they will never receive a hearing from their leadership, will sometimes take their criticism to alternative channels like blogs and discussion boards. They do this not because they are unregenerate, vicious, or cheapshot critics, but because they have been taught that they will not get a hearing from their pastor or church and that they will be treated badly if they do speak up.

I’m all for respecting one’s pastor. He should be given the benefit of the doubt in questionable decisions and actions. He should be allowed to exercise his leadership and gifts. And I recognize that there are church members with such a level of dissatisfaction that they will be much happier in another church and should be encouraged to pursue that course. But a pastor and church leadership have a responsibility to their membership to provide channels for critics, to listen, to respond properly.

It is as easy to beat up on the critics as it is for critics to beat up on the pastor. Let’s acknowledge that and provide helpful advice to both.