One of the most difficult questions faced by many Christians is what to do when they disagree with their pastor. All of us, with the possible exception of some neurotics, want to obey the words of 1 Peter 3:8 where the apostle Peter writes, “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with others, be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.”
Unfortunately, the beauty of “brothers dwelling together in unity” (Ps. 133:1) is frequently shattered in day-to-day life in the local congregation. Too many times harmony deteriorates into a power struggle, sympathy is replaced by callousness, love loses to ill will and compassion is supplanted by selfishness.
What starts out as a personal difference often becomes a community squabble. Instead of seeking the good of the church, the goal becomes a win-lose contest between participants.
When that happens, everybody loses no matter who comes out on top. The pastor loses. Church members lose. The church as a whole loses.
It is important to remember that God calls every church into a future of service, not into efforts of preserving the past or the status quo. Part of hope is believing God will make our future better than what has gone before. That means change is inevitable. Insanity, one definition holds, is “doing the same thing and expecting different results.”
To be angry just because things are different or not as one would like is insufficient motivation for confrontation. Personal preferences take a backseat to common good.
Still there are times when one thinks the pastor wrong and concludes something needs to be said. When that time comes make sure the goal of the exchange is understanding, not change. The church member needs to understand the pastor’s perspective just as the pastor needs to understand the member’s views.
How different the conversation when one begins with the charge, “You are teaching heresy,” and when one says, “I understand the Bible differently and want to see if we have common ground.”
The first approach evokes a defensive reaction. The second initiates a conversation. The first makes a sweeping condemnation. The second provides a specific issue for discussion. The first is emotional venting; the second seeks reconciliation.
Change that lasts comes from increased understanding, not from coercion. If one asks the pastor to change based on new insights, the member also must approach the issue with a willingness to change. An open, honest, loving conversation is a learning opportunity for both participants — not just for the one on the other side of the issue.
Still differences may persist. That is when it is necessary to decide how important the differences are and whether the differences are with the pastor or with a larger group.
Not every difference is a difference about essentials. Some differences are over individual preferences. Can one live with the difference? Can one worship God and serve in the church despite the difference? Is the fellowship of the congregation more important than the difference? All of these are important questions to ask.
It is also important to know with which party the difference lies. One may believe it is with the pastor, yet the majority of the church (at least those in the decision-making process) may endorse an idea. When that happens, one’s difference is not with the pastor but with the congregation.
This is sometimes played out when a new pastor advocates a different plan for the church than the one followed in the past. Seldom is this done just to anger someone. Rather it is the pastor’s vision of how the church’s future can be better than its past.
During the time the idea is being considered one should participate in the decision-making process, critique the vision, point out places of disagreement, present alternatives. One’s participation adds additional insight and value to the process.
A pastor must listen to the preferences of the people just as the people must listen to the ideas of the pastor. The goal is a common vision formed by pastor and people listening and learning from one another and from God so they can move forward together.
Occasionally group decisions are made and directions chosen with which a member cannot be a part. It is important to remember that disagreement never justifies unethical behavior. Trying to destroy someone is out of bounds. Tricks like trying to “starve the pastor out” by withholding tithes and offerings are unethical. So is spreading misinformation or undermining the pastor’s leadership.
Remember no matter how noble one may consider the end, it never justifies sinful means.
If the congregation embraces a new vision that one cannot approve and if the differences are deemed essential, then separation is a legitimate option. Separation will be painful. There simply is no easy way to leave. Even when one affirms the good of past experiences and relationships, the separation brings lasting changes.
Leaving must be done as gracefully as possible and with a clear conscience. If one has done everything possible to find resolution and if one has done nothing to harm or hurt individuals or the church, then one will never look back with the “if only I had …” wish.
One’s absence will certainly be noted. Also noted will be the Christian character evidenced in bridling selfishness and emphasizing the common good by the manner of one’s departure.
Of course, God will give the final judgment about the difference as He always does. Time will demonstrate if the new vision, the new style, the new ministry, the new understanding, the new way of doing things was right or wrong.
For now everyone involved only “knows in part,” as the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Until the time that every Christian “knows fully,” we are called to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength and love others as we love ourselves.
Share with others: