Motives, Gossip and Redemption
by Danny Bell
By Danny Bell, April 2, 2014
Have you ever heard a report that made someone else sound bad? It's easy to accept it when it confirms what we already want to believe about the one reported on. Why bother to check it out? Let’s just accept it as gospel truth, to be believed and passed on as such. Of course, if the bad report is about someone we favour or about us, we consider the reporter to be biased or guilty of reporting before all the facts are in. This is a natural way to act because it saves us from taking the time to investigate every report we come across.
At least that's what Mark Gutman said on the Adventist Today website1. But his words ring true for many who have suffered at the hands of rumour and speculation. As Gutman infers, we sometimes want to believe something about someone because we don't like what they say or an encounter with them hasn't been to our liking. This gives us licence to justify passing on judgments.
In my own experience of leaving pastoral work and going on leave for two years, some church acquaintances would comment, "We heard you were sacked." When attending different churches looking for a place to settle down after ministry, I remember looking around and catching people staring at me in a weird unfriendly way—was I being paranoid or did these people know something I didn't? Then there were the occasions where people fell all over us to the point where I asked my wife later, "Did you see that?" Most ex-pastors will know exactly what I am talking about; those who have never left ministry won’t.
Maybe we should query the next person who tells us something about someone that is negative. We may trust our friends on delivery of such information, but where did they get it from? Are we crucifying Jesus afresh when we allow ourselves to be informed by unsubstantiated reports of a person who isn't there to defend themselves? The rumours about Jesus were so many that they took on a life of their own and so people were prepared to just believe what they heard without questioning the accuracy of the reports.
Once when I was pastoring, three elders reported in a meeting that a teacher was seen smoking at the hairdressers. They wanted me to approach her and discipline her. I asked if any of them had talked to the woman first. They said they hadn't because it was the pastor’s job and besides, "God has only gifted certain people to approach offenders." Their motives just went out the window.
As chairman of many committees, I never allowed ill reports about others to come into committee meetings unless Matthew 18 had been followed. The cold reality is that when negative reports come in without the right thing being done, we can no longer assume that the welfare of the individual is at heart. Before we know it, the whole committee can be tainted and made biased to what may eventually turn out to be nothing more than hearsay.
My favourite grandma warned, "Whatever the character of the offense, this does not change the plan that God has made for the settlement of misunderstandings and personal injuries" (Colporteur Ministry, 152). The damage of unconfirmed information and judgments on people who are not present to defend themselves is a shameful, fully blown culture in the Adventist church. Too often in our executive meetings, discussions about others that expose them to speculation and rumour is permitted. It is a current phenomenon at all levels of church government and needs to be stopped or at least curtailed by those who have control and responsibility in such meetings.
Where has the redemptive process gone? I challenge the church and its leaders to put this evil practice behind us and to deal truthfully and honestly with each other. As a friend of mine once said, "If they are going to stab me, I would rather it be in the chest so I can at least see who it was."
Yours in the war,
Danny Bell
This is excellent advice, Danny, and certainly Biblical. I have never been part of the inner machinery of church leadership so as to be exposed to the type of "innocent" rumor mongering that can masquerade as concern for the flock. But I can certainly imagine how it is likely to occur. Even those of us who are not in church leadership easily get sucked into juicy gossip (often true) echo chambers that do not serve to build up or heal, and that we have no intention of employing to any good purpose.
Nathan, u dont have to be part of the inner machinery, just attend boards or nom committees to see this disease at work. The higher the level this is practiced the more damage it does.
'In my own experience of leaving pastoral work and going on leave for two years, some church acquaintances would comment, "We heard you were sacked." …Most ex-pastors will know exactly what I am talking about; those who have never left ministry won’t.'
Danny becoming a member of the clergy seems to be a dangerous choice. Can you recall in your own experience how many who started in Ministry were still there thirty years later – not that many I guess. And that in itself wouldn't be a problem, if not for the question of how many who leave the Ministry (often for very good reasons, such as realising the sort of hours required were destroying their family) stay in the SDA Church – again not that many.
So it seems to me that actually joining the Ministry is dangerous to one's longterm retention in the SDA Church. And that doesn't even consider the risks to PKs, who have the added pressure.
There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with that picture. I suspect it involves the very sort of gossip-mills who rightly allude to. We've all seen it – and if we are honest – we have probably all participated in it. Matt 18 is indeed key – and rarely followed in practice.
Yes and No Steve,
yes it is a dangerous occupation to those who would hold alot of integrity – painful processes and situations will always arise for the pastor who does what God tells him to do depsite the consequences or culture of positivism.
No it is not dangerous for the compromising pastor….the one who is heard saying…"I love my job" which is an oxymoron indicating he/she has usually sacrificed something to become the peoples choice whereby they get voted to higher positions. Lets be honest, no rebel pastor ever got elected to presidencey. I can say this as a pastor – its not true for all but many bring onto themselves many of the stresses they receive not realising its easier to sleep at night and live with ones self than to try to please everyone.
PK's are collateral damage in all of this as they are masters at seeing hypocrisy – they either play along in the charade or leave the church and rebel fully.
As defamatory as the rumors we hear about people are the stereotypes and false conclusions we reflexively accept when we hear certain things. I left pastoral work 31 years ago and church employment 28 years ago. It is still surprising to see how people react negatively when they discover my history. The reasons were that I was not gifted for pastoral work and my matter-of-fact personality clashed with conference and ministry leaders who didn't want anyone thinking the least bit differently from them.
Some years back I read Dr. Laura Schlesinger's book The Ten Commandments. Reading a discussion about God's law in the modern world from the perspective of an orthodox Jew was challenging and informative. From her point of view bearing false witness against someone encompassed far more than just not making false statements on the witness stand in court because the concept extends to issues of making statements in the course of your normal daily activities that reflect negatively on the character of another. The concept does not require that your statement be inaccurate, merely that it is negative.
I see that play out all the time Bill.
if your not ubbeat and positive and dont rock the boat then u r for the scrap heap, the church doesnt warm to those who blow whistles or challenge the way we do things.
if you are classed as a trouble maker, then what people say about you must be true,,,,,
Dingdong,
You said: Lets be honest, no rebel pastor ever got elected to presidencey. I can say this as a pastor –
This comment hits a "raw nerve" for me. Pastors should go to seminary to be pastors, not hope to climb up the ladder into administration! If they want to be administrators, there should be specialized education for them. I have seen too many good pastors with great talent, lost to administration which they are not always cut out for. We will be much better off if pastors stop trying to climb into power jobs.
Actually the best pastors I have known are the "trouble makers." Whenever a pastor tries to be relevant and progressive (in the best sense), he will be criticized, and we hope he/she can stand up to it. I don't know what you mean by "compromising" but I hope it doesn't mean not living by 19th-century priorities. The areas for no compromise are moral, financial, and major theological doctrines. The cultural norms of yesteryear keep us isolated and worse.
Yes EM but its not so raw for me as one who was in the thick of it, I saw many make career based moves and quite quickly to get out of pastoring as it has alot of health hazards.
The thing is however, the hazard is not standing for truth be it 19th century or otherwise (I can honour anyone who stands for their version of truth till they bleed), but its a health hazard in the sense that they live a double life and have to compromise int he sense of authenticity.
I saw alot of good pastors give up fighting for change and roll over into admin. The fight was just too hard for them. This is in my estimation compromise. God is calling you to do your duty and you abdicate and sit behind a desk where there it is easier to hide behind a "team" and criticism is par for the course so it is ignored……
No, my hat goes off to the rebel pastors who are always in trouble with the people or the conference……especially if its is for what they belive in – left or right…..hot or cold…….anything but a warm wet dead/fishy handshake…. and indicator that the spirit has been broken and an empty shell remains.
Ella: 'If they want to be administrators, there should be specialized education for them.'
This may be off-topic a bit, but has the SDA Church lost its track on what is a member of the ordained clergy. In the earlier times of the SDA Church, weren't many of our doctors (heading our medical institutions), teachers (especially principals), coleporters and administrators (such as accountants) often 'pastorized'?
It seems a relatively new practice to limit ordination for 'pastors' to those with theology degrees. And we all know how terrible at administration some of our greatest ministers of the Word can be! In many local SDA conferences in Australia, this move has coincided with the loss of ex officio status at Session for other Church employees (such as teachers, doctors, coleporters) who are not theological-Ministers.
Perhaps we need to return to an older model then? Perhaps the Church should say encourage more people to do a double-degree in Ministry (the more practical side of things) with something other than Theology (which all our current 'pastors' seem to be doing these days). Thus, our administrators are those who have double degrees in Ministry and Accountancy, Commerce, Business or Law etc. Or better yet, the Church actively recruits people who are already successful people in their own fields out in the 'real-world', and encourages them into 'full-time' Ministry for the Church by completing some sort of Graduate Diploma in Ministry.
Perhaps then we can leave Theology to a more select group of 'pastors' who actually want to be theologians. And perhaps we rightly leave those Theologians to become academics at our universities, and leave adminstration to those who can actually administer things?
Why the need for administrators to be ordained or have studied theology for a ministerial degree? The church needs professionally trained business people. In the past, ministers were usually appointed to those positions and the church suffered enormous financial losses because of incompetency, gross neglect and sheer greed to the point of overlooking legal consequences.