Chapter Ten: Communicating With Subordinates

A common error in Christian leadership is poor communication. Many leaders commit typical communication mistakes that cause friction. We need to be aware of these.

Ø Assumed comprehension

I once taught Spanish to eighth graders. On one occasion, I took forty-five minutes to explain how to conjugate a Spanish verb. At the end, I asked if there were any questions. A student raised his hand and asked, “Mr. Smalling, what is a verb?”

The class was wasted for that student and it was my fault. I assumed they all knew what was a verb and proceeded without giving them the necessary foundation.

As a leader, never assume your subordinate understands their job. Always verify. If misunderstanding occurs, it is your fault not theirs.

Imagine yourself working at a job, convinced you are doing it right. Along comes your supervisor and says, “What on earth are you doing? That’s not the way to do that job!” Then he reprimands for not knowing how to do the job right.

Have you ever had such an experience? Most of us have. You assume you are doing your job right until a supervisor comes along and tells you it is all-wrong. Question: Who is at fault? Answer: The supervisor. It is his fault for not communicating. It is not your fault for not knowing.

_______________________________________________

As a leader, never assume

your subordinate

understands his job.

Always verify.

_______________________________________________

Ø The Mr. Incognito syndrome

There are people who carefully arrange their lives so it is nearly impossible to contact them. They never seem available. They avoid answering their phone, leaving the answering machine to do it. While their attitude is not hostile, one gets the impression of, “Don’t call me. I’ll call you at my convenience.” People come into their lives when and if they decide.

Two things are notable about these personalities: First, they have no business being in Christian leadership. Second, they are frequently Christian leaders. We call these types, Mr. Incognitos.

A missionary team on which I served had a team leader who was just such a type. The team members all had their residences in the city. His was in the country. Every member had a telephone, except him. People complained about him being unavailable so he got a cell phone which in that country a lot of money to the team fund. It did not work much of the time.

After a while, we began to refer to him privately as “Mr. Incognito.” The team mentally wrote him off and ignored him. Fortunately, most of the team were self-starters who needed little supervision. This syndrome created a leadership vacuum. He had lost his leadership and could not communicate enough to figure it out.

In contrast with Mr. Incognito, is the example of the pastor of a Presbyterian church. I needed to visit him on business one day. I went into the office and introduced myself to the secretary, explaining I wished to see the pastor. I apologized that I had not made an appointment. The secretary ignored this comment and said, “The pastor’s office is just around the corner here. Go right in.”

I paused and said, “Don’t you need to announce me?” She said, “No. The door is open. Just go right in.” Sure enough, the door was open and he was sitting behind a large desk, writing. I knocked on the door frame. He smiled and said, “Come in!”

He dismissed my apology for interrupting him and indicated he was attentive to me. He said, “There is nothing I do more important than people. People are my business. That is why I am here. It is not an interruption. I simply do other work between people.”

Later I reflected, “I wonder if this pastor’s attitude has anything to do with the fact that he has 2000 people in his church.”

Ø The hovering hawk syndrome

Have you ever had a supervisor who stands over you to watch everything you do? Did you feel comfortable? Did you perform better or worse?

Give subordinates room to breathe and avoid smothering their creativity.

If you give a job to someone, make sure they understand what is expected then leave them alone to do it. You can check in on them diplomatically with the question, “Do you need anything?”

Constant feedback is an important key to avoiding problems with your subordinates. Ask your people what they think about the job to be done. You will be amazed how often they totally misunderstood.

Do this however, without insulting their intelligence. Avoid the condescending statement, “I want you to repeat to me what I just said.”

Ø Unilateral decisions without consulting

On a missionary team, one leader tended to make decisions without consulting the other ministers in his team. This caused his team to feel their opinions and persons were meaningless. The feeling of being disregarded and disdained tended to result in a counter reaction of the same kind. The team began to disregard and disrespect the leader.

Leaders who do this give the impression they consider themselves far wiser than those around them. Leaders may get so busy, they sometimes forget the importance of input from subordinates. They simply want to get things done expediently. Arrogance may not be the cause of these unilateral decisions. But to subordinates, it certainly looks like it.

Unilateral decisions are particularly damaging in Christian circles because everyone is a volunteer. People have a much lower tolerance for abuse when they are not obliged to be there.

People naturally tend to react in like kind to the way in which we treat them. If we show esteem the input of our subordinates, they are more likely to respect our decisions.

Ø Negative-only communication

Another type of leader communicates with his subordinates only when he is displeased. When he makes an appointment with someone, that person knows automatically he is displeased. Guess what stress this puts on the subordinate!

People learn to avoid him. They show him respect outwardly but in private they neither esteem his person nor heed his counsel. (We’ll see more on this in the next chapter.)

Summary

Good communication is almost synonymous with good leadership. Leaders need to walk a line between too much supervision and too little. Subordinates cannot read our minds and it is our responsibility to make sure they understand what we expect of them.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Good communication with subordinates is essential to leadership.

Ø Some leaders assume their people understand what is expected of them when this may not be the case.

Ø Some leaders smother their subordinates with too much supervision.

Ø Unilateral decisions without consulting those involved may cause resentment and disrespect.

Ø Communicating only when something is wrong makes a leader less desirable to be around.

Chapter Eleven: Communication: Positive affirmation

Why positive affirmation?

Have you ever had a supervisor in the work place who only communicated with you when he was correcting you for something wrong? How did you feel when he approached? “UH OH! Here he comes again! What did I do wrong this time?”

What kind of atmosphere did that produce in the work place?

In their book, One Minute Manager, Blanchard and Johnson shows why the power to create an atmosphere in the work place, whether positive or negative, is in the hands of the leader. The authors recommend that out of every ten communications with a subordinate, nine should be positive. This includes congratulating him for a job well done.

In the work place, bosses seem to fear if they praise an employee, he might ask for a raise.[1] Even though this is not a factor in the church, the need for positive affirmation is even more acute. After all, people are not obliged to be there. Here are some reasons why praising our people, briefly and sincerely, is an essential part of communication.

Positive Affirmation…

Ø Makes people want to live up to your expectations of them

If they think you have a positive image of them, they will live up to it.

There is a tale about a man with a mutt named Fido. One day, the man got his pet a collar with his name, spelled Phydeaux. After that, when the man walked him down the street, the dog strutted with his head high. He was no longer a mutt. He was the neighborhood aristocrat.

Affirming someone in a specific and genuine manner will have them holding their head a little higher.

Ø Makes you a more approachable person

Remember, people will judge your value as a Christian leader more on the way you treat them personally than on the quality of your sermons, the accuracy of your decisions or administration of the church.

We often prefer a doctor more for the way he talks to us than the competency of their decisions. We have no training to judge medical treatment. So we tend to judge the doctor's competence more on social skills than anything else. This is irrational of course, but it is reality.

The same is true with your congregation. They have not been to seminary. They have not taken homiletics and do not know how a sermon is structured. Some may think “exegesis” refers to the exit sign on the door. They do know, however, how you treat them.

Below is a simple system for praising a person in just a few seconds. It is based on Blanchard’s concepts, modified for Latin culture.[2] Practice this as a habit and you will be amazed what it does for your relationships.

The Pattern

Ø Be brief

A congratulatory remark need take no more than a minute, usually less. If you elaborate more, it sounds phony. Approach the person in a casual manner.

Ø Be specific

Pick out a detail of the work accomplished and mention it. This shows the person you actually did notice the work done and is not just being polite.

Ø Express how it makes you feel

This shows you are vulnerable. The other party realizes they have power to affect you emotionally. This is essential for any normal relationship.

Ø Encourage him to continue

Even if the work done is not something he will repeat, you can encourage him to continue the same work ethic or good attitude.

Example:

You have asked Henry to arrange the chairs for the Sunday morning service because the deacon who normally does it is away. You instruct Henry how to do it. On Sunday morning when you go into the church early for the service, you notice Henry has just finished. Here’s what you say:

“Hi, Henry. You did a good job arranging the chairs. I noticed you put them about three inches apart so people would not feel crowded. That was thoughtful. It makes me feel good to know I have somebody I can rely on in a pinch. Keep up the good work.”

Notice the elements:

Ø You were brief. This took no more than 20 seconds.

Ø You were specific. Chairs three inches apart.

Ø You mentioned how it made you feel. It made you feel good to have a reliable person to help.

This pattern is simple to learn and to practice. Try to do this with at least five people a week and eventually it will become a habit. You can do it with store clerks, service personnel or family members.

Tips:

Ø Do not flatter

It will come across as phony. Honest and clear communication is the only form that the Bible recognizes in leadership.

Ø Congratulate immediately

The sooner you speak to the person after the job is finished, the better. The effect is stronger.

Ø Do the congratulations before other people

This honors them before their peers. Such feedback is a powerful tool for motivating people.

Ø Touch the person, or shake hands

This depends on culture or personal preference. Some people consider it an oversight if you do not.

Ø Affirm them in their absence.

This is really effective in relationships. “You know, Bill, I noticed Freddy did a really good job on the chairs. He seems a person we can rely on.” You can be sure Henry will eventually hear about what you said.

Summary

Good communication is the responsibility of the leader, not the subordinate. He must ensure people understand what is expected and be verbally rewarded when they do it. Good leaders create a positive atmosphere by recognizing the accomplishments of others, simply and sincerely.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Never assume people understand what you expect of them. Verify it.

Ø Use positive affirmation to encourage people and create a positive atmosphere.

Ø Be sincere and honest in your communications, without flattery.

Ø Good communication is the responsibility of the leader, not his subordinates.

Chapter Twelve: Communication: Corrections and Reproaches

From time to time a leader must correct a follower. In daily life, this usually involves minor issues easily corrected, not serious moral conduct. Correcting others makes us nervous. We naturally dislike confrontations, preferring amiable relationships with everyone.

Are there ways to do this smoothly and more comfortably for both you and the other person? Yes. If you adopt a short, simple pattern for correcting, you will soon become more comfortable at it. Even better, your people will learn to recognize the pattern and feel more comfortable with your corrections.

The pattern for correction is the same as for praising...with a couple of minor differences. Let’s go over the basic pattern with an example and then take a look at general tips on when to apply it.

Example: Freddy the liar

A new convert in the church, a young man named Freddy, has the habit of telling white lies.[3] You would like to help him but have not yet caught him in one.

Freddy misses church one Sunday. You learn from two members he was in the park playing football. During the week you see Freddy on the street and mention you missed him last Sunday. Freddy says, “My grandmother who lives in a nearby town was seriously ill. I went to visit her. That is why I was not in church.”

You have just caught Freddy in a lie. How do you handle it?

The correction:

You: “Freddy, two of the members saw you playing football in the park on Sunday. You just lied to me, didn’t you?”

Freddy: (With head lowered.) “Yes. It was a very special game with the team I belong to and I did not want to let them down.”

You: “I understand, Freddy. I’m not against football. You are new in Lord and I’m here to help you grow. Let me help you with something... Christians always tell the truth because lying is sin. This is true even of small lies like this one. It makes me feel really sad when a fellow Christian lies to me because that is not what Christians normally do. I know what damage it can do to your walk with the Lord. You need to ask God to forgive you for that.”

(At this point you pause, look at him and wait for his reaction. I call this the uncomfortable pause. It gives impact to what is being said.)

Freddy: “Yes, you’re right. I shouldn’t do that.”

You: “I forgive you. I appreciate your walk with the Lord and commitment to the church. I am committed to helping you grow in the Lord. Feel free to call me any time you need help with anything.” (Here, you shake hands.)

Notice the similarity in pattern with positive affirmation in the previous chapter:

Ø You did the reproach immediately after the offense

If you wait until another occasion, you will give the impression you keep a mental list of the offenses of others. This will damage your relationship.

Ø Brief

You avoided preaching a sermonette. A minor offense calls for brevity. The whole correction took no more than a minute. You are not interested in embarrassing him. You are interested in instructing him, so you get to the point immediately.

Ø Specific

You did not call him a liar. You pointed out a specific lie and implied it is not something characteristic of him.

Ø Explain how it makes you feel

You mentioned how it makes you feel. This indicates you are a pastor not a judge. You are not in the least “objective” about the matter and have no intentions of being so. You are affected by what Freddy does. You are vulnerable. This is the kind of attitude people can relate to.

Ø The Uncomfortable Pause

This an element not included in the positive affirmation. It gives time for your reproach to have impact. It also allows the person to make a decision: Repent or not. If he chooses to repent, he will normally do so at that moment.

Ø Affirmation of worth

You ended by forgiving him for lying to you. Then you reaffirmed your commitment to him and openness to help him in the future.

Some important things you did NOT do:

Ø You did not repeat yourself

Leaders with a gift of preaching may be tempted to fall into this. Once you have done the reproach and he has repented, drop it. The only reason to elaborate is if he does not repent and instead makes excuses.

Ø You did not bring up other incidents of lying you knew about

Have you ever had someone bring up a fault you committed months before? How does it make you feel? Inside, you are thinking, “Months have gone by and this guy has held this against me all this time and said nothing. I cannot trust this person.”

You will do irreparable damage to your relationship with Freddy if you do this to him. You might feel like doing it in order to support your view that he is an habitual liar. This is a grave mistake.

Ø You did not call him a liar

You said he told a lie. The difference is between an habitual characteristic and an anomaly. Even if you know Freddy is an habitual liar, you cannot say it until you catch him in it habitually. Then you have a problem on a different level.

Ø You did not try to flatter him beforehand

Have you ever had a person come up to you with a complimentary remark and then follow it up with a rebuke? How did you feel about this reproach? You probably felt manipulated. You may have felt “set up.” Did you trust that person more afterwards, or less?

Do not “butter up” the person first. Get straight to the point. Avoid mixing positive affirmation with negative affirmation. Avoid flattery. People will perceive you as more honest.

Repeated offenses: The verbal contract

What if this is the third time you have caught Freddy in a lie? Now you can honestly say to Freddy that you detect he has a habit and you would like to help him with this area.

A superb way to help is with the Verbal Contract. It goes something like this:

You: “Freddy, this is the third time we have talked about this. I know you are growing in the Lord and doing better. I have an idea that could help you get completely free from this. We can work on this problem together. We’ll meet once a week for a month. At that time I’ll ask you how many times you lied during the week. You will tell me the truth. I won’t criticize you or condemn you. We’ll pray about the problem together. Talking about it will help you overcome it.”

If Freddy agrees to this, it will surprise him how quickly he overcomes the habit. Why? Accountability to someone is effective. If we know we will have to tell someone about it next week, we are more likely to resist the temptation.

Summary

People occasionally need correcting for minor offenses. Correcting is one of the uncomfortable duties in Christian leadership. Using a simple pattern helps alleviate the discomfort. If your honesty and openness to help people comes across, you will have more success.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Correcting people is part of a Christian leader’s duty.

Ø A good procedure for doing the corrections helps alleviate the natural stress one feels in confronting people.

Ø We need to correct immediately after the offense.

Ø We need to be specific and clear, showing how the offense affects us and thus showing ourselves to be vulnerable.

Ø Avoid mixing positive with negative affirmation.

Ø If necessary, make a verbal agreement.

STUDY QUESTIONS FOR CHAPTER TWELVE

1. Describe the pattern for correcting someone in a minor offense. Invent an incident in which you correct someone and write it out.

2. Why is it important to correct people immediately after an offense?

3. What are some possible errors a leader may commit in correcting people?

4. What is a Verbal Contract relative to correcting people and when it is necessary?

5. Explain the value of the Uncomfortable Pause.

Chapter Thirteen: The Three Hammers

We can think of rebuking as a progressive process. I call them the three hammers: Rubber hammer, wooden hammer and steel hammer. The first time we correct a person with a serious moral problem, we do it with a certain degree of gentleness. (This is the rubber hammer.) If the person does not repent, we rebuke more firmly the next time. Each rebuke is sterner than the last.

People come in all shapes and sizes. So do their moral conditions. Some under your care may have annoying little habits like Freddy and his white lies. These may respond well to the little one minute corrections.

Others experience serious moral addictions like fornication, involvement with pornography or chemical addictions. These may require long-term counseling.

A category of moral issues that may indeed represent a serious danger is habitual gossip. Those who constantly criticize the leadership require stern correction.

A rebuke need not be loud or authoritarian. The first session may be along the lines of counseling. The second, with stern rebuke, etc. When people realize the next rebuke is likely to be more serious or result in discipline, they pay attention.

Gossips are especially dangerous. Leaders must be particularly alert to potential damage and be prepared to deal firmly with such people.

Rebuking is an act of love for God and for the person. The person receiving the rebuke may not think this is so at the time. Paul encountered this reaction with the Corinthians and we must be prepared for it.

_________________________________________

Rebuking is an act of love for God

and for the person

_______________________

Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 2Corintians 11:11

The noetic effect

Sin has a certain effect on the mind which theologians call the “noetic effect.” [4] This term comes from the Greek work NOOS that means “mind,” particularly that part of the mind having to do with perceptions of reality.[5] People in deep sin may be incapable of seeing their spiritual condition.[6] You as counselor must be prepared to confront this inability.

The Bible addresses this problem with terms like “blindness” and “hardness of heart.”

To counter the noetic effect…

Ø Use the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, to bring conviction

The Bible teaches that the Law is God’s tool for revealing the seriousness of sin. Use it to remind the person of God’s judgment on persistent sin and shallow repentance. Though Christians are not under the Law as a means of righteousness, nevertheless God will deal with serious sin in the life of a believer.

Ø Be direct and clear

Start your conversation with a serious tone, yet kind. In serious sin issues, we need not be so concerned about softening the blow.

Ø Repeat yourself at regular intervals

You will be surprised to discover they may not have processed what you said.

Ø Require feedback

This is import to assure that he is tracking along with you.

Ø Be conscious of typical reactions for evading responsibility

See below on the many devices we humans use to avoid taking the blame for our actions.

Ø Focus more on why the sin is an offense to God

I have observed that an aspect of the noetic effect is for the person to focus more on the earthly circumstances surrounding the sin rather than on how God views it. Some even focus on their own feelings.

This is especially true in sexual offense cases like adultery. Frequently the person will want to talk about how they felt about the person. Don’t let them do this because they are only indulging in the same sin mentally rather than repenting of it. Make it clear their feelings about the act or the person are irrelevant. The issue is objective sin before God.

Getting through to a person under the noetic effect can be frustrating. It requires patience.

The Three Hammers

Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith. Titus 1:12 [7]

Ø The rubber hammer

Rubber is a relatively soft material. This represents the firm yet gentle rebuke. At all times we keep in mind the goal: Make them strong in the faith. Corrections are not vindictive.

Ø The wooden hammer

This rebuke is sterner. It could be accompanied with a warning of possible discipline.

Ø The steel hammer

After warnings, it may be necessary to resort to church discipline.[8]

Shallow repentance

What if the person seems repentant but you feel their repentance is shallow and insubstantial relative to the seriousness of the offense? A study on God’s holiness sometimes helps if you can get them to do. You might recommend certain books for them to read. Among these are R.C. Sproul’s Holiness of God, A.W.Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy and Stephen Charnock’s section on God’s holiness in Existence and Attributes of God.

Possible signs of trivializing repentance

People who fail to repent immediately may show certain reactions to your counseling. Be aware of these:

Ø Complaining about the counselor

Sometimes a person will say they are repentant when they are not. Genuine repentance is normally accompanied by contrition. The person will stop making excuses or blaming others or making light of their behavior.

How can we determine their level of repentance? Especially with sexual sin, the person may complain about the counselors. They say either they were not treated with love, or that the leadership did not follow proper procedure. If they do this, simply let them know these are signs of a lack of repentance and you will not listen to it.

Ø Going elsewhere for counseling

They do this to get the kind of counseling they want to hear. This is a form of self justification. Clarify that if they do this, you will consider it a form of rebellion. This will only add to their sin. Make it clear that God put them under the jurisdiction of the church and it is to the church they must submit. Otherwise they may be disciplined for contumacy.

It may be necessary to clarify this point to those church members who may be close friends. We have seen cases in which members or family have contradicted the counsel of the church leadership, thus creating further confusion.

There is a technique that sometimes works to prevent a person from seeking counsel outside the church. Warn him that a letter may be sent to any counselor he goes to. It will explain seeking counsel outside of church authority is an act of contumacy.

Ø Attempting to leave the church to avoid discipline

Some churches have bylaws to deal with members who leave the church to escape discipline. The bylaws warn that a letter will be sent to any church he attempts to join, explaining the situation.

Ø For the repentant

Pitfalls exist even for those you may successfully lead to repentance. Excessive remorse is rare, but it may happen. The case of the repentant incestuous man in 2 Corinthians 2 is an example. Paul was concerned he would be overcome with excessive sorrow.

Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 2Corinthians 2:7

More often, a repentant person may tend toward legalism. Francis Schaeffer points this out in True Spirituality. A repentant believer must come into freedom from conscience and freedom in the thought life.[9]

How to tell when a person, including yourself, is not truly repentant or is faking it

This is a general outline on techniques we all use to avoid repenting or for minimizing the seriousness of our sin.

Ø Blame shifting

The other person did such and such and so I reacted accordingly. Or, I repent but the reason I sinned is because you did so and so to provoke me.

Ø Blaming the circumstances

The circumstances caused me to do it. The fact of the case is that the only cause that God recognizes is our own sinful hearts.

Ø Blaming one’s own humanness

I’m only human. This really means, "God made me, so if I sin He is responsible. God is the sinner, not me."

Ø Calling sin something else

o Wrong choice: The fault is really and ultimately a lack of understanding on my part rather than a sinful heart.

o Immaturity: The fault is a lack of growth, not my sinful heart. This actually blames time for our sin rather than ourselves. Time is not something that I control, therefore the blame is shifted to something that is not me and I am not therefore responsible.

o Misfortune: I fell into it. Sin was therefore like a hole in the ground I did not see, so I cannot be held responsible for it because I did not put it there. The reality is that was attracted to the hole in the first place because there was something in the hole my heart likes.

Ø A Trial

Calling sinful conduct a trial rather than a sin. The Bible never does this.

Ø Self pity

Acting like a victim of sin rather than a sinner.

Ø Trivializing

The sin I committed is an isolated act non typical of what is in my heart. Or, the consequences are benign and therefore the sin is important. (All sin is important, although not all acts are equally sinful.) My sin of gossip is not murder...therefore my sin of gossip is trivial.

Ø Generalized confessing

Asking forgiveness in vague terms for wrongdoing or sin in a very general sense. As in ‘I’m sorry I offended you’; rather than ‘I am sorry that I committed the sin of XYZ against you.’

What to do when a Christian apologizes to you in vague terms for offending you

Two questions to help both parties see the need of repentance:

Ø Exactly what sin did you commit that caused you to ask my forgiveness?

Ø Exactly what sin did I commit that provoked you to do that?

Observations in disciplinary situations [10]

Over several decades of ministry, I have observed certain dynamics entering into play when it becomes necessary to apply church discipline.

Counseling contains elements the leadership keeps discreetly within the boundaries of the counseling session. When it comes time to apply restrictions or discipline, the news will get out to the church members, but without all the facts. Some in the congregation may disagree with the discipline because they do not have all the details. They may think they do. This makes the leaders appear harsh.

In some churches, it is rare to apply discipline without losing a member, even if the offending party remains. What can be done about this?

The bad news: There is nothing you can do about it. You may try explaining to the church there are aspects of the problem the leadership cannot share. Some dissenting members will have the good sense to trust your judgment. Others will not. This is part of the burden of a Christian leader.

Leaders must learn to live with criticism. Sometimes it seems like a continuous background noise.[11]

The good news: In every situation I have observed in which the leadership has held their ground on godly discipline, and suffered loss as a result, God blesses the church above and beyond any losses. For every member who leaves offended, God sends others. He knows He can entrust His sheep to good hands.

Summary

Dealing with serious sin issues is not easy. The noetic effect may make it hard to get through to the offender about the seriousness of his sin. The leader must be firm but loving, persistent and patient. He may need to resort to progressively more stern rebukes according to the case. He must be able to assert his right to counsel and discipline if necessary. Doing so may incur reactions from those unfamiliar with all the facts. This is part of the cross the leader must bear.

God blesses faithful leaders who will not compromise their standards.

From this chapter we learn

Ø The noetic effect makes dealing with serious sin issues difficult.

Ø Corrections need to be progressively firmer, as with the “three hammers.”

Ø Sinning members may feign repentance, or the repentance may be shallow. A leader must be aware of signs of a lack of repentance.

Ø The church leadership may find it necessary to assert its right to exclusive counseling with the offender to avoid interference from others.

Ø The leaders may endure unjust criticism for the manner in which they deal with offenders.

Chapter Fourteen: Dealing with Wolves

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (29) I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. (30) Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. (31) So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. Acts 20:28-31

A key function of the New Testament elder is to watch out for wolves that may destroy the flock. By wolves we mean false persons who may come in to provoke divisions and/or steal sheep. Paul had to fight wolves constantly end we do too. He had his judiaizers. Today we have false Christians and false cults.

Two kinds of wolves

EXTERNAL:

For I know this that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Acts 20:29

Notice that they usually wait until the pastor or church planter is absent to enter in because they know that the overseer is likely to have discernment to spot them. The phrase "enter in" shows that they are from outside the fellowship. These are usually false cults and can be dealt with by warning the people in advance about which ones are current false cults: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jesus Only, Church of Christ, etc.

These particular wolves are usually recognizable by name and are therefore not as dangerous as the other kind. Simple instruction to the converts about which groups to watch out for is usually sufficient. Note that Paul spoke about wolves as being a certainty.

INTERNAL:

Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:30

These are the most dangerous kind, because they are good Christians gone bad and are already in the church. This kind is therefore the most difficult to detect and deal with.

These are often believers who have pride and ambition in their hearts (James 3:14-16), or dissatisfied for some reason. The devil begins to use them to draw away a following after themselves rather than after Christ.

Note: Both classes of wolves are self deceived and therefore do not see themselves as wolves.

Why does God allow wolves to come into the church?

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you… 1Corinthians 11:19

At no time will you learn more about the people under your charge than when wolves come in. Their loyalties and stabilities will be put to the test. People that you thought were key people, may turn out not to be so. Others that you thought were weak will turn out to be stronger than you thought.

How to recognize wolves

Ø They always operate behind the backs of the leaders. John 10:1,2

They will often visit the people in their homes without the permission of the church leaders. They will try to obtain authority or position in the church without going through the leaders. Jesus taught that they come disguised as God's sheep. Matthew 7:15-17

A key way to detect them is when they begin to steal sheep. Sheep don't steal sheep. Only wolves do.

Ø They are critical of the leaders, usually behind their backs. 2John 9,10

Everyone has weaknesses in his ministry, but this does not give people the right to go cutting them down with criticisms. The difficult lies at times in the fact that some of the things that a wolf may say may be true. But this is not justification for undermining the ministry of a person by criticisms, especially to weaker members in the church. Note some things that wolves said about Paul. 2Corinthians 10:10

Ø They boast of their own spirituality. 2Corinthians 10:12

Note here how Paul sarcastically mocks the spiritual pride of the wolves. They are often comparing themselves with others and the comparisons always seem to turn out in their favor. They frequently claim to have more light on some things than the missionary and may imply that they have more to teach than the missionary. 2Thessalonians 3:6

Ø They tend to provoke divisions. Romans 16:17,18

They invariably seek out the weaker believers. Romans 16:18 Wolves seem to have internal radar by which they seem to detect the believer. It may be a satanic form of discernment. They will invariably do directly to the weak believer and try to get in their favor.

How to deal with wolves

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Titus 3:10

Ø Rebuking and rejecting

With nearly any other kind of problem with people, you normally demonstrate patience, compassion and mercy, but not so with wolves. You must show no patience, compassion, or mercy. Paul's instructions are clear: a wolf does not deserve more than two rebukes before throwing them out. Be very firm with them.

Example: A cultist comes into your church. He sits quietly and makes no disturbance but after the meeting sidles over to some weak believers. You discover he is getting addresses. You take him aside and warn him. He comes back again another time and does the same. Again you warn him and make it clear that one more offense and you will have to close the door to him. Again he ignores you.

Ø You then tell him to leave and not come back. A warning from the pulpit to the people may be necessary.

Ø Running interference

The whole church, especially the mature believers should be trained in how to run interference when a wolf enters.

This means simply intercepting the wolf before he or she has an opportunity to get to the weaker ones after the meeting, and engage them in conversation so that they will not have opportunity to do damage. All mature believers in the church should understand that they could be called upon to do interception duty if necessary.

From this chapter we learn…

Ø An important function of an elder, according to the Bible, is to protect the flock from heretical and divisive people. The Bible uses the term "wolves" to describe this kind of person.

Ø Two kinds of “wolves” ambush the flock: The internal kind consisting of church members and the external kind, false cults. The most dangerous are the internal kind.

Ø It is essential to prepare mature members of the congregation to be ready to run interference against wolves from the outside.

Chapter Fifteen: Divisive People

Heretics and rebels are divisive people who represent serious dangers to the church. The potential damage is enough to merit a study on its own. We deal with problematic people somewhat differently from those with other sorts of problems.

The book Antagonists in the Church by Kenneth Haughk inspires much of the material in this chapter. This book is a must for any church leader. Some churches require it as reading for their church officers.

Other parts of this chapter are taken from my personal experience and that of fellow missionaries and ministries around the world.

Motivations

Problematic people are motivated by a desire for control. They cause division and confusion through complaining, criticism and resistance to authority.[12] Behind these symptoms is a drive for power. Never give it to them.

Characteristics in common

These characteristics need to be taken as whole. Not all will apply to one given individual.

Ø Incredibly tenacious

Ø Extremely high self-esteem.

Ø Aggressive

Ø Tendency toward anger

Ø Rigid attitudes

Ø Very manipulative and charming.

Ø Independent attitudes.

Ø Frequently very intelligent.

Antagonistic people rarely consider themselves the source of problems. Everyone else is the cause. Invariably, they consider themselves more insightful than those around them. They think if only they can get everyone to “see” their view, all will be wonderful.

The first signs of a pending problem with such a person are persistent complaining. Antagonists will be critical of the condition of the church, especially the leadership. They will seek support for their views among the congregation. They may meddle in church affairs that are none of their business.

Dealing with antagonists

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.[13] Titus 3:10

Ø Give them no more than two warnings

These people represent more danger to the church than any other type of problem. They can tear a church apart in short order. The sympathy and patience a leader normally demonstrates toward members with other types of sin, is inappropriate here.

Paul’s commands in Titus 3:10 are not mere suggestions. Nor did he say, “counsel” them. He said to “warn” them.[14] Give the person no more than two warnings.

You cannot afford to play their game. This may seem compassionless. We must keep in mind that our primary compassion is for the flock God has put under our care and protection.

Ø Avoid reasoning with them

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who considers you a fool? Did it work?

Ø Don’t placate them

Antagonists may consider kindness a form of weakness or fear.

Ø Don’t give them authority or recognition

Doing this is like trying to drown a fire with gasoline. They will use any authority or recognition as a platform to grab for more.

Ø Avoid lengthy sessions listening to their complaints

Problematic people will waste your time. In their mind, you need convincing why they are completely right. They will take up as much time as you allow, in order to make you see how right they are.

First meeting with the antagonist

In his book, Haughk gives practical suggestions on dealing with antagonists in two successive encounters. Some of the author’s key suggestions are:

Ø Choose the place and the time

Do not let them choose it.[15] The meeting should be brief. It should not be over a meal or in a family atmosphere. State the amount of time you can give to them and stick to it. Doing this shows you are a person of your word. Haughk suggests no more than 20 minutes for the first session.

Ø Say as little as possible

Let them do the talking. Hostile people may take anything you say, however innocuous, and use it as ammunition against you. They may quote you out of context.

Ø Take personal notes

Report the facts to the other leaders in the church

Ø Do not let the antagonist put you on the defensive

Remember, you are not accountable to them. Your accountability is to God and your fellow leaders. Avoid the tendency to explain your actions. Maintain a professional attitude.

Ø Do not argue with them

You will not change their mind and will only provoke them

Ø Clarify they will never be allowed control

You can do this in a discrete way, not directly. When they see they will never have control, they may leave on their own accord.

Ø Forbid them to discuss their “concerns” with others in the church

Make it clear you will not tolerate appeals to the congregation. If they do so, you will consider it an act of rebellion meriting discipline. If they cannot agree with the decisions of the leadership, it would be better to look for another church.

Second meeting with the antagonist

Suppose the antagonist has continued his divisive actions and ignored your instructions in the first meeting. The second and final meeting should be with the other church leaders present.

In this meeting the leaders should establish limits on the activities of the problematic person. They must warn them if they cross the boundaries, they may be excommunicated for divisiveness. Clarify this second warning is the final one.

Prevention: Teach your congregation

Haughk recommends the church teach its members how the leadership deals with problematic or discontent members. Show them the signs of the problematic person and teach them how to resist their influence. Make a covenant with the congregation, between them and the leadership, to work together to prevent this sort of thing.[16]

Summary

The church may come under attack from time to time by antagonistic or divisive people from within. The leadership needs a plan for dealing with such people. The temptation for some leaders is to use too much patience and compassion, ignoring Paul’s injunctions in Titus 3:10. Church members need to be instructed in the seriousness of these problems and how to cooperate with leadership in dealing with them.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Divisive people have certain traits. Wise leaders are alert to them.

Ø Leaders need to know general principles in dealing with antagonists. This includes no more than two warnings, giving them no authority or control and showing at all times you, not they, are in control.

Ø The church needs to be taught how to cooperate with the leadership when attacks come from antagonistic people.

Chapter Sixteen: Minor Conflict Resolution And Diplomacy

This chapter deals with the leader’s role as mediator in conflicts between two parties in a church setting. Serious and damaging dissention may occur in a church from time to time. On a daily basis, however, the leader is likely to encounter minor problems that these techniques can resolve. The extent of this book does not include analysis of more serious conflicts.

Assumptions

In the above scenario, the leader is not one of the parties in conflict. He is playing the role of mediator between two factions. The conflict is relatively minor, between people who know each other, involving questions such as how to proceed in a project, etc. Emotions and ego have entered into the picture.

Sometimes the leader is the last to know when a conflict is emerging in the church. People may hide contentions, fearing the leader may not take their side, hoping to resolve it themselves.

How do you know when a conflict is brewing?

A leader needs to be alert for typical symptoms of a pending crisis or conflict. One sign alone may not be a clear indication. Yet it should prompt a leader’s attention to look for other symptoms.

Ø Cliques

Certain people seem to make a point of avoiding each other. A small group of people making friends and bonding may be healthy. When two or more groups form like this around persons who seem to dislike one another, it is likely an underlying conflict is brewing.

Ø Absenteeism

When people are looking for another church, they may begin to attend irregularly. If they are doing this, it might be a good idea to find out what there is about the church they do not like. If their answers are vague, you may be uncovering a conflict situation with other people.

Ø Silence

Some people stop communicating and isolate themselves when they feel in conflict. You might have to investigate to get the problem out into the open.

Ø Sarcasm

This is symptomatic of malice. It should be dealt with as malice, not as mere comments. Doing this requires a bit of probing.

Ø Failed work projects

Sometimes projects fail because they were lousy ideas in the first place. Frequently they fail because the wrong people were doing the work. Sometimes however, it is because the team was in conflict.

When should you intervene as a mediator?

Just because you are the leader does not necessarily mean you are the best choice for mediating the conflict. If one of the parties feels you favor the other, he may resist your mediation.

Though your office as leader gives you the legal right to be involved, it is more effective to obtain their agreement to do so. It is usually better to approach them as a servant offering to help, rather than as an authority figure bringing order.

You intervene when

Ø One of the parties asks you to mediate in the conflict.

Ø The effectiveness of a work group is hindered by the conflict.

Ø Both parties respect you.

Procedures during the meeting

Before anything else, pray for God’s guidance.

Ø Clarify to the parties in dispute how the conflict is affecting everyone.

This helps change the focus from feelings to the facts of the case. People are generally more interested in their feelings than any other factor. As soon as they see how their conflicts are affecting the church or the project, you will have earned the right to intervene. Let them know why this conflict must be resolved.

Ø Establish a meeting to resolve the conflict.

Explain, “This is a problem we three are going to resolve together.” Clarify you are not a judge. You are there to help get the work back on track and you are not interested in mutual accusations. You are looking for a win-win situation.

Ø Establish rules of procedure.

Make it clear you are in charge of the meeting. The rules you establish depend on the situation. You might set rules, such as, when one person speaks the other will not interrupt. Or, that the participants must address their comments to you only, not to one another.

Ø Each person should present his view objectively without attacking the other person.

Be specific, not general. Try to get them to present their views as though they were a third party observer. The idea is to keep emotion out of it as much as possible.

Ø Ask each person to generate possible solutions.

If the situation is emotionally charged you can ask the parties to write out their solutions on the spot instead of expressing them verbally. Compare them with your own. Afterwards you can express those resolutions they have in common. This forms the basis for the resolution of the conflict.

Ø Ask each person to commit to the resolution of the problem.

Once you have come to agreement, make sure each party is committed to it. If one of the parties shows reluctance, you have accomplished nothing so far. Another meeting may be necessary. Or, you may simply have to make the decision for them.

General diplomacy techniques

Below are some techniques professional business negotiators use to resolve disputes. Sometimes these serve merely to gain better cooperation with people in situations not necessarily conflictive. These work in most benign situation, including between children in the home. [17] We can call these “win-win” techniques.[18]

Ø Triple option play

Instead of a simple choice between doing or not doing a thing, give a person several options and allow them to choose the one they think is better. Example: Do not say, “Would you like to help on repairs of the church this Saturday?” This requires a yes-no answer. It’s easy for the person to simply say no. Instead, put it this way: “With which of these three areas do you feel most comfortable helping this Saturday, painting, washing windows or repairing furniture?”

Ø Cutting the cake

Two children want the same piece of cake. The solution is to have one child cut the cake and the other child chose the first piece. The first child is motivated to divide the cake as evenly as possible. This may work for adults in dividing responsibilities or privileges.

Ø Holier than thou

Joe and Bill cannot come to agreement regarding responsibilities in the church. Ask them to write down what each thinks is the most equitable plan. Let them know you will submit these to a neutral party to decide which plan is most viable. It is remarkable how this technique brings agreement. Frequently the plans are nearly identical. This happens because it focuses on the task rather than rights.

Ø Substitution

Due to a mix up, both John and Bill were scheduled to do the announcements next Sunday. One of them will be put aside. How do you handle this diplomatically? Tell one of them you have a job for him, such as taking up the offering, equally important to the announcements.

Ø Tossing a coin

The idea of casting lots to determine who gets which share of the inheritance is found in the Bible in Psalm16:6.

Ø Temporary Measures

Let’s try this for a month and see how it works.

Ø Give me a hand

Instead of assigning a job, ask the person to help you. Do not say, “I want you to arrange the chairs next Sunday.” The person may be thinking, “I do not care what he wants.” It is better to say, “Can you help me with a problem? I will not be able to arrange the seats next week and I need someone I can rely on to do it. Will you be able to do this for me?”

Ø The real need

Sometimes people hide their real motives when complaining. A person may argue a point when all they want is a little appreciation. Sometimes you can find a way to meet this need in a way that is different from what they are asking.

From this chapter we learn

Ø A leader needs to be alert for signs of potential conflict brewing in the church. Signs could include cliques, absenteeism, silence, sarcasm or failed work projects.

Ø When conflict is detected, a leader must evaluate if he is the right person to resolve it.

Ø Negotiation techniques sometimes help to provoke a win-win situation.

Chapter Seventeen: Decision Making

The leader is often called upon to make decisions that affect many others. It would be convenient if God would speak with an audible voice to those in leadership so we could be sure of our decisions. It is often a choice between two reasonable options. Sometimes we feel as though we are flying through a snowstorm.

If it were always clear what Christians or a church body should do, we would not need leaders. Making decisions when there is serious risk of making the wrong one is what Christian leadership is all about.

Decision making in leadership depends more on our personal devotional life than any other factor. A strong devotional life is central to the Christian leader because many are affected be his decisions.

_______________________________________________________

Decision making in leadership

depends more on our

personal devotional life

than any other factor

_______________________________________

The reasoning process

Research is involved in making a decision. It is like the logic a detective uses to solve a crime.

A good detective starts out with no bias. He doesn’t go about to prove anyone guilty or innocent. He does not say, “I don’t like John. I’m going to prove he did it.” He simply gathers clues to see where they lead.

Likewise, leaders must be careful to gather as much relevant information as possible.[19]

Sources of information

Often the evidence for the right decision will be a mixture of the spiritual and the material.

Ø Personal quiet time

A leader should keep a spiritual journal, a notebook of what God seems to be teaching him through the Word. Divine guidance may come through this means.

In a church situation, God will normally have already indicated His will to some of the other leaders about the situation through the Word. Leaders should take seriously such coincidental evidence.

Prayer and fasting for seeking God on important decisions is biblical. Choosing leaders for service is one of those times.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. (3) So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. Acts 13:2,3

Ø The facts of the case, along with logic

God gave us brains and He expects us to use them. If the facts of the case seem to merit a certain decision, we generally go with the facts after consulting with the Lord. This means praying about it and checking to see if there are any godly principles being violated.

The Israelites in Joshua Chapter 9 learned the hard way to consult the Lord about everything. The Gibeonites invented a ruse to get Joshua and company to make an agreement with them. They claimed to have come from a very far country and showed old bread and worn out sandals to prove it. Everything looked perfectly logical. What does the text say? Joshua and his men fell into the trap. Why?

The men of Israel sampled their provisions but did not inquire of the LORD. Josh. 9:14

Nevertheless avoid using only human reasoning in making decisions. Do not permit your leaders’ meeting to degenerate into mere business meetings, as though it were a local corporation.[20]

Ø Counselors

...but in the multitude of counselors there is safety. Proverbs 11:14 (KJV)

At times we do not have the luxury of consulting with our ministerial peers. However, when we do, we should take advantage of the wisdom of our colleagues.

The incubation process

God created us with a subconscious. This is a subliminal part of our brain that functions on its own. It has its own type of logic of which we are not usually conscious. If we encounter a complex and serious problem, we can allow our subconscious to work by a process we can call ‘incubation’. We simply put in our minds all the relevant data and then do something else. Frequently the answer will come to our mind some time later.

This is a process that scientists use for inspiration in research. A famous historical example is the Greek philosopher Archimedes who found the answer to a difficult math problem while taking a bath. He had given up temporarily on the problem. During the relaxation of the bath, he noticed the displacement of water by his body. The answer was suddenly clear. “Eureka!” he shouted, (“I have found it!”) His subconscious had been working on the problem in the relaxation of the bath.

There is nothing mystical about the incubation process. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Our brains are little computers. If we give our brains enough data, along with enough time, it will make associations we might have missed at first.

Summary

Making decisions as a leader can be a stressful process because we may not always be sure about the right course to take. The welfare of other people may be at stake.

Decision making is essentially the same as personal guidance from God. The difference is the leader is making decisions that affect the lives of more than just himself. This is why the leader’s devotional life is essential.

Nevertheless, decision making is not a mystical process. Ordinarily it is a mixture of the subjective and objective...what the leader believes God is showing him through the Word and the Spirit at the time, along with the facts of the case.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Making decisions as a leader may seem risky because sometimes we are faced with several viable options.

Ø The wise leader gathers all the evidence he can about the matter before making decisions, avoiding preconceived ideas.

Ø Decision making for the leader is intimately connected with his personal walk with God.

Ø Forming decisions is often based on a combination of the spiritual with the material...the subjective with the objective. We use logic to make decisions but we depend on God to direct us.

Ø If time permits, we can let our minds process the facts of the case. Sometimes this will allow us to see options we had overlooked before.

Chapter Eighteen: Verbal Self-Defense

Circumstances may occur when it is legitimate for the leader to defend himself against unjustified verbal attacks. For the most part, we pay no attention unless criticisms come from the united voice of our ministerial colleagues. Sheep do not correct pastors.

When is self-defense legitimate?

Ø Verbal self-defense is legitimate when the truths you preach are attacked

Throughout the book of Galatians, Paul defended the gospel he preached as the only true one. His teachings against justification by law had been called into question. He defends himself by explaining he presented his teachings to the Apostles for validation.

I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, Galatians 2:2

He then is able to start his epistle with Galatians 1:2 “... and all the brothers with me,” This proved his gospel to be the right one. He defends his teaching when it is called into question.[21]

Ø You may defend yourself when the legitimacy of your call or office is put in doubt

The Epistles of First and Second Corinthians clearly show the Apostle Paul defending his calling.

I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 1Corinthians 4:3

Paul handles this criticism by declaring his critics to be inadequate judges. He tells them so in plain language. There may be times when you must do the same.

Within each church there should exist responsible entities such as a board of elders for determining if your ministry is meeting biblical standards. If people in the congregation have complaints, they can present them in writing, with evidence, to the appropriate body. However, those who lodge ungrounded complaints may subject themselves to discipline as slanderers.

Dealing with habitual critics: Verbal judo

For several of these methods, we can thank Susanne Elgin’s The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. This book is a recommended for a leader’s library.[22]

Each church seems to have its self-appointed analysts and critics. Some have sharp minds by which they can dissect the church, your preaching and everyone else. Others may have personal problems and take them out on the pastor or other leaders. Sometimes we can use a little verbal judo[23] and deviate the attack harmlessly.

These techniques are intended for dealing with habitual complainers. (This assumes the criticism is unjustified.)

Underlying principles of verbal self-defense

Ø Never reply to the attack on your person

Divert it to the issue. The intent of the attack is always to get you to defend your own person. Don’t fall into this trap. Remember: You have no moral obligation to defend your ministry. According to 1Timothy 5, the leader is never obliged to prove his innocence. The burden of proof is always on the accuser.

Ø Divert the attack

You can return the attack back to the other person by asking questions that divert attention from your person to the theme in question, or to something abstract.

Techniques

Below, is the basic outline of the technique, followed by a good example of how to use it. Then we will illustrate the wrong way to deal with the attack.

Ø Time travel technique

Example one

Attack: “Why do you always....?”

Defense: “Since when did you first begin to imagine that I .....”

The right way to reply:

Attack: “Why do you always preach about condemnation?

Defense: “Since when did you first begin to imagine that I preach excessively on condemnation?”

The wrong was to reply:

Attack: “Why do you always preach about condemnation?

Defense: (Wrong approach) “I don’t always preach on condemnation! I preached on grace last Sunday. I don’t think that my emphasis on condemnation is excessive, etc.”

It is a mistake to argue whether you preach excessively on condemnation. This puts you on the defense. You turn the tables by focusing on an event in the past, rather than his attack on you. Instead, you question the validity of the critic’s perception. This insinuates the problem is really located in the imagination of the critic rather than in your preaching.[24]

Example Two

This attack is identical to the one above. Only the form of expression changes.

Attack: “Doesn’t it matter to you that...?”

Defense: “Since when did you first begin to imagine that it does not matter to me?”

Attack: “Doesn’t the condition of the Sunday school matter to you?”

Defense: “When did you first begin to imagine that the Sunday school does not matter to me?

Ø Computer Technique

This technique involves acting emotionally detached. Computers are impersonal because they have no emotions. In this technique, you act as though you did not realize you are under attack. Instead, you speak as though the critic were referring to some abstract concept in which you are not personally involved.

Do not respond defensively to the attack on your person. Speak to the situation as though it were an objective and impersonal question having nothing to do with you.

The right way to reply:

Attack: “Since we have the new church board, the church has not grown.”

Defense: “Church growth is an interesting science. The difference between the city and the country and between social classes makes it a complex question. Have you read a book on church growth lately?”

This defense turns the tables on the person. It deviates his comments as an abstract problem, not a personal attack on you. Second, you may reveal his ignorance if he has not studied the question.[25]

The wrong way to reply:

Attack: “Since we have the new church board which you organized, the church has not grown.”

Defense: “Are you saying the board is incompetent or that I put it together wrong? I think the board is doing a good job...etc.”

The attack insinuates you were wrong in the way you organized the church board and that both you and the board are incompetent. If you address that point, you fall into the trap. The person could claim they never actually said that and you are accusing them falsely. Since it was implied, not said, you find yourself in a dispute over whether they have attacked you and the board personally.

If you allow this, they win. Their whole strategy was to accuse you and the board before others without standing accountable for it. It doesn’t really matter to them if you win the argument over what they really meant. They may even “apologize” for giving that impression. Nevertheless, the impression has already been given and that is exactly the intention.

This kind of attack is usually in a public setting because you are not really their audience. If the person has said this to you in private, you may want to sit down with them and discuss their feelings.[26]

Other techniques exist. These illustrate the basic principles for dealing with verbal abusers.

Summary

A leader may defend himself verbally if the value of his call or the truth of his teaching is assailed. Each ministry seems to have its self-ordained critics. Using tact and at times verbal judo, can help deflect the attacks harmlessly.

From this chapter we learn

Ø Verbal self-defense is sometimes justified.

Ø We can sometimes deflect groundless criticism with a little tact and technique.

[1]. Blanchard claims research shows this to be untrue. People often work harder for approbation than for money. One Minute Manager. p.3

[2]. Blanchard, Kenneth. One Minute Manager. Berkley Publishing: Berkley, CA, 1984.

[3]. As Christians we realize all lies are serious. We use this expression for convenience only.

[4]. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines NOETIC as: “F. NOEIN to think. F. NOOS mind.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Computer Edition, 2001 Search Criteria, “noetic.”

[5]. “The faculty of perceiving and understanding.” Thayer’s Lexicon. Archa Publishers: Lafayette, IN, 1979 p. 429

[6]. An example of this usage by a theologian is John Frame, In Defense Of God’s Creation. Internet site: http://www.theocentric.com/original articles/creation.html.

[7]. Paul was counseling Titus on rebuking Cretans. This culture apparently had a reputation for carnal behavior. Some cultures need sterner treatment than others. Others are less confrontive and we must be sensitive to the difference.

[8]. The subject of church discipline is for the Ecclesiology course. This chapter is more along the lines of counseling.

[9]. Schaeffer, Francis. True Spirituality. Tyndale Publishers: Wheaton, Il, 1971 p.83, 85

[10]. According to Scripture, churches must apply discipline to a member at times. This may involve rebuke, forbidding the Lord’s Supper for that individual or even excommunication. (A detailed study on church discipline is the domain of a course on ecclesiology.)

[11]. Sanders brings out this point clearly in Spiritual Leadership, pp.121-126

[12] From Antagonists in the Church by Haughk. Much of this chapter contains ideas found in this book, which is a MUST for any church leader.

[13]. The Greek term for divisive in this verse, HERETIKOS, may also mean one who follows a false doctrine. Thayer’s Lexicon. Archa Publishers: Lafayette, IN, 1979 p.132

[14]. The Greek term NOUTHESIA may also mean “admonish.” Louw and Nida, No. 33.321

[15] Haughk even suggests that if the time and place they propose is convenient, you should nevertheless change it to send the message that you are the one in control.

[16]. Haughk has good advice about how to go about this with the church membership. The book is highly recommended reading.

[17]. For situations that are not benign, such as negotiating with difficult or stubborn people, Fry’s Getting to Yes is the best book available. If people feel they are in competition with you and must “win” at any cost, this makes negotiating nearly impossible. Fry backs up a step and works on how to get them out of the competitive mode into working with you to solve a common problem.

[18]. In their book, The Power of Nice, Janowski and Shapiro make the adroit comment, “People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes.” p.15.

[19]. Scientists recognize this as the “Inductive” method of reasoning.

[20]. This is one reason to be careful not to overload your church board with businessmen. See Leadership Manual, Part One.

[21]. Notice his appeal is to the body of ordained elders who have approved his ministry. His appeal is not to a congregational vote.

[22]. This book is helpful for many of life’s situations, not just a church context.

[23]. In judo, one takes the attack and deviates it, turning the aggression against the verbal assailant.

[24]. Again, we are assuming the falsity of the accusation along with the lack of authority of the critic to make such accusations.

[25]. On the other hand, if he can speak knowledgeably about the subject, maybe you should listen to him. Remember: We are assuming here that the attacker is unduly critical.

[26] We are still assuming here that we are dealing with an habitual critic rather than an ordinary church member concerned about the state of the church.