What is a preacher eater church?

This is a good thread, and much wisdom is displayed. The only thing I would add, to reinforce what Jonathan said, is that change usually comes slowly. If it is rushed, serious problems result. When moving slowly, not all problems are eliminated, but the likelihood of success is much greater. Most of us, pastors included, get in too much of a hurry and then become overly discouraged when things don’t move quickly enough. My advice? Slow down. Concentrate on a solid word-centered pulpit ministry and let God change people’s hearts through His Word. If it takes twenty years, so what? We answer to God for our faithfulness to His Word, not for the visible “success” of the church. People will evaluate by outward results, but not God. We have to keep reminding ourselves that we are serving Him, and laboring for His approval, not that of people. (This is much harder to do than to say, but it must be done.)

​Also, we must resist peer pressure from other pastors, and bruised egos from pastoring a small church. That’s not our concern. Preach the Word, and leave the results to the Lord.

….it is worth noting that if we take the diaconate seriously, as well as the position of older widows, there is a place where a man has to delegate. There is a balance between having 20 boards (with no real leadership) and having the pastor do everything from preaching to mowing the lawn and fixing the toilet.

Really, if my spiritual gift is shown in plowing snow (a gift I will probably exercise on Friday), then one thing my pastor owes me is, really, the opportunity to plow the snow. And there is also a position where one ought to go slower rather than faster.

A supply closet example; a former church of mine had decided to store paint and other supplies in the closet below the stairs—the same closet where the electrical panel was located. Big fire hazard pointed out in every edition of the National Electrical Code since 1899. But instead of just throwing stuff out, I went to the owners and asked them where they’d like it—explaining the NEC issue and how they wouldn’t want to have firefighters fighting not just fire, but also 110V AC as well. It got done pretty quickly.

Another example; after VBS, a former church was storing stuff in the attic—the room was basically full of old cardboard and such—and a deacon asked me what I thought of it. While helping to store items, I answered “it’s a fire hazard” and didn’t think much of it, nor did I press the issue. A couple of weeks later, when I came to mow the lawn (another spiritual gift of mine), I saw that deacon with his 28’ trailer and a bunch of others helping to empty that attic. They loved their old VBS decorations—they’d put a lot of work into them—but they realized that if the furnace ignited them, they’d lose a lot more than just decorations.

One can use the love of that building—though it can be idolatrous—to help people exercise their gifts. I would suggest (along with others I think) that the job of the pastor is not as much to “get things done”, but rather to make disciples. Delegating helps this.

A lot of the common themes & issues being mentioned that I’m seeing throughtout the comments in this thread are brought out in an article Tim Keller wrote a few years ago:

http://seniorpastorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/Tim-Keller-Size-Dynamics.pdf

I am fascinated by the whole article (and I’d encourage reading it in its entirety), but it strikes me that Keller often gets to the heart of what I’m seeing and hearing in the comments of this thread.

EXCERPTS:

”The smaller church by its nature gives immature, outspoken, opinionated, and broken members a
significant degree of power over the whole body. Since everyone knows everyone else, when members
of a family or small group express strong opposition to the direction set by the pastor and
leaders, their misery can hold the whole congregation hostage. If they threaten to leave, the
majority of people will urge the leaders to desist in their project. It is extremely difficult to get
complete consensus about programs and direction in a group of 50–150 people, especially in today’s
diverse, fragmented society, and yet smaller churches have an unwritten rule that for any new
initiative to be implemented nearly everyone must be happy with it. Leaders of small churches must
be brave enough to lead and to confront immature members, in spite of the unpleasantness involved.”

–––––––––––—

“The larger the church, the more it loses members because of changes. Why? Smaller churches seek at
all costs to avoid losing members. As a result, certain individuals and small groups often come to
exercise power disproportionate to their numbers. If a change were made, someone invariably would
experience it as a loss, and since the smaller church has a great fear of conflict, it usually will
not institute a change that might result in lost members. Thus smaller churches tend to have a more
stable membership than large churches do.”

–––––––––––—

In a “House Church” (of under 40 people): “Lay leaders are extremely powerful and they emerge relationally—they are not appointed or elected. They are usually the people who have been at the church the longest and have devoted the most time and money to the work.”

–––––––––––—

In a “Small Church” (of 40 - 200 people): “And while there are now appointed and elected leaders, the informal leadership system remains extremely strong. There are several laypeople—regardless of their official status—who are “opinion leaders.” If they don’t approve of new measures the rest of the members will not support the changes.”

[G. N. Barkman]

Most of us, pastors included, get in too much of a hurry and then become overly discouraged when things don’t move quickly enough. My advice? Slow down.

I think a problem often is that a pastor doesn’t intend to stay at a church longer than 4-5 years, he wants to come in, make his mark quickly, change things, see some growth that will serve as a rung on which he can climb to his next church. Now lets say you are in a smaller church that has had a few pastors in a row like, I’m sure you quickly get tired of that. Yet, when a pastor leaves such a church he complains that the people were stuck in the past, apathetic, had no vision, wouldn’t follow his leadership, etc. I’m convinced from my own experience, having pastored the same church for 19 years, that if a pastor will stay long enough, he can bring about most legitimate change that he wants. But if he tries too quickly, he will find that his relationship with the church sours, and eventually he leaves labeling the church a pastor-eater church.

Jonathan Charles wrote:

I’m convinced from my own experience, having pastored the same church for 19 years, that if a pastor will stay long enough, he can bring about most legitimate change that he wants. But if he tries too quickly, he will find that his relationship with the church sours, and eventually he leaves labeling the church a pastor-eater church.

I think you’re right - sometimes. Other times, the church just needs to die, and it deserves to die.

Thanks for posting a link to the Keller article. It was interesting and useful.

You’ve been very open on SI about the circumstances at your past church.

Since you’re publicly shared details of that situation, and since they would seem to parallel some of my highlighted excerpts from Keller’s article (see my last post above), I’m going to direct this question to you:

Do you think that his observations have merit?

Not in my case. My case was extraordinarily bizarre. I was doomed the moment the former Pastor decided to stay. Of course, that’s easy for me to say, and nobody here knows whether that’s true, or not. I can tell you that I didn’t go into that church as a fire-breathing, young Pastor on a crusade to “fix things.” I wasn’t a young kid, and I’d been in leadership positions before, in ministry and the military. I know you need to go slow, or risk destroying yourself.

I actually changed nothing. All services stayed the same. All service times stayed the same. Everything stayed the same. I added AWANA. I sent kids to the GARBC summer camp. That’s it. Any 22-yr old Bible College grad who’d gone to that church would have been run over by a Mack truck - four times over. I changed … nothing. I tried to ditch an afternoon service for an evening service, spoke to all the church members about it individually, and even let them vote on it. It got turned down. No worries - I soldiered on.

What Jonathan said has a lot of merit, in certain circumstances. I think many Pastors go way too fast. I know a man who tried to turn his church Reformed, and quit in frustration after four very bad years.

Every church is different, with different people, different issues, and different dynamics. My problem stemmed entirely from a bitter, angry retired Pastor who is likely unregenerate. He encouraged a power faction and effectively hijacked the church back, and installed himself back as Pastor when I resigned.

It’s difficult to get this across without sounding bitter, but let me assure everybody that I am being very honest here - some churches need to die. I’m past bitterness. Time has healed wounds, and all that good stuff. I’m real trying to be upfront and honest. Younger guys:

• Don’t do it. Run. Sprint. Flee.
• Don’t try and be a turn-around artist.
• If there are faint alarm bells in your head, don’t do it.
• If the former Pastor wants to stay, no matter how nice he is, how Godly he is, how sweet he is, and how swell he is - don’t take the church. DO. NOT. TAKE. THE. CHURCH. We all have pride - even the sweet retired Pastor. Satan will use that pride and seek to destroy the church, and perhaps even your wife and yourself.

You’ve been very open on SI about the circumstances at your past church.

Since you’re publicly shared details of that situation, and since they would seem to parallel some of my highlighted excerpts from Keller’s article (see my last post above), I’m going to direct this question to you:

Do you think that his observations have merit?

I’ll hop in here.

I took a very small church (about 10-12 people) as an interim a few years ago. Everything that Keller touched on in his article was true (at least from the excerpts that I have read here). There was a tiny group of lay members that essentially ran the church and told the others what to do, and they tried to do that with me. Some of it I could go with, and some of it I could not do and I explained why. Conducting the business of the church became difficult very quickly.

I stayed for about seven months, and that was probably about three months too long; I resigned and left. They later hired another minister - an Assemblies of God person, from what I remember - and the church has grown since and I think is somewhere around 80-100.

I took the church because I knew there was no one else that was doctrinally grounded and I was available. I would do it again in a heartbeat because they had been planning on bringing in a female PCUSA pastor before I was invited to help, but it did carry a significant cost and it was obvious very quickly that we were on different pages and maybe different books entirely.

I was preaching in a small church where the previous long-term pastor had remained after his retirement. In was a hot July morning and I asked if anyone minded if I removed my coat. EVERY EYE turned toward the retired pastor and he gave me his approval.

You frighten me. It’s like you have some sort of crystal ball, and are recounting actual experiences from my Pastorate. Stop it! :(

I’m not Tyler, but I’ve had to leave a couple of small churches, and in one case, it was clear that a small group of people were running things behind the scenes. I had some objections to the use of a popular teacher employed by Moody, and it was interesting that the response was more or less “we like this and that’s that.” No serious discussion of my objections to using this material was allowed.

On the flip side, is that so much different from that teacher’s church—Harvest Bible Chapel—and the pastor’s claim that congregationalism is of the Devil, while he took a 50% vote on the elder board and gave the right boot of fellowship to elders who refused to sign off on the budget until they actually saw it?

Which is to say that Keller’s point about the relational dynamics is well taken, but I don’t think that small churches are necessarily more prone to small groups taking control. Many people who have been at Harvest, or Mars Hill, or First Baptist of Hammond, or a host of other churches would note that while the identities of the ruling class are different, many churches of all sizes are plagued by this problem.

Big question in my mind, really, is how one overcomes the “leadership of men” to get the “leadership of God” to a reasonable degree. This is a big part of what Tyler and others have noted about unregenerate members (and even leaders), and it also matters quite a bit whether the pastor sees himself as the authority, or as the steward.

When the Apostolic period ended and ushered in the Church age the Apostle called the elders together upon his departure and gave them authority and responsibility to “watch” with much diligence for those that would come from within to corrupt the church..There was more than ample opportunity to endorse “one” position to take over the sole leadership position as an “under sheppard” or “God’s Man” role in the church…but it simply is not in the scriptures…yes I am aware of Paul’s endorsement of Timothy to serve but never in some exclusive position , again nothing in that discourse condones the eradication of the plurality of leadership endorsed by the scripture and practiced by the early church for the first 100 -165 years. We are told by early church historians that it became “expedient” for Rome to recognize one “Bishop” for each church as a matter of control..I believe Rome has been replaced by “Seminaries” or Fundamentalist schools for the same reason…Thus the terms “that is “John Smith’s” church …

We have turned “Priest hood” of the believer into the “Sheep hood” of the flock…When Jesus told Peter to feed his flock …he did not mean “Peter’s flock” !! We have driven out every lay person with leadership gifts as “trouble makers” if they did not fall in line with the Pope..or even questioned a decision. Then we wonder where are the “Men” in church …We want them as long as the act as women..

Yes there are secular men that rise to positions of leadership or influence in every congregation or pulpit withj personal agendas..Paul tells us such will rise„and yes it would be much easier if the Church merely rolled over and accepted them as some sort of “vicker of Christ” but brothers it is just not biblical…

Today most seminaries must not even teach common leadership principles to their graduates..and its no wonder the congregation eats them.. As a career military man I must say I have never seen such poor leadership skills exhibited by leaders in our fundamental churches and schools. But when you are indoctrinated that you are “God’s Man” for that church and you will is God’s will… you are just not open for council .

Just take a look around the landscape of fundamentalism over the last 3 decades of the men who were convinced of their “exclusive” unction from God as the sole caretaker of his bride…and notice how they have fallen.. And gifted, called young men are being misled everyday into this false doctrine still,