The Illusion of Pastoral Control in a Small Church

Excerpt from the OP article: “Because there are fewer people in the small church, the interplay of the unique personalities of church members has a huge impact. Much more so than they do in big churches.”

––––––––––––––––––

Here Tim Keller discusses this phenomenon:

“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.”

http://seniorpastorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tim-Keller-Size-Dynamics.pdf (page 2)

I was covertly removed from a small church pastorate by immature members, so I will testify that immaturity of members is a real and true problem. However, I’m not ready to throw in the towel on congregational polity. I believe it is of value to listen to all voices and then choose God’s direction congregationally. What is the sin of small congregations that Keller mentions? Each one having a viewpoint?

It’s certainly easier to “play it safe” in a small church, I agree. But shepherds are supposed to look to the safety of the flock, and I think many shepherds forsake that duty today to be “relevant and innovative.” If a shepherd is looking to the safety of the congregation, they will prove they can be trusted.

I recall a church polity class where the teacher invited us to draw organizational charts describing the government structure of a local church with which we were familiar. The contributions were typical with a pastor or board at the top and other officers or committees beneath. His years of experience in pastoring smaller churches then led him to draw a large circle with small circles surrounding it. The smaller circles were the committees or officers; the large circle was “Uncle Billy” or “The Smith Family”.

My theory is that a lot of small churches are composed of three groups. The largest group (Group A) are good people who just want a church to attend with no drama. A smaller group (Group B) are dedicated, active, and want to do what’s right. Another small group (Group C) has an agenda that is their personal priority. Group C is often aggressive and sometimes threatening and intimidating; Group B is serious but don’t like internal fights while Group A just wants peace and will go along happily if Group B wins and sheepishly if the winners are Group C.

I attended a wedding in Illinois recently at a IFB church at which one of my brothers-in-law is the associate pastor. It’s not a big church (from my perspective): about 400 in average attendance.

My BIL is 52, and has been at the church about 1 1/2 years. The senior pastor is in his early 30s, and has only slightly longer tenure: perhaps 3 years.

One of the reasons my BIL was approached (and he was) by the church to become the associate pastor is his age. He has confided in me that many in the older age brackets of the church’s membership were uncomfortable with the senior pastor’s relative youth, and there was trouble brewing. It was felt by the actual leadership (the senior pastor & deacons) that my BIL’s presence could/would somewhat bridge the generation gap, and help restore & maintain order. (That strategy appears to have worked.)

I’m 55, but to my eyes the senior pastor appeared to be quite capable & qualified. To many of the older folks in the church though, at least initially, he wasn’t their seventy-something, long-serving, recently-retired pastor…..

It reminds me of John Maxwell’s comment on his first pastorate, where he figured out that the real power in the church was, and always would be, wielded by one member. And so he learned that if he let that member think things were his idea, everything would go swimmingly.

In the same way, at a small town factory where I used to work, everybody above the age of 55 or so (60 now) was in effect working for the founder, who had sold the company 25 years before and died 20 years before. So if I let people think it was Edgar’s idea instead of mine, I hardly had to do anything to get it done—well, except for persuading the management, I guess.

More directly to the point, if he who would be greatest must be the servant of all, that just might preclude trying to control everything, no? Great article.