The life of a small church pastor and why “All it takes is good leadership” is a myth.

The purpose of this essay/post is to lay out what I think is the state of many, if not most small United Methodist churches, particularly in town and country settings.  I am trying to describe the reality of life for pastors who serve these churches.  Some will accuse me of complaining – I believe I am simply trying to tell the truth.  I have many friends in small T&C churches who have a strong, passionate faith, a clear call to ministry, and deep love for the people in their congregations.  They are totally committed to the mission statement of “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”  But they are discouraged and disheartened and more than a few consider leaving the ministry; some actually do leave.  In this essay, I am going to try to lay out why I think that is.  

As pastors in the United Methodist Church, we are appointed to a church, sometimes against the wishes of the congregation, who have no say in whether or not they want us – and therefore no investment in our success.  This is especially true for women, who have to deal with people who simply can’t accept a woman pastor.   We have no real authority when we begin because real authority depends on relationships.  If there is buy-in from the congregation on some level, we may have a brief honeymoon period where folks will follow our lead to a certain point.  But in most cases, this is superficial.  

We are faced with a dilemma: do we make the changes that are clearly needed and risk upsetting people – i.e. do we attempt real leadership early on, or do we simply sit back and get to know the people for a year or two?  In the case of a declining church, a year or two means further decline; every slide downward makes it that much more difficult to start the journey back toward health and vitality.  Sometimes keeping the status quo means continuing business practices that are, at best, shady, and at worst, illegal.  Even if we make the changes that we truly believe are critical for the spiritual, financial, and organizational health of the church, we are in trouble.  If “this is the way we have always done it” comes in to play, then no matter what the change, the pastor will be a target for criticism, gossip, and yes, hatred.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The first goes back to my statement about relationships.  Often some of the people, even some of the leadership, welcome the changes – they might have been pushing for those changes for a while.  But when one of the patriarchs or matriarchs gets a bee in their bonnet, even the leaders who welcome change generally will side with them against us.  This is understandable: they have had relationships with these people for many years and they will continue to have to live with them after we are gone.  No matter how positive a change, conflict is always seen as negative.  If we insist on certain issues, then we are accused of being over-bearing and controlling, of saying, “It’s my way or the highway.”  We are placed in the position of either having to cave in to the patriarch/matriarch or of potentially driving them off – which causes conflict in the congregation.

This is the second reason, then, that we are handicapped in our attempts to lead – conflict is seen as the worst thing that can happen to a church.  A pastor who causes conflict is the enemy.  This is true even in, especially in, dysfunctional churches.  The more dysfunctional the system, the more push-back and sabotage we receive.  No matter how much members of the congregation dislike the patriarch/matriarch, they will always support them over us.  And despite workshops and seminars held by the conference on the benefits of conflict, no District Superintendent is pleased when a pastor causes conflict. The pastor is usually assumed to be at fault and a poor leader.  Sometimes this is a covert assumption, but it can also be overt.

So, you might say, why not simply spend the time those first few years getting to know people.  It sounds like a good idea, and certainly in the first few years of an appointment (well, really every year), we should focus heavily on relationship building.  But that will not solve the problems.  The conference expects results and waiting 1-2 years to even begin to address decline does not bring the desired results.  Secondly, no matter how friendly people are, no matter how much time you spend getting to know members of the congregation, the truth about the church as a system will not be apparent until the system is challenged.  In addition, if we don’t manage to figure out the power structure very, very quickly, then we will wind up building relationships with people that are not “approved” by the powers that be.  The patriarch/matriarch will be jealous of our relationships with those outside of the approved circle of influence.

Another aspect of this leadership problem is that very few small church pastors have any control over their staff.  Staffs often consist of essentially paid volunteers who are members of the congregation or they are members of the community with ties to church members as friends or relatives.  We have no way to dismiss ineffective or insubordinate staff people if they have support of any of the leaders of the church.  That causes conflict – bad, bad, bad.  The problem is exacerbated when it comes to lay leadership.  Effectiveness of lay leaders matters far less than their standing in the congregation.  

Then there are financial issues.  We are dependent upon the Bishop for an appointment, but we are dependent upon the church for our salaries.  If a leader who disagrees with or dislikes us is also a big giver, then our problems are compounded.  Any pastor who takes a stand, whether on a theological point, a financial issue, or an organizational issue risks not getting paid.  Most small church pastors are paid small salaries.  They are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford to lose a month or two of salary.  I do know some pastors who have been willing to forgo salary for a while. However, each of them has had a spouse that is able to take up the slack or is independently wealthy.  For a pastor who truly depends on his/her salary for living expenses, this is a serious problem.  

Sometimes the opposite problem holds: the patriarchs fight us when we try to use good stewardship practices, including knowing who gives what, and where the money is going because they are not big givers.  I can’t prove this, but I suspect that those who are reluctant for the pastor to know how much they give are giving far less than most people assume.  They do not want to be held accountable for their own meager giving; they would prefer to be able to let everyone think that they are the most important supporters of the church.  This kind of hypocrisy won’t work if the pastor is in the loop on giving.  Of course, these same people are the first to challenge a pastor on every purchase, on every parsonage repair, on every item on the Pastor’s Accountable Reimbursement account – which is public record.  

In summary, small church pastors face a number of challenges to being what the conference calls an effective leader.  Large church pastors may face some of the same challenges – I am not able to comment on that, because I have never been pastor-in-charge of a large church.   I do know that small size exacerbates many problems because our options for lay leadership and financing are limited – the loss of one family can cause serious problems.  Also we have few, if any, opportunities for expensive coaches or high-powered mentors (unless we have the personal financial resources to pay for them ourselves).  We are out here trying to be faithful to the gospel among people who have been discipled either not at all or sporadically by our predecessors.  We do not “move up the ladder” in our careers; we can look forward to being moved every 3 or 4 years to a similar small church, to starting the cycle all over again.  Our reality is that the churches we serve might do a little better if we are a good fit and a good pastor and preacher, but the long slow decline of congregations and the burnout of pastors will continue if we continue to place pastors in these situations.  

Please note: I am blessed in my own congregation with a number of leaders who are more interested in building the kingdom than in preserving the past. I love and respect those layfolk who are trying to challenge the system and who serve faithfully with grace and humility.  But I think the system is fundamentally flawed. In this post I have tried simply to state what I see as the realities of life for small church pastors.  In future posts I will address where I think the flaws are that allow for this reality.  And down the road I hope that I, together with those who read and respond to this blog, will be able to think deeply about new ways of doing ministry that address these flaws.  May the Holy Spirit guide us as we continue to answer the call to serve.