It was a well-known church, nationally and globally, and the new pastor had plans for what the ministry would look like under his tenure. He was into bringing change—and fast. One Sunday, he announced that the choir was going to be disbanded—which was a big announcement in a church that loved its choir and orchestra. He said he would be down in the front of the church on Monday morning if anyone wanted to speak to him about it.
Monday morning came. There was a line from the front of the church to the entrance and then around the entire city block that the church was situated on. That should have been a clue to the new pastor, but no—he had his plans, and in the aftermath, hundreds left the church. I called him and suggested he was moving too fast without due process and listening to the congregation. He was unconcerned and was willing to have the very people who made the ministry possible through their financial support leave so he could accomplish his vision for the church.
His argument with me was that the church needed change. He was most likely right. However, his approach was unwise and deeply wounded the congregation and, ultimately, himself. I suggested to him that you must build for the future while honoring the past. These two values must be held in tension together.
He hijacked the church, and it did not go well for the church or for him. He left after only a few years. Unfortunately, this is not a unique story.
I believe that leaders are called to lead at specific times in a church's history and that their unique abilities and vision are critical to the next chapter of a congregation's success. However, I have also watched with concern a phenomenon of new leaders coming into a church and essentially hijacking it for their own purposes. What are the signs of a church hijack?
One. There is a criticism of the past as if nothing good came out of it. The new leader/pastor talks about the future and implicitly or explicitly denigrates the past. This forgets that those who gave their energy, money, and talent in the past made the church what it is today and provided the platform for a new leader to build on the past. Every leader stands on the shoulders of those who led in the past unless they start something new. And the people who are there when they come are God's flock.
Two. The new leader does not ask and take into account the vision and dreams of the leadership or congregation but rather inserts their dreams as the vision for the future. When we come into a new church as a new leader, we do not come into a vacuum. We come into a congregation with a history and a vision, whether vague or focused. It is critical that we take that vision into account and not simply impose our own vision as if the past does not exist.
Three. Being willing to see many people leave so that a new leader can achieve their dreams. I have watched new pastors see hundreds of people leave the church because they have imposed their agenda on it without being concerned about the views and concerns of those who leave. It is as if they are willing to sacrifice the past to achieve their vision of the future. As a change agent, I fully understand that some people leave when a new leader or vision comes, but when significant people leave, it is more about the agenda of the new leader than a shared vision for the church.
Four. Marginalizing current staff. Again, there is no question that a new leader needs to build their own team. However, when it comes at the expense of qualified and good staff who have served well, it probably indicates that the new leader is anxious to get rid of the past and put their own stamp on the future. It is often a sign of their insecurity rather than security.
Five. Imposing a new vision that is unnecessarily a break from the past. Good leaders don't move faster than their constituency can follow, and they honor and value those who are there. Sometimes, it takes time to get where we want to go. Jesus never marginalized people other than the Pharisees in the pursuit of His mission.
Six. Not listening to the concerns of the current constituency. This is one of the key indicators of a leader hijacking a ministry for their own purposes. When there is no concern for the vision, concerns, ideas, and issues raised by those who have come before, there is an arrogant rather than humble attitude of leadership. It usually results in divided, wounded, and conflicted congregations because of the agenda of a new leader who does not choose to take into account what has come before them.
When leaders hijack a church, they leave a trail of wounded bodies and hearts behind them. Because it is God's church, many leave or suffer quietly, but it does not excuse those who deliver that pain or lack of sensitivity. It is very sad when it happens and often results in deeply wounded congregations. I have a very hard time reconciling this behavior with the values of Jesus and how he treated people - His flock. It also seems to violate the advice Peter gave to under-shepherds in 1 Peter 5. The question is whether it is ultimately more about them than about Jesus and His flock. Ministry platforms can and are used for personal agendas all the time. Unfortunately!
One. There is a criticism of the past as if nothing good came out of it. The new leader/pastor talks about the future and implicitly or explicitly denigrates the past. This forgets that those who gave their energy, money, and talent in the past made the church what it is today and provided the platform for a new leader to build on the past. Every leader stands on the shoulders of those who led in the past unless they start something new. And the people who are there when they come are God's flock.
Two. The new leader does not ask and take into account the vision and dreams of the leadership or congregation but rather inserts their dreams as the vision for the future. When we come into a new church as a new leader, we do not come into a vacuum. We come into a congregation with a history and a vision, whether vague or focused. It is critical that we take that vision into account and not simply impose our own vision as if the past does not exist.
Three. Being willing to see many people leave so that a new leader can achieve their dreams. I have watched new pastors see hundreds of people leave the church because they have imposed their agenda on it without being concerned about the views and concerns of those who leave. It is as if they are willing to sacrifice the past to achieve their vision of the future. As a change agent, I fully understand that some people leave when a new leader or vision comes, but when significant people leave, it is more about the agenda of the new leader than a shared vision for the church.
Four. Marginalizing current staff. Again, there is no question that a new leader needs to build their own team. However, when it comes at the expense of qualified and good staff who have served well, it probably indicates that the new leader is anxious to get rid of the past and put their own stamp on the future. It is often a sign of their insecurity rather than security.
Five. Imposing a new vision that is unnecessarily a break from the past. Good leaders don't move faster than their constituency can follow, and they honor and value those who are there. Sometimes, it takes time to get where we want to go. Jesus never marginalized people other than the Pharisees in the pursuit of His mission.
Six. Not listening to the concerns of the current constituency. This is one of the key indicators of a leader hijacking a ministry for their own purposes. When there is no concern for the vision, concerns, ideas, and issues raised by those who have come before, there is an arrogant rather than humble attitude of leadership. It usually results in divided, wounded, and conflicted congregations because of the agenda of a new leader who does not choose to take into account what has come before them.
When leaders hijack a church, they leave a trail of wounded bodies and hearts behind them. Because it is God's church, many leave or suffer quietly, but it does not excuse those who deliver that pain or lack of sensitivity. It is very sad when it happens and often results in deeply wounded congregations. I have a very hard time reconciling this behavior with the values of Jesus and how he treated people - His flock. It also seems to violate the advice Peter gave to under-shepherds in 1 Peter 5. The question is whether it is ultimately more about them than about Jesus and His flock. Ministry platforms can and are used for personal agendas all the time. Unfortunately!
