The moment they hear it, they feel the “cringe factor” throughout their body. Even as the first few words are spoken, the recipient feels his or her emotions plummeting. It is the one sentence that is uniformly dreaded by pastors and church staff. It typically begins with these words:
“People are saying that . . . “
The full sentence could say; “People are saying that you don’t visit enough.” Another example is: “People are saying that our student ministry is not doing well.” Or one more example is: “People are saying that you don’t have good office hours.”
The sentence might specify a group while maintaining anonymity for the individuals: “Some elders are not happy with you” or “A lot of the staff are unhappy.”
You get the point. It could be phrased a number of ways, but the meaning is still similar. “People” is never defined. The true complainer is never identified. It is one of the most frustrating and demoralizing sentences pastors and staff will hear. Here are some reasons for the frustration:
- The complainer lacks the courage to speak for himself or herself. So he or she hides behind the deceitful veil of “people are saying.” Leaders in churches know that when complainers lack courage to speak for themselves, or when they have to hide behind anonymous complainers, they are trouble in the making.
- The leader has no recourse or action to take. These complainers never identify the source or sources. So the pastor or staff person cannot follow up and speak directly to the dissidents. He or she is left with a complaint that cannot be resolved due to anonymity.
- The leader immediately questions the motive of the complainer. The moment the ministry leader hears those words, “People are saying . . . “, he or she doubts the credibility and the heart of the complainer. The approach is cowardly; it thus is always seen through the lens of doubt and frustration.
- This approach is a double frustration for the ministry leader. First, he or she has heard yet another criticism. Most ministry leaders have to deal with criticisms too often. Second, the ambiguity of the complaint and the source of the complaint can leave a leader wondering if the problem is really bigger than reality. He or she can waste a lot of emotional energy on something that really may not be such a big deal.
- Indirect criticisms can be the most painful criticisms. Most ministry leaders deal better with someone who is direct and precise in his or her concerns. But indirect criticisms such as “People are saying . . . “ or “I love you pastor, but . . . “ hurt more because cowardly actions and duplicitous behavior are added to the criticism itself.
As a leader in a local church and in other places, I got to the point where I did not entertain such veiled criticisms. I tried to be polite and say, “I am sorry, but I cannot listen to you further because you will not give me the specific sources of the concerns. If you are willing to name those people specifically or, even better, get them to speak to me directly, I will be happy to hear the concerns.”
Has my approached worked? Frankly, I don’t recall any of these critics being happy with my response. But I have had to learn that there are certain people in churches and other organizations who have the spiritual gift of complaining. And they will exercise that gift frequently and with vigor.
I have to move on to those who have positive and encouraging solutions. Life is too short to deal with cowardly complainers.
Let me know what you think about this issue.
Posted on December 17, 2014
With nearly 40 years of ministry experience, Thom Rainer has spent a lifetime committed to the growth and health of local churches across North America.
More from Thom
343 Comments
I concur that such criticism serves as a barb and sometimes leaves me in a sour mood. But I think that it is wise to hear and to consider any valid points. Here’s why?
These criticisms might reveal a ministry or a need that should be addressed for the over all welfare of the church. I often evaluate my personal strengths. If my personal ministry is being “scored” in an area that might not be a personal skill or passion, I often look for qualified lay leaders to fill in any ministry gaps that might have been overlooked.
I also realize that one should not jump with the oil can every time the squeaky wheel sounds off. I often use the church’s values for ministry as well as my ‘wise council’ members to prayerfully determine the validity of these ‘complaints.’ Some times these statements and trusted leaders give a pastor the needed credibility (and ammunition) to tell their critic that their point isn’t something that the church will use their resources and time to address.
Sometimes you just have to invite the constant critic to find another fellowship that can better cater to their ‘spiritual needs.’ Why? Perhaps they’re the fifth wheel and not the pastor who God called to this leadership position.
You always have good comments, HB.
Thank you and I hope you two had a wonderful day together. Merry Christmas!
I would say that there is one thing that even if it comes in anonymously must be investigated and that is any report of child molestation/sexual abuse. In this case, the hearer is obligated to report it to (the rest of) leadership and it should be done a private meeting. Legal counsel should be consulted and the proper authorities must be notified and allowed to investigate.
Mark, I would reverse the order you have listed. In the event that a child molestation/sexual abuse complaint is received, the authorities must be notified immediately and leadership informed as soon as possible. To do otherwise opens the door to even more problems should the complaint prove to be true.
Solid article and the points are on target. Of course, each of us receives critique. None of us is perfect and if even one of us were, we’d still not “please” everyone, not that pleasing is our purpose! The underlying truth of the article strikes at the heart of what is healthy/unhealthy about any organization … certainly church organizations.
The issue is “triangulation.” Healthy organizations work to keep feedback about organizational life/staff/processes 1) timely, 2) owned by the one who offers critique and that means a name with each criticism, 3) aired, examined and reflected upon by the appropriately responsible group within the organization.
It’s really not difficult to “spot” unhealthy organizations relative to triangulation. The rationalizations available to continue the process are limitless! The article covers several. Organizational change in this area may require multiple departures or final departures (funerals) for folks whose pathologies include the need to find unending fault anonymously with their leaders.
Bottom line? Health organizations acknowledge their imperfections, confront their mistakes, examine their processes, and welcome change. I’ve seen a few churches who live the Gospel in this manner. While there are many reasons for short pastorates, triangulation of feedback/negative or even positive critique may just head the list.
I have a clause in my contract: “Any criticism of Jerrie Barber will be directed to Jerrie Barber and it will be welcomed. Jerrie Barber does not accept anonymous criticism.” I read my entire contract with comments at the beginning of my ministry with a congregation. I am an interim minister. Usually, the elders and others forget about this agreement. But I gently remind each person who brings a “they say” that I would be violating my contract to receive this. “Please have them talk with me and I will treat them kindly. Incidentally, what do you think about this?” In groups that I lead, I have a guideline, “You speak for you, I speak for me, and let God speak for God. Unless you have been elected to the Senate or House of Representatives, you do not have permission to speak for another person in this group.”
Very wise. Thanks for sharing!
Thom,
I responded to those statements as I would did any gossip, and covenanted with my staff and lay leaders/deacons to respond something like this:
“Thanks for your concern. Since you are already involved, would you pray with me about this…better yet would you go with me to some of those people so we can all pray about this issue together?”
As a lead pastor, I had a firm rule that I would not hear any anonymous comments from anyone. If the other staff, lay leaders/deacons show a unified front, those comments normally disappear quickly.
Good move, Randy.
The funny thing is that it happens even in the really small church. I was pastor of a small rural church that at the time this started only had about 12 in attendance. It was always “Some people don’t like…” something. It wasn’t too hard to figure out who those “some people” were by simple process of elimination. We had five brand new people who were trying to rebuild the church, and then 7 long timers who resisted every single effort put forth to foster growth. Why not just own what you say? Unfortunately, I was not wise enough at the time to challenge it directly. I always thought it would go away. I’m sad to say that I’m no longer at that church and it ended up eventually closing its doors due to “some people.”
Yep, it happens in churches of all sizes. I was pastor of a church not much larger than the one you mentioned (average attendance was in the 30s), and I ran into it regularly. I soon learned that worrying about it is a colossal waste of time and energy. If people won’t own up to their criticism of their “concerns”, they’re not worth your consideration.
Incidentally, the church I serve now is quite the opposite. I have several people now who will tell me to my face if they don’t like something! I’ll admit that can be annoying at times, but I’d rather them do that than talk about the issues behind my back. At least I know where I stand with them!
Exactly what I am experiencing here. I am hoping to correct it so “some people” don’t end up being the ones to shut the lights off.
I have been there experienced that and got that tee shirt and it don’t fit anymore. Why? Because it took me years to learn not to listen or worry about it. God is still he one in charge of His church even when some think they are. This has freed me up tremendously to serve God as he called and gifted me not as others demand of me. I now have peace within in my ministry. Thanks for your posts.
Thank you as well, David. I love your attitude.
David, thank you for your comment. Also, to you Mr. Rainer for the article. As a first-time lead pastor of a small church I literally had this happen at our last board meeting.
When I receive a complaint like this I am already on edge because I know what is coming. And you are right there is NO WAY to resolve the issue because all the facts are not on hand (if there is was a true complaint in the first place. My experience as an assistant pastor for 8 years has taught me that there was NEVER a “some people” just them and like stated before some one else they corerced to join them).
It is devastating to a pastor and other church leaders. The response in our “heated” discussion was then culminated in one of the dissidents asking the rest of the board “don’t the rest of you all feel this way.” Which thank God they responded “no”.
I have struggled for two days dealing with this analyzing if there was any truth to their claims. And coming back frustrated because when I asked for more information I was given vague responses with nothing concrete to build a foundation from. Answers like “we want to be led.” “We want to feel energized.” “You asked me how my husband was doing instead of asking him yourself.”
Needless to say NOTHING was accomplished only a young hurt pastor going back to the parsonage where he missed hugging and kissing his 16 month old child before bed. I was hurt, angry, confused, and totally felt ambushed.
I needed this post. Thank You.
Thank you, Nate. I just talked with a pastor who was ambushed by a personnel committee of his church. They made their decision to fire him even before they ever asked him a question. I am glad your situation turned out better.
Thank you so much. Ironically, I received an unsigned letter mailed to my home. It was mean spirited and unloving. I’ve been dealing with being down about this. This post helped me to know that I’m not alone! I normally have a policy of not reading those, but fell into that trap this week. It hurts, stings and unnecessary. Satan will use any tactic to bring spiritual leaders down.
Your policy of not reading anonymous letters is a wise one, and it might also be wise to announce that policy from the pulpit every once in a while (not often, mind you, but on occasion). People who write such letters are cowards. If a letter’s not signed, I toss it into the garbage and don’t give it a second thought.
Tim –
I just prayed for you, friend. I love it when commenters pray for others on this blog!
To All –
I am celebrating my 37th wedding anniversary with Nellie Jo today. I love you guys, but I love her a lot more! I will be out for a good part of the day. If I don’t respond to your comments today, I will get to them tomorrow. Have a great day!
Happy anniversary from pastors all over the country!
Thank you, Ken!
People are saying you have a great wife and family….I wholeheartedly agree. Happy anniversary!
Yep, and Nellie Jo drives a truck as well!
Monica has a point. Let’s ask ourselves why concerns are being relayed anonymously in the first place. As a pastor I would say the truth of this article needs to be balanced with admonitions to us that defensiveness in the face of of questions and criticisms leaves some parishioners feeling little alternative but to resort to anonymous or indirect communication. Requiring names and one-on-one confrontation can be a way of putting members in a position where they can be unfairly pressured by the authority and respect that are due to the pastoral office. The loss to an insecure pastor hiding behind his power is that legitimate help and correction can become conveniently deflected by intimidation. Next could we have an article that counsels pastors how to cultivate an atmosphere of humility that diminishes the fear motivating anonymous concerns and that exudes welcome to the truth spoken in love.
Try to see it from the pastors’ perspective. Many of us receive anonymous complaints and criticisms on a regular basis, and if we try to follow up on all of them, we won’t have time to do anything else. If the complaint is not important enough for you to own up to it, then it’s not worthy of the pastor’s time. Period.
Ken, you do see what he is saying though, right?
The post is portraying the “complainers” as people who are just trying to tear down the pastor. Frankly, if this person is truly too “cowardly” to address you personally, then you do need to take a look at what they might have to fear.
Have you set yourself up where you are an intimidating figure, or you are unapproachable? Are people worried about being ostracized for being on the “wrong side of the pastor”? Perhaps it is even a person who was asking for advice on how to approach you about a certain subject, and the person relaying the message took it upon themselves to address it.
I’m a very easygoing person, and it would take quite a timid person to be intimidated by me. Yes, I understand what other people are saying in defense of anonymous complaints, but I can’t accept these as legitimate reasons for such tactics. As a pastor, my time is limited. If I tried to follow up every concern that “somebody” has or every complaint that “somebody” has made, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else. To expect your pastor to do so is unfair and unrealistic.
Here’s an idea: if you think the concern is legitimate, why don’t YOU try to do something about it?
Ken –
It is always easy for each of us to see ourselves as “easy going” and not intimidating. That self-perception my not actually be how others see us. I think I too am easy going and approachable, but a good friend told me that when I am passionate about something, I come across very pointedly and sometimes even as angry. It is not how we think we are, but how we are received by people we communicate with. We should always consider how our message, language, and bearing may be received by others.
In general agree with the Thom’s piece, and whenever I have a concern I bring it to my Pastor as my concern – I own it. However, I know within my congregation there are members who are not comfortable approaching him directly as they believe they will not be heard or they will be dismissed. This is in part due to issues with communication, differences of opinion, inner circles, and cliques, as a result of a painful event the congregation experienced fairly recently. These issues need to be addressed; hopefully that will happen soon.
While a Pastor can’t, and shouldn’t, chase down every complaint, if the complaint is part of a recurring theme, even if presented as “some people think…” it behooves the Pastor to address what may be the real root cause of the issue.
If my post has been read as a defense of anonymous complaints, it has been misread.
My point is simply that we do best to take the presence of anonymous complaints as an occasion to ask ourselves why the concern came anonymously. Sometimes the answer to that is that congregants are mean-spirited or insensitive snipers. It’s also possible at times it means that I have inadvertently fostered an impression of inapproachability. (In Ken’s easygoing case, I cheerfully presume it’s the former.)
The article offers good grounds for dismissing the manipulative leverage implied by the anonymous “people are saying” tactic. A pastor probably has a right to ignore such criticisms. What’s missing is the Pauline admonition not to make use of our rights when there are larger interests at stake. The better response might include some self-examination whether the criticism has some merit despite its delivery system. That entails no expectation that we give precious time to following up where the honest answer is no. But in case the honest answer is yes, or in case the anonymity can be traced to fear, there is more to our pastoral responsibility than the partial approach of the article may suggest, however true.
Don and Oliver, I really appreciate what you have to say here.
How can you say your pastor is “not approachable” if you never approach him? We’ve already explained why the “somebody said” approach doesn’t cut it with most pastors.
>If the complaint is not important enough for you to own up to it, then it’s not worthy of the pastor’s time. Period.
_If_ the pastor will discuss the issue, then your recommendation is valid.
When the pastor uses the discussion to verbal abuse^1 the individual bringing forth the complaints, then your recomendation is not only wrong, but is going to ensure that the church collapses. The better known the pastor, the more widespread the inevitable collapse of the church will be broadcast —- including making international headlines in languages that the pastor can neither speak, nor read, nor write.
If the pastor won’t discuss the issue, then individuals will utilize third parties to try to discuss the issue.
There are times when the pastor is willing to discuss the issue, but one party simply doesn’t understand what is being presented. When this occurs, a third party might be “better equipped” to explain the issue than the original party.
^1: Or physically abuse the person bringing the complaint, or, alternatively, psychologically abuse the person bringing the complaint. In these three instances, spiritual abuse of the entire congregation is a foregone conclusion.
“People are saying that… you are unapproachable, intimidating and dismissive of criticism.”
“Yeah, well why don’t those cowards say that to my face?”
Pretty much where my mind went as well.
You’re putting your pastor in a no-win situation. How can people say he’s not approachable if they make no attempt at approaching him?
How can you assume those people have not made an attempt at approaching him when they are able to say that he is “unapproachable, intimidating, and dismissive of criticism”?
To the author: what a wonderful idea! Dismiss potential problems in the church just because they’re brought up anonymously. Also ignore that the “complaint” might have been a simple remark or observation and would be a stupid thing to cause a confrontation over.
I can’t speak for other pastor, but I’m always willing to listen to concerns and even complaint if – and only if – people are willing to own them. If all they can tell me “people are saying”, then how am I supposed to react? How am I to know whether the people have legitimate issues, or if they’re just chronic complainers? How am I supposed to know how many people are complaining? How am I supposed to know if they were just voicing a pet peeve, or if they think it’s a really serious issue?
I repeat, if your complaint is not important enough for you to attach your name to it, it’s not important enough for me to worry about it. I don’t think that’s asking too much.
Some people delight in stirring up trouble. Others want their minor concern to seem far bigger than it really is.
Exactly!
Don, are you saying then, that when an anonymous complaint is brought to you, you wounld not respond with, ““I am sorry, but I cannot listen to you further because you will not give me the specific sources of the concerns. If you are willing to name those people specifically or, even better, get them to speak to me directly, I will be happy to hear the concerns.”?
I suppose, Karl, I am at least saying my answer could never be quite that simple.
Sometimes the anonymous complaint arrives without a visible messenger (on the desk, in the church mailbox, over the transom) and a response isn’t possible at all. Would I still read it? It would be tempting to circular-file it on the pretext of its anonymity. I’d prefer to think I could thicken my skin, read it, and then evaluate it on the merits of the complaint, despite the delivery method. If something’s wrong, I’d rather fix it than dismiss it. Later I’d look for some teachable moments in the pulpit or lectern when it’s appropriate to illustrate (apart from personal examples about myself) how the fearful or unloving manner of anonymous criticism is among those heart attitudes that betray failure in the fight of faith or in the labor of love or in the hope of the glory of God.
Sometimes the anonymous complaint comes in the hands or mouth of an identifiable messenger. I think I’d begin with some questions about why it couldn’t have come more directly and with accountability from the original person. I want to see if I can get to the bottom of the reason why it came anonymously, in case a perception of my own inapproachability is part of the problem. To whatever degree that turns out to be the case, I’d try to enlist the go-between to convey my sorrow that I’d somehow contributed to their fear, and I’d try to pursue every means to more open, confident conversation. Rebuilding that relationship will usually be a more important issue than whatever the conveyed complaint might have been. (A pastor can get away with just about anything so long as his people believe he loves them.) But I’d still want to hear the nature of the complaint so that I could consider its merits. Perhaps there are none and I could relay some counterpoint back through the mediating channel. Perhaps there are some and I will win more confidence from the reluctant critic by addressing the problem with constructive change.
Sometimes the anonymous complaint represent the gripes of a frequent-flier or one about whom reliable evidence suggests destructive motives. In that case, I might resort to something like the answer you propose here. But I’ll still want to be attentive to the underlying messages my response carries the potential to convey: On the one hand, I want my tone to set a model of humility that I hope my parishioners would desire to imitate. On the other hand, I want to avoid encouraging an expectation that anonymous complaints are an effective tool of communication that gets results. Navigating those narrows will seldom be a simple matter of reducing the choice to names or nothing.
All of these possibilities that face me in the varied circumstances under which criticisms and complaints might arrive call for the kind of wisdom and discernment Paul prays for in Phil 1:9f, making often very fine-grained distinctions between the excellent (“diapheronta”) and the merely good. That kind of love abounds only with the knowledge and experience that grows over time from the trials and errors of a ministry struggling hard after a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). I’m afraid in my own growth I am a long way yet from any claims to expertise in such discernment.
Thanks for the well worded response, Don. I understand your desire to set the example of humility. I do see wisdom in that. Yet, I’m still struggling to see any validity is anonymous complaining, especially when scripture calls grumbling sin. I think failing to eradicate anonymous complaining opens the door to consumerism.
Where in Scripture doe it equate an expression of an issue by an individual to another without naming the others who also have this concern with gossip or with grumbling? The grumbling of the children of Israel was directed at God through Moses, that is what made it sin, not that they spoke against Moses.
Don, I think yours is the most thoughtful and well-balanced interaction I’ve read here. I think there is wisdom in an attentive hearing, an expression of gratitude for bringing this complaint to the forefront, and the million-dollar question: “Do you share some of these concerns?” I’ve found that any complaint (however untethered from reality) has at least a shred of nutrition I can use to grow, and to demonstrate a willingness to grow. This should go a long way toward building a culture where the body feels comfortable expressing its perceptions (right or wrong) to the pastor.
My main concern with the approach recommended here is that there are too many personalities and backgrounds in a church for a pastor to adopt a one-size-fits all solution. We cannot know the heart, and this proposal seems to assume facts not in evidence:
— Maybe the person who brought this to my attention truly is a coward or a talebearer hiding behind anonymous “others.” If so, I’ll address that sin once it’s actually demonstrated. We’ll talk about what the Lord thinks of those who sow division.
— Perhaps this is a person of great timidity who has actually mustered all available courage to talk to me. If so, I will not risk putting out a smoldering wick. We’ll talk about God-driven courage later.
— Maybe this person has (wisely or unwisely) pledged his faith to protect his source. If so, we can talk about interpersonal wisdom after we’ve dealt with the concern. We’ll spend a lot of time in Proverbs.
— Perhaps this person comes from a background of abusive church leadership and does not trust anyone in authority, but still feels that this conversation needs to happen. I will not risk breaking a bruised reed. We’ll talk about trusting the Lord of the church even when the Lord’s church fails.
Etc., etc.
At the end of the day, peremptory dismissal of all concerns that don’t come labeled with names and dates may simplify the pastor’s life and protect his feelings, but it will also drive away his flock and erect a wall of apathy and cynicism between him and his people.
This solution is more bureaucratic than pastoral.
Your last two sentences, Nathan, are an excellent and succinct summary of what I would consider the most important take-away from the practical and manifestly relevant discussion Dr Reiner’s article has prompted. They also seem to me an apt application of Paul’s perspective in 1 Cor 8-10. Thanks.
At the end of the day, listening to every anonymous complaint that comes along will wear out the pastor and drain life away from the church. I don’t think it’s asking so much that you own your complaint. If it’s not important for you to do that much, then you have a lot of nerve thinking the pastor should waste time on it.
Sometimes it isn’t the current pastor but the system, or a previous pastor, or who knows what, that has fostered that notion that the pastor can’t be approached with complaints. It’s tough to sort out what’s what, but it’ll never be solved if anonymous “some people are saying…” comments are allowed to continue.
I knew exactly were you were going with this article is soon as I read the title. It is right on target. The version of this I hear the most is, “Some people are saying…”.
Thank you for the excellent advice as well! I really benefit from many of your articles.
Thank you so much, Steve!
Amen! When a system of “People are saying…” is embraced, it breeds suspicion, robs the the complainers of an opportunity to grow as disciples and robs the pastor/leader of the chance to ask for forgiveness if the complaint has any substance. It’s an insidious strategy of the enemy.
Excellent response! Thank you, Jimm.
Yes, this was an excellent response. I have minimally agreed with a couple responses indicating that complaints, even if anonymous, can have some validity. However, complaints left anonymous definitely lead to further negative fallout. Pastors and staff must humbly and selflessly deal with it, because this type of complaining cannot go on and be healthy. What a good discussion.