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 am noticing that there is to some extent a male female division here.
Remember that in the history of the church (and in the secular world) women were required to submit. We were and in many cases still are rebuked for criticizing the clergy and for criticizing most men in authority in the church.. We women in our 60’s and older were thoroughly trained that the pastor is not to be argued with. I was not as well trained as most of the other women of my generation, so I am the one who goes to the pastor after we women talk. I speak for myself and the others. .At one point in one discussion he came to the women’s group and asked in the tone of voice that for women of our age offers the cue to shut up, if anybody else agreed with me. When addressed in that way, of course they kept silent.
Typical conversation with pastor and me.
I have said to him, “I feel this way and so do others.”
He always responds, “If they have a problem then they need to talk to me.”
Me, “They have been taught all their lives NOT to argue with the pastor.”
Pastor, “I don’t believe you. Nobody is afraid to talk to me.”
Me, “Will you never learn anything about the women of the older generations? Those who are older than you?”
Then I walk out and talk to God about giving Pastor a bit of logic, a sense of history and some good sense.
I do agree though that when men approach the pastor this way, the “others” are often simply other parts of their own male egos..
I appreciate what you wrote, and your perspective. The only thing that I would add is that many men have been raised up in traditions where the “layperson” (man or woman) is expected to have that same type of submission underneath the leadership. I have seen it referenced elsewhere as the “don’t talk” rule, which is an unspoken rule that discourages any and all criticism of the pastor.
http://libertyforcaptives.com/2013/11/23/christian-leaders-and-the-dont-talk-rule/
I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that argument, either. Women have been “taught all their lives not to argue with the pastor”, but they’re willing to criticize him behind his back? Something is wrong with that kind of “logic”.
It almost sounds like she is describing a “black market” of human expression. In the same way that if we can’t purchase something legally, that an illegal market will fill the void, if we feel we are not allowed to express our dissatisfaction in a valid way, then that may very well give way to gossip and grumbling.
I can’t say for certain that it has happened in the case that she is describing, but I think that it is a logical scenario. It doesn’t absolve the grumbling or gossiping, or make they wat that they handle it proper, but it does broaden the perspective of what may be going on.
And as soon as someone got word that there was some grumbling (or murmuring as it was called) going on, there would a sermon on it and why it was wrong and how you would get sent to hell for doing it.
So ignore anyone who has a legitimate concern, wait until they grumble a little bit and then tell them how wrong they are and to get their asbestos suit ready. Something is wrong with this.
Dr. Rainer, when will you focus on the proper way to legitimately complain and the proper way to hear and respond to legitmate complaints?
I’ve said it a dozen times on this blog and I’ll say it again: if your complaint is so important, then man up and attach your name to it. I’m always willing to listen to concerns and even complaints when people are big enough to come to me directly, but anonymous complaints are a waste of time and energy.
> but they’re willing to criticize him behind his back?
That is the intersection of the hypocracy of pre-war Christianity and the hypocracy of post-modern Christianity.
Women who came of age in the twenties never dreamed of saying anything of their pastor.
They might criticize the denomination, but that was the closest they would come to saying anything about the pastor.
Women who came of age in the forties would share things about the pastor with each other, and, _maybe_, their husband.
Women who came of age in the sixties might, but probably won’t, share things directly with the pastor.
Women who came of age in the eighties are willing to discuss issues with the pastor.
Women who came of age in the oughts, will not get an opportunity to discuss anything with their pastor, unless that pastor is under forty.
Or the pastor happens to be a woman.
I saw the same thing when women used to tell children that they should ask for nothing in or from the church. I don’t mean asking for a share of the offering but just one or two sentences in the sermon to be relevant to them or someone to teach them the faith. Decades of irrelevant sermons and being told to ask for nothing caused many to walk out in order to save what faith they had left.
I worked with a pastor who did the same thing. I think some people believe that it softens the blow if they don’t directly criticize you. Or maybe they want everyone to like them, so they don’t want to be the bearer of bad news unless they can hide behind “Some people say …” The funny thing is, this same pastor wouldn’t acknowledge any issues unless that person came to them or he at least had a name so he could address the person personally. To me it’s kind of like the whole “No offense, but …” statement. Just because you start off a sentence that way, does not mean you won’t be saying something offensive.
Great post.
I’d also use it as a teaching moment for the one carrying the anonymous message: entertaining grumbling is just as destructive to unity as grumbling yourself. If someone grumbles about someone else they should be taught to say, “Stop. Go speak with them.”
Also, in my short experience, grumbling (lack of love) is the #1 reason for church rifts/splits/disunity. I would consider anonymous grumbling as a greater concern than almost any other wickedness in church life, and pursue straight talk or church discipline.
???
The way that i started handling this type of thing is to say, “Anonymous complaints are unscriptural.” And then, i lay out how Scripture tells us to handle such things and that i would be more than happy to resolve the complaint or become reconciled with the individual, if they would allow me. It gives me the opportunity to disciple a bit, and disarm the complainer.
It must be frustrating to Pastors to get many anonymous complaints/suggestions but to dismiss them out of hand without even looking at them seems to me to be ignoring a possible resource that most managers would consider. Management by intimidation – seen that in the secular world, usually by those dealing with insecurity issues. Believe Pastor Don strikes a good balance.
Most managers I’ve known ignore anonymous complaints.
…and then fires the guy who does nothing but complain. In the pastorate, we can’t just “fire” people. In fact, the church is the only place where the leader has to be careful to not get fired by the complainers for doing his job. It’s an extremely difficult line to walk, and anonymous “complainers” can steal the joy out of ministry (Heb 13:17).
Well put, Karl! Very well put!
Then you need to get more managers.I woul recommend getting to know some retail and fast food managers, they deal with this all the time. And NO they do not just ignore it.
I will say that this is by far my largest pet peeve. Complaint without providing any way to address it is beyond frustrating for anyone who is trying to lead. It is certainly never a good way to try to fix a problem and it only adds to the stress of a leader. It is in essence a form of gossip.
That being said I would like to challenge the response. Complaint does not come out of the blue. If someone has a complaint that they are afraid of expressing personally then there must be a reason. That reason could be any number of things. Here are 4 examples.
1) They don’t like the current situation, but they don’t necessarily know a better way.
2) They find the leader unapproachable. They believe that if they bring their concerns to the leader they will just get told all the ways that they are wrong. This may or may not be true, but it may be their perception.
3) They lack the self confidence to defend their views.
4) Their experience has told them that when they actually express their discontentment, they are dismissed because it is contrary to the will of the leadership. People learn quick when they are not appreciated.
These are just four examples, but there is a common thread between all of them. I believe that the proper response across the board to anonymous complaints must be pastoral. Even though we cannot “fix” the situation, we still can take action. We must pray for wisdom, we must self-evaluate, and we must be always alert to the fact that logic does not always decide action. The discontentment, especially the kind expressed in anonymous complaint, is rarely driven by logic. Nevertheless the good leader must do their best not to take it personally, but dismissal will only cause the discontentment to grow. The path of least resistance is not always the best in the long term.
Thoughts?
Well said, Ryan.
How true! I am working on forming a grievance committee. People can post their concern by name and expect a response. I hope to call it C3 (clear communications committee.) Thomas Bandy talks about this in his book “Christian Chaos.” We will make clear the levels of complaints ranging from preference to moral and legal. We shall pray and hold all of us accountable.
” Pastors should not complain about their congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God. Congregations have not been entrusted to them in order that they should become accusers of their congregations before God and their fellow human beings. When pastors lose faith in a Christian community in which they have been placed and begin to make accusations against it, they had better examine themselves first to see whether the underlying problem is not their own idealized image, which should be shattered by God. And if they find that to be true, let them thank God for leading them into this predicament. But if they find that it is not true, let them nevertheless guard against ever becoming an accuser of those whom God has gathered together. Instead, let them accuse themselves for their unbelief, let them ask for an understanding of their own failure and their particular sin, and pray that they may not wrong other Christians. Let such pastors, recognizing their own guilt, make intersession for those charged to their care. Let them do what they have been instructed to do and thank God.”
– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together
Are the laypeople willing to show their pastors that same courtesy?
I think that they largely should be, faithful are the wounds of a friend, but you may be missing his point. Bonhoeffer is sketching out the picture of the humble pastor, who has been gifted with a congregation to be responsible for shepherding. If this flock is a gift from God that he has entrusted to you, how ungrateful do we seem when we complain about it.
This is a picture of a man who has a heart where he is willing to look at himself first when there is a problem within the congregation. That type of man has made himself an example to those that he shepherds. In that way he is encouraging them to imitate his humility, which would have the effect that you would like to see.
The man Bonhoeffer is describing doesn’t look around to see if everyone else is acting the right way, he says, “I will do the right thing even if everyone else is doing wrong”.
Many pastors I’ve known are exactly like that, and that’s why critics and gossips try to take advantage of them by telling them what “someone” has said. I would respond by saying, “Do you know who ‘someone’ is? If so, please tell him I am more than willing to listen if he will come to me and talk about it.” I think that’s fair enough.
The article adresses to main concerns, one being valid and the other less so.
I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to address most concerns when they are relayed anonymously. I am sure that this is frustrating, and the way that you suggest to handle it seems appropriate.
The second thing though is assuming the attitude of the person relaying the concern. The article assignes cowardice and malice to this person as their default attitude. When you are leveling such charges it only seems fair to turn the mirrir on yourself and make sure that you are the open, inviting person that you think that you are.
If you have gossip running rampant through the congregation that you have been entrusted to oversee, it only seems natural to reflect on whether there is something that you have done (even if subtle) to encourage this.
So if members are gossiping, it’s the pastor’s fault? I’ve heard some lame cop-outs in my time, but that is truly one of the lamest.
>So if members are gossiping, it’s the pastor’s fault?
Lashan Hara
A concept that appears to be alien to contemporary American Christianity, but found in the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, General Epistles, Torah, Writings, and Prophets.
I take advantage of every opportunity I can as a guest in other pulpits to preach from Heb 13:17b. It is in a congregation’s own interest to do all they can to ensure they have a joyful pastor.
I’m glad you made me re-read that verse!
Sometimes I feel like I am a customer service representative at a retail store as I field these type of comments on Sunday mornings. We care about the concerns of those within our churches and want to listen to the voices of the people. Most of the complaints that come from the “people are saying” category are petty (it’s too loud, it’s too hot/cold, that kid had a sucker in his mouth in the sanctuary, etc.) and do not have any bearing on the mission of the church. If the church does anything people do not like, then the comments come and most of them are not made in a polite manner. Unfortunately, we live in such a consumer based culture (the customer is always right) and this mentality has crept into the church. It’s prideful. It puts the person’s agenda ahead of God’s.
Usually these comments are made from a small percentage of the congregation, but they tend to come from the same people. Over time this wears on the pastor and staff.
It indeed can be death by a thousand cuts, Robbie.
Robbie,
Sorry but I find this the most offensive of all the offensive comments on this thread. The arrogant remark about customer service reps demonstrates the problem with all of you. There is a very unpleasant tone to most of the responses, one would almost assume that only the “pastor” knew what the body should be doing. That those who disagree with the “pastor” are the problem of the church and not any actions or attitudes of the “pastor”. Perhaps pastors today need to be a bit more like those “customer service representatives” who patiently listen to the mundane problems of those whom they are paid to serve. They are frustrated at the inconsiderateness of those who complain to them about things they can not change but offer to them the best they can. They are often discounted as persons (as exampled by your comparison) but continue to serve. They take what is brought to them in complaints and attempt to accommodate to the best of their ability, sometimes with success often without. Why is it that there is more concern for those who have a complaint shown by a “customer service representative” than by those who profess to be the Shepherds of the flock of God?
“We care about the concerns of those within our churches and want to listen to the voices of the people.” From the tone of the messages in this thread it would appear that “pastors” are concerned and want to hear only when their opinion is being reflected back to them. When did we become so right, so professional, that we no longer have the heart to listen to the heart cry of people? When did the direction of the church become the sole discretion of the pastor? Do they tell us in the wrong manner? Of course, but then they are people for whom Christ died. Did you all think that dying to Christ did not mean dying the death “of a thousand cuts”?
Bottom line I ask of you pastors to quit looking at your people as problems to be handled or managed but individuals whom you love and would die for even if it means the death “of a thousand cuts.”
Dude, what blog are you reading? No one has said that legitimate issues should’t be brought to the pastor. The point of the post is how to handle anonymous COMPLAINTS. Every Sunday, I listen with genuine care over every word that’s said to me. It’s the 10% (or less really) of anonymous whining that I don’t have time for. You’re free to do it differently, but don’t accuse these men of seeing their flock as “problems.” That’s offensive, sir.
When you depersonalize a whole class of people as this gentleman did you are saying your people are a problem. Perhaps if you read this from the perspective of a hurting persons point of view you would see that not all of these “anonymous” as you call it “whining” is whining. You all look at this from a viewpoint of POWER. You may not realize that you are in that position but you are, do not discount the power of the pastoral postion. Perhaps there are very painful reasons that your people can not speak openly to you. Could it be that the question you all should really be asking is why do they not feel that they can speak openly? That is rather than attacking your people.
I realize that there are people who complain about everything but that is not what I hear being talked about here. Just because a complaint is anonymous does not make it unreasonable, or not true, but that is what this blog is saying. Rather than hear the hurt of your people you all seem to have allowed the pain that comes from those few to cause you to react in pain.
It hurts to be questioned. It hurts not to know who to fight back against. We are called to shepherd sheep who are contrary and obstinate and yes immature. So they do not do things the way they should does not give us the pemission to not look out for their best.
No one is saying pastors should not listen to concerns and complaints from members. We are saying, if the concerns and complaints are that important, the members should be mature enough to own them instead of hiding behind the “people are saying” routine. I really don’t think that’s asking too much.
It really is asking too much Ken. To ask children to be more mature than they are capable of, to ask people to be more mature than they are. That is the prime job of a pastor, to bring about maturation.Think of the parable of the fig tree that the owner asks to be cut down because it is producing no fruit. The response was give me a year to care for it. Then lets see. That is the pastors response. Time taken here is no waste of time, but a pastor’s prime responsibility. Delegate the other stuff, but do not delegate the anonymous let alone dismiss them by some bland policy. Deal with them directly. Bring them to the light and let the light shatter any darkness.
be God’s, jonathan
It is a veiled gossip and it is sin. It is particularly disheartening when a staff member uses this tactic. Unfortunately, many times, well meaning staff members can lend a sympathetic ear to sometimes legitimate concerns and try to convey them to a pastor. However, in my experience, most of the time, that doesn’t end well
So true Thom. So true.
The sad part of this type of behavior among the minority of church folk is that this is the most powerful form of control for them. Control is the bottom line here.
Unfortunately, this very problem of “people are saying…” gets so out of control that Godly men have not choice but to move on to another ministry. God has no time for this either.
It is indeed sad, Bryant.
“People are saying…” – Translation: You have a gossip problem and I’m part of it.
Nailed it!
Agree with you, Brian. The person who acts as the messenger is always among the “they” who “are unhappy about whatever.