Protesting the Church

In my three decades of denominational employment I’ve seen my share of church scandals. I remember the local conference officer who thought a little redirecting of conference funds into “more profitable ventures” would provide more revenue for the church (it didn’t). Then there was the union official who unilaterally flouted significant church policies, in part because he knew the only constituents that could hold him accountable were handpicked by his cronies. And I’ll not soon forget the high-level leader who extolled the virtues of chastity and integrity, all while nurturing an illicit relationship on the side. An error-free church we are not.

In light of such things, what should the thoughtful church member do? Is there a proper way to “protest” when church leaders do wrong? Some choose to ignore the situation, hoping things will improve over time. Others choose to respond but do so in such poor fashion that the situation escalates rather than resolves. In extreme cases, improper intervention can lead to lasting chaos, the splitting of churches, and to members becoming so sufficiently diverted that Jesus and the three angels’ messages are no longer shared with those who desperately need both. Poorly addressed errors in church leadership rarely lead to beneficial results.

What Not to Do

I contend that successfully protesting (and hopefully resolving) mistakes made by church leaders often begins with avoiding some common pitfalls. Consider the following three points:

1. Avoid automatically assuming you understand the error that has been made—or that an error has been made at all. What you think (or heard, or read, etc.) the church leader did may be entirely true! But never assume that secondhand reports or even what you witnessed personally are all there is to the story. Anyone who’s done jury duty knows that even legitimate eyewitnesses to a crime can bring substantially different viewpoints concerning the same situation. Be wise, and reserve judgment until the facts are fully fleshed out.

2. Resist using social media and other public means to broadcast your thoughts on a developing situation (and be wary of what others say there, as well). Proverbs 18:8 says, “The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles”—in other words, we humans tend to love juicy gossip! And what could be juicier than a church leader gone wrong? But Proverbs 16:28 also says, “A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates the best of friends.” Paul goes even further and lists gossipers (“whisperers,” in the NKJV) in the same breath as murderers and the sexually immoral (Rom. 1:29, 30)—all examples of those who will not inherit heaven. To gossip is therefore a serious sin and can also derail resolution efforts quickly.

I sadly recall one time a legitimate wrong had been committed by a church leader, but nothing on the scale of what the gossip circuit was claiming. Laypeople started calling for heads to roll when only hands needed slapping. This ultimately, and very unfairly, damaged the church’s overall leadership reputation among the general membership. Moreover, one bad decision, unfairly inflated by the rumor mill, can make it that much more difficult for anyone in the church to lead in the future. Please think twice before adding your voice to that denigration process.

3. Do not use tithe as a weapon. For more than a century now, disheartened Adventists the world over have occasionally decided that one effective way to protest the ills at the conference/union/division office is to withhold tithe. But in my opinion this is an exceedingly poor choice for at least two reasons.

First, it rarely, rarely works. Early in my ministry some influential and angry members in the conference assured me that “the only language those scoundrels at the office understand is money!” But I’ve since learned that few are the tithe payers who, by withholding their tithe, can produce enough fiscal pressure to cause church leadership to budge on this or that issue. Adventism is a bona fide global, interconnected entity that is generally not monetarily beholden unto even hundreds of members withholding their tithe. And let’s be consistent: If a conference/union/division leader really is as bad as tithe withholders say they are, they will likely not be swayed (even if substantial financial pressure is brought to bear), if for no other reason than sheer stubbornness and egotism.

Restoration, not crucifixion, is the goal.

Second, even if tithe withholding does “work” and erring leaders become more open to change, the collateral damage to innocents along the way will likely be real. When tithe totals drop, other Christlike leaders at that level of the church must adjust for it. This often manifests in ministries and/or pastors being cut—ministries and pastors that nearly always have nothing to do with the issue that prompted the withholding of tithe in the first place. To me, this has both real-world and eternal implications.

Imagine, for instance, that a church is planning to plant a new church in an unentered area as soon as they receive a promised new pastoral staff member. But because of member angst elsewhere in the conference over a genuinely bad decision an officer makes, tithe is withheld, and that new pastor never materializes.[1] I am fully convinced that two parties will be held accountable in the final judgment for the subsequently lost harvest: the erring conference officer, and those who withheld their tithe.[2]

Steps to Healthy Resolution

Blessedly, in my experience there are at least four steps that can be taken to protest and often resolve negative situations caused by church leaders.

1. Pray for the Spirit and wisdom. Please don’t mistake this for cliché; it is instead essential. Church leaders, when in the wrong, can cause a great deal of collateral damage. But so can dealing inappropriately with their offenses. We need the filling of God’s Holy Spirit and His subsequent gift of wisdom if we are to navigate leadership issues His way.

2. Determine to love the erring leader as Christ loves them. Those who skip this step are sadly numerous—and easy to spot. They’re the ones who protest as the world does, fostering division, making up pejorative nicknames for the leaders they don’t like, freely accusing them of all manner of evils and mistakes, etc.

In startling contrast with this, Scripture tells us to “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). And Ellen White reflected that “I call to mind the shepherd hunting the lost sheep, and [the story of] the prodigal son. I want those parables to have their influence upon my heart and mind. I think of Jesus—what love and tenderness He manifested for erring, fallen man; and then I think of the severe judgment one pronounces upon his brother who has fallen under temptation, and my heart becomes sick.”[3]

Clearly the same attitude Jesus has toward sinners—of even being willing to lay down His life for them—ought to be ours as well. The fact that a church leader is to be rightly held to a higher standard does not give us permission to treat them with scorn or even apathy. Instead, self-sacrificing love is the minimum standard for those who would intervene when a church leader fails to exemplify Christ.

3. Appropriately ask others for clarity. To some, this step may sound suspiciously like gossip. But rightly done, it is not gossip,[4] but rather an honest expression of a desire to lovingly address a potentially serious situation. Because of their broader duties to often large constituencies, there can be significant relational distance between the average church leader and a church member. That distance can easily skew perception, leading even sincere members to perceive wrong behavior where none exists.

To avoid this error, as well as to conserve time and emotional energy, I have found that a simple question asked of other Christians who are (a) mature and capable of godly discretion and (b) situated such that they are likely to know the answer to my questions can help set me on the right path. And yes, I have at times personally found that this step reveals a misunderstanding, that the leader is not guilty of error, and that my quest is over. But other times it has indicated that a wrong likely has been committed.

4. Implement the steps of Matthew 18 to the best of your ability. Again, any pagan can run to their favorite digital platform and cast accusations against public leaders. But Christians are to be of an entirely different caliber. In my experience, Matthew 18:15-17, while not directly applying to public sins, nonetheless applies in principle to nearly all conflict resolution situations.[5] This means that the work to address an erring leader should aim to follow at least three ideals.

First, solve the problem in the smallest possible sphere, involving the least number of people. This helps keep the pressure in the situation more manageable, as well as safeguards the church’s public reputation, when that is appropriate. Second, when expanding the accountability circle, as far as it depends on you, choose only the highest spiritual-quality people. And third, remember that the purpose is always to redeem whenever possible. Restoration, not crucifixion, is the goal.

When implementing the first part of Matthew 18, speak directly to the leader in question, preferably via an in-person meeting, secondarily through a video call or a phone call, or least preferably, via email (as it’s the least personal and conveys the least amount of relational nuance). When communicating via email, make the email only as long as it absolutely must be (unnecessarily long emails often simply don’t get read). If the wrong was done by a committee, ask to communicate directly to the chair of that committee.

Godly efforts by godly people will eventually lead to godly change.

Remember to always approach leaders at this stage as if they are not guilty of what you suspect them of and frame your concerns accordingly. Local culture, of course, comes into play here, and how one approaches church leaders can vary dramatically from country to country. In the United States, after pleasantries have been exchanged, I would preface my questions with something like “Thank you so much for your time. I’m speaking with you today because of something that happened recently, and I wanted to come directly to you to see what your understanding of it is.”

Notice my message here: I am coming on my behalf, not as part of a gang of disgruntled members; I am coming to the leader rather than consulting the rumor mill; I value the leader’s understanding and am looking for their viewpoint rather than forcing my own. These tactics can help leadership be more at ease, knowing that I am looking first for dialogue and comprehension rather than prosecution.

Does this kind of direct but empathetic conversation take courage? Can a leader, lovingly confronted, nonetheless become defensive? Yes, and yes! But in dozens of situations over my years in ministry, I have always found this first step in Matthew 18 to be well worth doing. During times I’ve courteously confronted a church leader, they have usually been glad I respected them enough to speak directly with them. At times I’ve learned the rumored error never happened or was decidedly different from what I’d thought. Other times, leaders have admitted the wrong, apologized, and proceeded to rectify the situation. And I’ve found that even if the situation is not resolved, I nonetheless gained valuable information that would later help bring resolution.[6]

If the leader is guilty and unrepentant, the principle in Matthew 18 is next to widen the circle. I recommend adding to your conversation with the erring leader one or two mature elders from somewhere in the leader’s field of influence. Meet as many times as needed, if progress is being made.

If progress stops, the next step is to broaden the sphere to include people in genuine authority. Nearly all unions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church have official grievance resolution guidelines[7] that should be adhered to. They will help you know more precisely what the application of Matthew 18 looks like in your part of the world field. Following them faithfully will help others to trust in your intervention efforts and will provide the greatest likelihood of healthy resolution.

But What If . . .

But what if all your efforts don’t lead to resolution? From my experience, I see at least two possibilities.

First, it is possible you are in the wrong. If you have exhausted Matthew 18 as well as the local grievance resolution policy, and the situation is still not resolved to your satisfaction, it may be because you have been in error and need to back off. Never be afraid to listen to those responding to the situation differently than you, particularly as the steps of resolution progress and the number of people involved expands. Heaven’s wisdom can still be found among God’s people. Be mindful that you’re not outside of it.

Second, in rare instances, an erring leader has such a tight hold politically on their field of influence that they have few fears of accountability from someone of your status. What should you do then?

I have been in this situation before. It is unpleasant, and I do not know of any easy solutions. But I do know at least three things. First, God is not dead; He still sees, still cares, and is actively working out a solution, no matter how hopeless things may seem. He can bring good out of any situation.[8] Second, if the situation truly is sufficiently serious, don’t give up. Continue to pray regularly for the erring leader. Continue to look for loving ways to hold them accountable. And third, if they are an elected leader in the church (and assuming you’ve already completed the resolution steps detailed earlier to the best of your ability), lovingly and respectfully make your voice heard at the next election cycle. It can take years. But in my experience, godly efforts by godly people will eventually lead to godly change.

Courage, Wisdom, and Love

Appropriately protesting errors by church leaders is rarely easy. But if we ask for Christ’s courage, wisdom, and love, even the most complicated situations have a good chance of resolution. May God grant us this virtuous trio, that we might rightly meet the challenges outside—and inside—His church in these last days.

[1] I phrase this scenario as a hypothetical. Rest assured, there are real stories of this I could tell from the past 30 years, were anonymity not a concern.

[2] It may be tempting for some to argue here about whether the “storehouse” mentioned in Scripture (Mal. 3:10) is indeed the local conference office. To me, this point, while mildly interesting in some contexts, is ultimately irrelevant. The facts are that, administratively speaking, the Adventist Church is currently designed to fund local ministries through a conference-based structure. One therefore cannot redirect tithe without impacting negatively—and unpredictably—other local ministries that are innocent of wrongdoing.

[3] Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), vol. 16, p. 339.

[4] I heard one wise saint define gossip as “talking with those who are not part of the solution to the problem.”

[5] There are exceptions to this. For instance, if the leader in question has potentially broken the law in serious fashion (through physical violence, sexual assault, money laundering, etc.), then legal authorities most likely need to be involved as soon as possible.

[6] It also gave me the helpful qualification of being able to say I had spoken directly with the accused leader should this become a point of contention later.

[7] To find these guidelines, contact the secretary of your local union or conference, who will most likely also have access to them.

[8] “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28).