I remember a pastor friend of mine once saying to me, “I am sooooo tired of dealing with disgruntled people. I want to know where all the gruntled people are.”
The overwhelming majority of church people are gruntled—i.e., they are a joy, and privilege, to pastor. Even if they never say so outright, they are grateful for, and appreciative of, what we pastors provide and how we strive to care for them. But in every congregation, there are always a few disgruntled folks. And the unfortunate reality is these few people can cause more stress and anxiety than the dozens of people who are an absolute delight to serve. I’m convinced part of what makes us effective as pastors is also what makes us susceptible to the skullduggery of disgruntled folks.
After having been around the block a number of times, I’ve become somewhat aware of the disgruntled person’s playbook. While I’m not aware of a school they attend where they learn these techniques and approaches, I’ve observed a distinct pattern in how they operate. The allegations and accusations of disgruntled people tend to fall into three distinct categories.
The first and most common accusation leveled by a disgruntled person is, "I’m not being fed!” And part of what makes it so insidious is that it’s indefensible—i.e., it’s not like I can respond by saying, “Oh yes you are being fed!” I’ve had people make this allegation against me, and everything within me wanted to say to them, “You mean to tell me you live in a culture replete with an endless supply of churches, books, podcasts, and faith-enhancing resources, and you have the nerve to say, ‘I’m not being fed!’? That’s like a morbidly obese person sitting down to their eighth plate at an all-you-can-eat buffet and screaming at the waitress ‘Bring me more food NOW!’.” If you’re not being fed, it’s not because what’s being offered is inadequate or deficient. It’s because you’re a picky eater! You need to take off the bib, get out of the highchair, and grow up!”
Chris Argyris, in his book Knowledge For Action, introduced me to the difference between productive and defensive reasoning. While he goes into considerably more detail, the basic difference between the two is that productive reasoning provides observable data in relation to the point being inferred—i.e., it invites the other party to disprove it. Defensive reasoning, on the other hand, lays out a rationale that can’t really be challenged or disconfirmed. It is soft and self-serving—the kind of reasoning that, if allowed to prevail within an organization, creates chaos and unrest. The allegation “I’m not being fed” is a classic defensive reasoning assertion—one that cannot be refuted or disproven … one intended to stir up controversy (which the disgruntled person wants) … and one meant to bring about an end that serves the disgruntled person’s desires rather than benefits the organization as a whole.
Then again, disgruntled people can’t see their delusion and self-deception. In their minds, they fashion themselves as guardians and saviors of the congregation whose job it is to protect it from those who’d move it in an undesirable direction—i.e., one not of their preference or choosing. As it relates to their skewed self-assessment, disgruntled people typically aren’t causing or creating problems. In their minds, they’re solving them.
A second approach straight out of the disgruntled person’s playbook is the assertion, “You mishandled something!” When you live in community with other people, stuff happens—misunderstandings … run-ins … issues. They’re typically small and insignificant—that time you were mentally preoccupied and walked past someone without shaking their hand … or didn’t visit them at the hospital in what they deemed to be an acceptable time frame … or made a joke they took the wrong way. But when this kind of thing happens with a disgruntled person, they’ll seize on it and add it to their mental list of flaws they’re constructing to justify their dissatisfaction.
I’ve had disgruntled people allege everything from mishandling of finances (which is actually a pretty easy one to fix—don’t have signatory authority on any church account … be diligent about tracking expenses and keeping receipts … and submit financial reports in a timely fashion) … to mishandling of staff (typically around a staff departure, although I had one resignation where the fallout was more intense than any termination I’ve dealt with—a number of people reacted like there’d been a firing or dismissal) … to mishandling of a sensitive situation (one where they wrongly assumed they had all the information when, in fact, key details were held privately for reasons of prudence and discretion which they didn’t know). Bottom line—this typically boils down to a “you didn’t do what a competent and responsible pastor should have done in this situation.” And most times the charges are unfounded and boil down to a matter of priorities—from their limited vantage point, they believe you should invest your time in a way different than you invest it. (With the exception of the money thing—if you handle funds inappropriately, you should be fired! And if you’re slack about tracking receipts and/or submitting reports, you’re just being unwise and short-sighted and not doing what you can to take that arrow out of the disgruntled person’s quiver.)
And finally—the third arena where disgruntled people tend to level allegations centers around the charge “You are doctrinally unsound.” This assertion, as a minister ordained by my denomination, always puzzled me … as I have individuals in authority over me who were responsible, in part, to make sure I was doctrinally sound and adhered to orthodox theology. If I was teaching something out of line or off-base, I’d be investigated and reprimanded. Now granted … there are some denominations these days that are very much straying from orthodoxy. Their founders would be turning over in their graves if they realized some of the notions and ideas that are being espoused as acceptable and/or biblically sound. But in the Church of the Nazarene, that is not an issue. There is a theological coherence about us that makes us exceptional and unique for a worldwide denomination.
So … for a disgruntled person to play the “doctrinally unsound” card means they’ve typically latched on to a pet doctrine or hobby horse tenet—a belief where there’s legitimate room for disagreement—and made it a watershed matter. It could be the ordination of women … or whether creation happened in six 24-hour periods or played out over hundreds of thousands of years under God’s divine supervision … or whether the book of Job is a historical account or an extended allegory … or whether America has a unique role among the nations of the world and was raised up by God as a “new Israel” … or whether the future is so predetermined to where our prayers, while profitable and worthwhile, really can’t change things because our tomorrows have been down-to-the-last-detail nailed down and foreordained by God. Each of these are issues different people have cited as reasons for leaving churches I pastored over the years, and all of them are subordinate, secondary matters—issues that do not challenge orthodoxy, are not essential, and where people of faith who have a difference of opinion should be able to get along without any problems. But for the disgruntled person, it’s not so much about the issue as it is about making a stand or making a statement. So the issue, trivial and derivative as it might be, becomes the means to that end.
One thing I learned from dealing with this kind of disgruntled individual is that most of them genuinely believe if I’d just sit down and listen, I’d come to embrace their position … and the fact I don’t is because I’m being stubborn or inflexible or hard-headed.
In Mark 10:43-44, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all (NIV).” I’ve always taken this verse to mean that we, as Christians, should be willing to do low profile, inconspicuous stuff where no accolades will be forthcoming. And while that’s undoubtedly part of it, I think there’s also more to what Jesus is saying than that. I’m convinced part of what he’s getting at is, “As my follower, you need to put your own wishes and ambitions aside in the interest of furthering my kingdom. You need to be OK with being offended, or not getting your way, from time to time.”
One of the things about disgruntled church people is they’re typically not OK with this. At the end of the day, they want to get their way. There’s no coming to a place of understanding or agreeing to disagree agreeably … because they want what they want. Which is why I more or less came to the place, in relation to disgruntled people, where I wasn’t going to coddle or cater to them. I felt like, given the choice between annoying a professing Christian who was disgruntled and constantly bellyaching and offending someone who was far from, or searching for, God that I should risk alienating the former out of deference and respect for the latter—that God was pleased with that choice.