Caught in the Middle

| have known:

-the helplessness of having something to share with the congregation and no opportunity to do so until the passing of time dulls the excitement.

-the anxiety of watching decisions being made that I don’t agree with, seeing how others may be hurt by them.

-the anguish of self-pity that tells me my contributions are going unnoticed as I see people giving all their appreciation to the pastor.

-the frustration of hearing from a secretary that a decision I made two days ago has been reversed.

And I’m not alone. Anyone who has ever served as a staff member of a church has known the same feelings. The staff member fills a unique position.

He leads without being the leader; he pastors without being the pastor.

While I was responsible for the administration of the church staff, a conflict that apparently had been brewing for months between two secretaries came to my attention. I sat down with them to talk through their differences. Over a half hour period each of them expressed the suspicions, fears, and dissatisfaction they felt toward each other’s behavior and attitude. When they finished, I laid out a course of direction to resolve the conflict.

One secretary didn’t like my solution and appealed to the pastor. After hearing only her side of the story, he implemented his own solution without consulting me. I felt shot down. Why had I even bothered with it? How could I supervise effectively when my plan was so easily overridden, and my contribution wasn’t even considered?

Experiences like this happen regularly. I’m constantly aware that many of the people I counsel would rather see the pastor. Even though I try to do my homework, many of my suggestions are tossed aside with little consideration. The ideas I’d like to develop often go by the wayside as more pressing matters get tossed on my desk. I have sat brokenly staring out my office window, wondering if being a staff member is really worth it.

I get caught in the middle. Jealousy, competition, miscommunication, and personality differences put me there. But more specifically, I feel caught between two forces. I must be true to myself and God’s call for my life while answering to the leadership of my superiors-whether it’s the pastor, the board, committees, or all three forces at once. My position doesn’t allow me the luxury of answering to only one of these pressures, and rarely do they all point in the same direction.

For example, a fellow staff member had just cleared his schedule with some non-urgent but important ministry responsibilities, when the pastor walked in with an assignment that “needed immediate attention.” The pastor had promised the local ministerium that his church would provide a volunteer group to minister at a downtown mission. “It shouldn’t be much trouble to find some people who will help,” he said. “Will you get them trained and then set up a rotating schedule for involvement?”

The staff member was caught between dual responsibilities. Though he’s expected to achieve certain basic ministry goals, he doesn’t have the authority to refuse implementing the immediate commitments made by his superiors. He’s torn between achieving the goals for which he was hired, and achieving his superior’s goals for which he has little expertise and interest.

In extreme cases, the staff member feels caught between what he knows will work in specific ministry situations, and the mindset of the fellowship. I know a youth pastor who was frustrated by the lifeless style of worship in his church. The congregation merely sat as spectators while all the action was on the platform. He suggested that more participation by the congregation in the worship services would encourage the young people to become as involved in services as they were in the youth group. But when his suggestion was constantly overruled, he felt trapped between telling the youth group that he was in conflict with the pastor about the worship style, and trying to head off the formation of a subcongregation of young people who despised the church services.

Can ministry flow from someone caught between his own insights and the decisions of others? It’s possible if the staff member realizes that he must adjust to points of ministry conflict and frustration. Every situation of external conflict must first be resolved internally, where it begins and develops. While there is so much that the pastor and the congregation can do to help a staff member function fruitfully, the search for a non-frustrating, productive ministry must begin in his own heart.

A Staff Member’s Priority

“He’s wrong! Dead wrong! And I’m going to see that it changes,” declared a frantic staff member over the phone. “What do I do? We have too many commitments now; I know we shouldn’t launch a television ministry, but the pastor’s going to do it anyway. I’ve talked to several others in the congregation who agree with me.”

I listened to this person’s anguish as he went on and on about the details. Feeling responsible as one of the shepherds of the flock, he was distressed over strapping another financial burden on the back of an already overloaded congregation. He had talked to the pastor and had gotten nowhere. Now he was rallying support in the congregation. Seeds of conflict had been sown by his conversations, and sides were forming. No matter how commendable his objective, his tactics rendered it worthless. He had violated one of God’s priorities for the church.

What is that priority? One only has to make a cursory reading of Philippians to catch Paul’s heart on the matter. “Make my joy complete by being of the same mind. Maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (Phil. 2:2). His utmost concern was that the church would find unity under the lordship of Jesus. Unilateral agreement on every detail was less important than whether people were getting along with each other. While he grieved over the mistakes and weaknesses present in the body, he hated factions and divisions. He knew that for a church to move cohesively, graciously, and effectively to share the love of God, it must move in unity. As the church develops, it will take on varying expressions to meet different needs and opportunities. Everyone won’t always agree on all issues because everyone is growing at a different rate. Paul knew that love must be the basis of unity.

The same priority must affect all staff relationships. The body cannot be united unless its leadership exemplifies unity. Any attempts to resolve conflict in the church must begin with this understanding. The temptation to ignore this foundational principle tugs at us from every direction. As staff members it’s easy to subtly seek perfection as a greater priority than unity. We struggle to implement our “good” ideas even when they create conflict. We so desperately want things to be just right that we unknowingly cross the bounds of unity. My friend who was struggling with a church television ministry is a case in point. He may have been right; but is creating a division in the body a valid means to accomplish his end?

Factions create a carnal framework from which nothing can be accomplished. Conflicting voices in leadership only cancel each other out, leaving each person more intransigent in his own position and the followers confused. Unity must have priority over perfection, for it is only through unity that righteousness will grow. As our love and respect for each other is compromised, we lose our ability to grow together. Change needs to be brought about by realizing that our relationships with each other are more important than who is right or wrong.

There are proper places to share our differences and we must take advantage of them. For staff members, the proper time is in staff meetings or private discussions. Controversy among the leadership cannot be paraded before the congregation. The place for resolution is with one another. Staff meetings need to be so designed that each one can openly voice convictions, even though opinions may be diametrically opposed. This can only happen if each person is committed to leave the meeting with undaunted respect and love for one another, and determined to support and implement the decision that was made.

For the staff member, this usually means supporting the decision reached by the pastor. It can be frustrating, for there is no place of appeal if your ideas are turned down. To bring protest to various segments of the body would only violate its unity. It is especially difficult to be supportive when others in the church ask if you agree with the announced recommendation. Should the new building seat 600 or the recommended 1000? If I think 600 is best and so does this person asking me, what do I do?-I become the best advocate of 1000 seats there is. Is that dishonest? Not if it comes from realizing that fragmentation is more harmful to the church than the eternally insignificant matter of 400 extra seats.

With unity as the priority, differences are resolved in line with the way the church is structured. What I do with the differences of insight and opinion is determined by the place I have in the fellowship. That is why it is so important that staff members have a clear understanding of their place of ministry. Learning to function “caught in the middle” only comes by understanding the parameters in which they labor.

A Staff Member’s Place

At a staff luncheon recently, the pastor asked us to pray for him as he reevaluated the biblical role of elders in the church. This prayer request spawned immediate and spontaneous discussion on the matter. We talked about some of the problems we faced with our elders and some of the questions that Scripture raised about their role. Whenever any staff member made a concrete suggestion or proposal, it was casually passed off. As I watched it happen I began to feel frustration. Here we were, the pastoral leadership of the body, trying to cuss an important problem, and we weren’t getting anywhere. Finally, we went on to other things. On the way back to the office another staff member expressed the frustration of knowing that none of us had been heard. Knowing that I wasn’t alone in my feelings, I asked the pastor about it the next time we were together. Did he really want us to just pray, or was he desiring our input? He told me that he wasn’t looking to us for answers; he did, how ever, strongly desire our prayers as he worked his way through the Scriptures.

No wonder we weren’t being heard! He wanted to come to his own conclusion. My frustration was put into perspective Failing to understand my place, I had generated a lot of unnecessary frustration . Once I realized and accepted the place I was being given, there was no feeling of “put down.” I may have wanted to have greater input, but that’s a completely different matter.

The pastor and staff member must work together to make sure that clarity exists between them. Though it is the pastor’s responsibility to provide an effective plan for his staff, the staff member shares the responsibility for clarity.

It is important to note that the pastor determines the way things will be, and the staff member must learn to deal with things the way they are. I may want to have more input to the decision that is being made concerning eldership, but that doesn’t change things. Many staff members waste valuable time and effort worrying about how things should be or how past decisions should have been made. Outside of sharing his feelings with the pastor as opportunities permit, the staff member has no other responsibility. To wallow in frustration only serves to detract from his ministry.

Though clarity should be established when a staff member is recruited, it must constantly be worked at as long as the relationship exists. No matter how much effort is put into defining a job description, rarely does it cover all the bases. Some things are inadvertently omitted, others change with time, and still others are indefinable. A comprehensive understanding of a staff member’s role will continually unfold. A staff retreat every six to twelve months is an excellent way to maintain sharp clarity, but it will not remove the necessity of daily communication.

Two areas must be examined in providing a base for clarity: first, the formal job description, and second, the informal relationship that exists between a staff member and the pastor. The most important ingredient for this clarity comes from an understanding of the responsibility the staff member is to fulfill. Inherent in this understanding is the guiding pastor’s perception of what is needed. Is he looking for an assistant to do the things he can’t or doesn’t want to do? Is he looking for a trainee who can eventually take on larger responsibility? Is he looking for someone with proven expertise in a given area such as children’s ministry or counseling, so that he can delegate that responsibility? Or, is he looking to free others, in accordance with their calling, to touch the body in a variety of ways?

A staff can be structured many different ways but most are a mixture of the above. The pastor’s perceptions may not be the same for every staff member, for some of your peers may carry greater responsibility than others.

The best way to come to grips with a staff position is through a job description. A good one will include at least the following items:

A. The structure of the church organization and where the staff position fits in it.

B. The specific roles and responsibilities that need to be performed. Care must be taken to distinguish between roles and responsibilities. Counseling can be a role that is assigned, demanding an 8-to-5 schedule. Caring for the needs of the flock is a responsibility that defies any semblance of regular hours.

C. The levels of authority and lines of communication that must be understood for the execution of these tasks.

Clarity demands that the job description conform to the pastor’s perceived needs. A person employed to oversee Christian education shouldn’t be constantly asked to pick up the pastor’s “go-for” duties.

Understanding the church structure will help you settle into your niche. Be sure you have answers to the following questions:

A. Is the church run by one man, a board, consortium of leaders, or is it a democracy?

B. Who hired you-to whom do you answer- who has the authority to change your responsibilities or relieve you of them?

C. What duties must you perform-weekly, monthly, continually? What responsibilities do you carry alone, and which are shared?

D. What decisions need approval, and from whom?

E. When must you consult with others, and where are you free to function on your own with the insights you have?

F. From whom do you receive work and to whom can you delegate it?

G. If you are dissatisfied with the decision of another staff member that affects your area, when and how do you appeal it?

The clarity of a job description cannot be minimized, for it provides freedom for all concerned. Not only does it help solve problems, it prevents them from arising.

Not long ago our church started home fellowship groups to maintain closer contact among the people of the congregation. I was assigned to initiate and develop the program and then turn it over to another staff member to oversee. After the authority had been transferred, the pastor asked me if I would continue to make contact with the program and provide input where I thought it might be valuable. Mistakenly, the other staff member had not been informed though I assumed he had. Whenever I went to his office to talk about the fellowship groups and offer suggestions, I was met with an air of increasing tension. It continued to build over a period of months. Every time we were together it felt like a sparring match even though we tried to be tactful with each other. I thought he was trying to freeze me out because he didn’t want me to be involved. He, on the other hand, thought I didn’t regard him as competent. Our respect for one another began to diminish and affected our total relationship. The truth came out one day. Piqued with frustration I blurted out, “What’s wrong with you? Why are you being so stubborn?” The discussion became more intense as charges and countercharges were made. We finally uncovered the root of the problem. I told him what the pastor had said to me and he was shocked. He had never heard that before. We arranged to sit down with the- pastor and straighten everything out. Lack of clarity caused a series of conflicts that need not have happened.

The informal relationships that exist beyond the job description are important to understand, for they set the environment in which our task is performed. This cannot be objectively established; it must be subjectively observed and worked out. Its primary indicator is personal relationships with other leaders in the body, primarily the pastor. Does the church lean toward impersonal organizational patterns, or are personal relationships encouraged? Are you pressured by formal structures and procedures, or is there more of an informal team spirit? I doubt that a staff can be strong without healthy, informal personal relationships. Pastor and staff members need to relate to each other beyond church business and professional encounters. If you’re facing problems, does your pastor care to hear about them, or does he want you to resolve them alone? Is he concerned about you as an individual, or is he only concerned about your performance? Are problems discussed and resolved only in an organizational framework, or are there opportunities for prayer together?

Such questions might help the staff member to uncover the informal structure in which he serves. I have known staff members who have craved an intense, personal relationship, but have found that their pastor is coolly professional. The more they tried to create such a relationship, the more frustrated they became, for the pastor did not want to carry such a relationship.

The value of close, informal but professional relationships cannot be overestimated. A staff which lacks personal involvement with one another usually grows further apart, each one becoming more concerned about his own task and losing sight of the value of cooperation. A bureaucracy develops where no one can represent or support another because no one knows what anyone else is thinking Unity, clarity, and strong personal relationships are vital to a growing, effective ministry. All other ways pale in comparison.

A Staff Member’s Posture

Having embraced unity as God’s priority for the local church, and having discovered the place you are to fill, what should your posture be when conflicts arise? The answer comes not by looking at all the things you could do, but by concentrating on the things you can do. Where do you have opportunity to serve? Then serve there with all your heart. It’s the only way to avoid frustration. Jesus is our prime example. He took upon himself the limitations of time and space in his habitation of flesh. He couldn’t be everywhere at the same time; he couldn’t spend a long time with everyone he met; he couldn’t enjoy the vantage point of heaven while he walked among us. Yet he could still say to his Father when it was over, “I have accomplished the work which Thou hast given me to do” (John 17:4). With all these limitations, he was still able to fulfill the will of God. He was free to function in the reality of his circumstances. He wasn’t preoccupied with all he might be able to do, but with what he could do.

I talked with a young pastor recently from another congregation. He was bothered by the prejudices he saw in the people under his care which made them cold toward new people coming to his class. In one of his sessions, he attacked the problem at its most obvious point-the strong denominational ties that bred suspicion and intolerance. Though he may have been right, he was, not surprisingly, called before the board. “What should I do?” he asked me. Then he added gallantly, “I can’t live with that kind of censorship.”

“Isn’t there some other way you could have approached the problem?” I asked. “If prejudice is the problem, aren’t there other ways you could have approached it without attacking the ‘sacred cow’ of denominationalism?” As we talked, we concluded that showing how the love of God reaches others, regardless of their background, would have effected a better result. If that message hit home, it would spill over on their denominational pride. A class session on love and openness would have gained the favor and blessing of the pastor and other influential members of the congregation. It’s surprising to see the amount of ministry that can be accomplished and appreciated if we’re not preoccupied by our limitations to see our opportunities.

But suppose the problem is so severe that to yield to it would compromise your integrity? Should you press for change?

Self-assertion is neither an effective nor a proper tool for resolving controversy. If it is your place to bring change, try and develop it through love, not force. If love doesn’t accomplish it, there is no other recourse. As said earlier, the only place to resolve differences for staff members is in private consultation with the leadership.

If, however, you can’t function with the limitations imposed on your ministry, then it is time for you to leave-quietly! Gallant, last-stand actions or “I left my job because of principle” statements have no room in the church unless it concerns gross immorality or obvious heresy. This is not without biblical precedent. I know of two men who in doing what they felt the Lord wanted them to do had to go their separate ways. One felt John Mark was an excellent brother to use in the ministry; the other didn’t because of a past failure. However, Paul and Barnabas could go their own ways, each fulfilling their ministries without running down the other. But if every point of limitation became an excuse to leave, there would be no staff members.

There is another alternative. It’s apparent in Scripture that God will sacrifice a lot of form to preserve ministry. After the church had declared that circumcision was not necessary for Christians (Acts 15), Timothy allowed himself to be circumcised so that he could effectively minister to those who might be offended. His freedom led him to endure the weaknesses of others in order to touch their lives. The staff member may have to lay down his rights and freedoms so that he may still serve the body in which he’s been placed.

You need to realize that it is God who is responsible to release your ministry. If it can’t happen in your present location, then God has the responsibility to remove you. Don’t seek leaving as a way out, but neither should you stay too long. If you can’t adjust, don’t keep griping-leave. Being part of a growing church, having a stable salary, and finding receptivity with a lot of people should not prevent you from moving on when the time is right.

As a staff member, being caught in the middle presents two possibilities: unending frustration or effective service. The determining factor is the ability to deal with internal conflicts before they become external problems that erode ministry and leadership. Where problems exist, they must be identified and corrected. Prolonged crises only lead to frustration and eventual futility.

By the very nature of the role, you, as a staff member, are caught in the middle. You needn’t try to change that. However, you can learn to function in the middle with freedom and joy, touching the lives of many people with fruitful service.