Pastors have a measure of control over how the storm of controversy affects them and their church.
—Edward Dobson
In the early 1970s, I pastured a small church in a West Virginia mountain town of 7,000 people. During this time controversy raged over school textbooks. Many Christians felt that the books were subtly projecting values that, in some cases, were contrary to Christian values. To some extent, I agreed with them, so I decided to get involved.
I bought an advertisement in the newspaper to announce that my next Sunday night sermon would address the issue. A big crowd, with many visitors, flocked to the service, and I said some inflammatory things. From that day on I stood facing a raging storm.
I had decided not to fight with the school board over the content of the books; instead I set my sights on a more permanent solution: I wanted to push for the inclusion of parents in the process of textbook selection. So after my Sunday night sermon, I organized a pastors’ meeting, including both Catholics and Protestants, and I invited the media. Their coverage of that event gave me my first taste of being quoted out of context. Because of my youthful enthusiasm and comments about public education, I came across to some as a sweat-drenched, anti-intellectual fanatic.
The controversy came to a head at a school board meeting attended by seemingly the entire town. It was a long, wild night, with people losing their tempers and shouting accusations. When the vote was finally taken, the board agreed to include the parents in decision making.
For those who would settle for nothing short of the incineration of all the questionable materials, this was a defeat. They vowed to continue the fight. Since I had accomplished my goal, however, I pulled out of the controversy, only to earn myself the label of “compromiser” with some people.
A public controversy is a tropical hurricane. Powerful, destructive winds blow beyond the control of any individual or church. Total disaster is a real possibility.
In a hurricane, wise residents on the coastlands take full protective measures, packing up their belongings and driving inland, taping their windows and covering them with plywood, stocking up food in the basement.
Church controversies can take many forms. Even internal controversies can sometimes become public. But whatever the cause of the controversy, pastors and churches can take protective measures when they face public storms in ministry.
Avoiding Needless Public Controversy
I have no shortage of experience with ministry hurricanes. I left the West Virginia church to work as spokesman for Jerry Falwell during the organizing of the Moral Majority. I participated in countless forums and talk shows and weathered many public crises with him. That experience has shaped my perception of public controversies.
In particular, I now avoid public controversy at all costs. I see the church’s community role primarily as evangelism, so anything that hinders the spreading of the gospel is out.
Naturally, a lot of controversy is out of our hands. Sometimes a church gets sued or threatens to split or has something immoral happen within its walls. When such information is made public, the church has to deal with it publicly.
But we can avoid needless controversy.
When I’ve involved myself in political issues, for example, people have categorized me; they’ve labeled me; they’ve associated me with one party or another. And that shut me off from large segments of the community, especially those who disagreed with my political views.
So I take deliberate steps to avoid being pigeon-holed. I tell people that on some issues I’m a liberal, on others a conservative; on some I’m an evangelical, on others a fundamentalist; on some I’m a Republican, on others a Democrat. I want our church to be known for spiritual issues, for helping people in the community, not for things easily politicized.
I recognize that other pastors want to be the conscience of the community. Being the salt of the earth, for them, means confronting the world with the truth on spiritual and social issues. The church is not only a force for evangelism in the world but also a cultural preservative, even among those who will never be converted. In this view, controversy is inevitable, even desirable. But when your goal is evangelism, this just won’t do.
Still, there are times I feel compelled to speak out on sensitive social issues. But before I speak out, I make sure that we are involved in helping those affected by the problem.
Several years ago Harold Ivan Smith came to town to speak at our church, and in the course of our conversation I learned that his father had caught aids from a blood transfusion and died. So I asked Harold to speak about aids in the Sunday morning service. His message heightened our awareness of the problem, and we sensed a need for a written aids policy for our church.
After considerable study, we established the policy, “We will not discriminate against people with aids but extend to them the love and grace of Christ.”
Afterward I drove to the aids resource center in Grand Rapids, a purely secular agency, and said, “We want to get involved with helping people with aids”
They said, “Frankly, people like you are the last people we would figure to come here and offer help.” We were only the third church in the community to do so. They introduced me to several people, one of whom I brought with me to our monthly board meeting. He had the disease. I asked him to tell his story, and by the time he finished everyone in the room was in tears. He now attends our church, as do others with AIDS.
I can now make a public statement about aids that would have weight even with the people in the homosexual community. They know we do not accept homosexuality as a biblical expression of human sexuality, but they see we’re down there with homosexuals who have aids. We aren’t simply judging others.
Only in this way have I been able to speak on controversial issues without raising the level of controversy. In addition, I’ve found that I can pursue successfully some controversial issues without making a public issue out of my involvement.
Some good has come out of the West Virginia textbook controversy—a subcommittee of teachers, parents, and board members still reviews all the textbooks. But I now see that we could have achieved the same objectives without being on the front page and without alienating people.
Dealing with the Congregation
Even though I try to avoid unnecessary controversy, I still find myself in the midst of it from time to time. In dealing with it, so that the hurricane doesn’t destroy the church, I’ve found it best to concentrate my attention on each of the parties involved.
The Truman Dollar crisis at Temple Baptist (see chapter nine) illustrates how a public crisis aggravates internal pressures in a church. A church can weather a public controversy if it can prevent a mutiny. Here are six things we found helpful in that situation.
• Present a united front to the public. If leaders and members in the church are saying different things to the media, it fractures the church into parties and opinions. I told the Temple Baptist board that (1) they should designate one spokesperson to the press so the press would know whom to call, and (2) they should prepare a single written statement for the church and the media. By working together to write and edit the statement, leaders understand one another better, and they own the church’s position.
• Coach the congregation. The people in church need to have some understanding of the press. Controversy makes great headlines; peace and unity is not news. The press has a responsibility to present objectively all sides of an issue.
At Temple Baptist, as you would expect, the press interviewed people coming out of services, playing one person’s views off against another:
“Pastor Dobson thinks this; do you agree?”
“As far as we can tell, three of the church deacons believe so-and-so. Do you know of any others in the church who oppose that idea?” That can inflame more disagreement and divide a congregation.
Most people in the church don’t realize what’s happening with the press. They’re enamored that a reporter is talking to them, that their names may get in the paper. At the same time, they’re intimidated by reporters and say things they shouldn’t. Therefore I coach the congregation about what we prefer they say and not say, do and not do, and why.
I can’t be dictatorial, however. I emphasize that people are free to say what they want, but usually we prefer they respond to reporters with “You need to talk to our church spokesperson. Do you have his name and number?”
• Stop those rumors. There will never be an information vacuum. Curious people will talk, and someone will supply information, true or false, rumor or conjecture or gossip; so it is best for leaders to supply truth. In addition, any misinformation arising from gossip or the media needs to be rebutted.
At Temple Baptist, the church deacons were available at the building every night so members could get direct information. A business meeting closed to outsiders and the press is also beneficial.
• Encourage people to pray. This has two benefits. First, we need God to solve the problem. Second, people turn their attention and energies in a positive and constructive direction. Prayer points their eyes where they need to be, on God rather than on people and problems.
• Handle the problem in special business meetings rather than in preaching. Since the controversy is on a pastor’s mind, it is natural to preach about it, but I think that’s a mistake.
I’ve noticed that the more controversy preachers address from the pulpit, the more people screen their messages, asking, “Who is he saying this to?” People then read between the lines, filtering everything through the current controversy. Rather than assuming the pastor is speaking to them for their strengthening and edification, they assume he or she has an agenda. So people distance themselves from the preached word.
So I do everything possible to separate the controversy from worship services. I hold business meetings in a different room if possible, and not as an addendum to the morning service.
In the worship service I’ll say, “We’re going through a tough time. You may have read the paper; I have no comments about that this morning. However, we will hold a special meeting for members this afternoon, and the board will make a statement and answer questions. This morning’s sermon has absolutely no relationship to that.”
Dealing with the Press
Since most churches rarely deal with the press, they can be caught off guard when the media starts paying attention to them. How they handle the press, of course, can make a huge difference in how they handle their controversy.
One of the keys to dealing effectively with the press is anticipation and preparation. I make several decisions ahead of time.
• Be honest. Honesty is right in itself, of course, but it also bears directly on your relationship to the press. Their job is truth. Their job is to investigate, to uncover, to get the story. If they suspect a cover up, there’s blood in the water, and they become sharks. On the other hand, once they sense they have the story, they’re gone. There is no more news to be had.
For example, politicians who have done something wrong usually ride out the storm of adverse public opinion if they are honest. The press headlines the story today, and tomorrow they headline something else. Soon the misdeed is forgotten. But politicians who have been dishonest with the press watch their problems being regurgitated over and over on the front page.
• Be forthright. Forthrightness doesn’t mean you tell everything you know about a situation; it means that you don’t imply you’ve given all the information when you haven’t.
At times I’ll have to inform the press, “I cannot tell you all the details about this story,” and then I’ll tell them why I can’t.
At Liberty University, for example, sometimes a student was expelled for immoral behavior. That was news in Lynchburg, so the press would sometimes ask for details. But I wouldn’t tell them why an athlete was cut from the football team or why a student was expelled from the university—students have the right to privacy, I’d say. We would tell the press, “You will have to talk to the student.”
Another reason not to give all the information is potential litigation. Whatever the reason for withholding information, though, it must be legitimate.
• Choose a spokesperson of good judgment. As I mentioned, the church needs to hammer out exactly what it wants to say about the controversy it finds itself in, and then it needs to appoint a spokesperson to address the press about its decision. That spokesperson must give only the information the church has decided to give.
Suffice it to say that the spokesperson needs to be carefully chosen. He or she must have good judgment and discretion, knowing intuitively what is appropriate and inappropriate.
The person should be capable of answering a reporter’s question in one or two sentences. A spokesperson who needs paragraphs to answer a question will (a) likely say more than has been agreed on, and (b) give the reporter more room to edit, which often leads to being quoted out of context.
Although the pastor is the natural choice, he or she may not be the right choice because of pastors’ tendency to “talk long.” I prefer a laconic member of the board.
A church also needs to decide whether the spokesperson who reads the statement will
(1) read the statement without comment, or (2) read the statement and answer questions about its contents. At a minimum, the spokesperson should not answer questions about topics outside the scope of the written statement.
• Keep key assumptions in mind. Whoever happens to be speaking to the press, it’s vital that the person keep in mind five assumptions:
1. The press doesn’t understand the church. An editor assigns to a story a reporter who doesn’t have time for heavy research in theology, polity, and church history. Reporters are a blank slate at best and a bit biased at worst.
So we must communicate at the level they will understand. I can’t use church jargon. I never assume they understand the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists or why I am generally opposed to divorce and remarriage.
2. I lose control of my words after the press gets them. Once I give an interview, once I answer questions over the phone, once I talk at a press conference, reporters can edit my words at will and print what they have chosen without my approval.
I have learned, then, that the less I say, the less room reporters have to edit. So I use a written statement, and that dramatically decreases the chances of being misquoted, of saying more than I intend, and of being misunderstood.
3. The press never writes what you expect. The press has a different perspective and different goals. What is important to you is often irrelevant and boring to the media; what is threatening to you is news to them. You want to maintain your reputation; they are not in the reputation business. You want the community to see your church as a place of health, strength, and love; the press searches for conflict and problems.
I don’t think the press deliberately distorts what happens in a church. There isn’t a conspiracy to make Christians look stupid. More often than not we make ourselves look stupid. Knowing human nature, I recognize there will be some bias, but that bias won’t kill us. If I keep this in mind, I won’t be devastated when the news about my church is reported differently than I would wish.
4. The press will eventually hear everything I tell church members. Information is like spilled milk. Even if we hold a closed-door meeting for members, church people talk, and I can’t muzzle them. I never assume they will keep mum if a reporter calls. In fact, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the sensitivity of information and your ability to cap the bottle once you tell others.
5. News too will pass. When an unfavorable story runs in the paper, it feels like the end of the world. “Thousands of people are reading this,” we moan. “The church is ruined. No visitor will ever come again!”
But the reality is that a church with integrity will eventually carry the day, because especially in large communities, within a month, people won’t remember which church the story was about. And they’ll probably not even remember the “scandal,” for fresh news is being trumpeted before them every day.
• Don’t attack the press. The worst case scenario is not an unfavorable story in the press; the worst case scenario is war with the press. So even when the story is scrambled and I’m misquoted, I never pull up broadside and exchange cannon fire. You can’t win.
“Never fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” said Sam Rutigliano, former coach of the Cleveland Browns and now head coach at Liberty University.
If the press has egregiously erred, I call the paper, state my case, and request a retraction. But I know the retraction will be buried near the obituaries, and the average reader doesn’t care. (When was the last time you read a retraction?) Their only value is as evidence if you are confronted by an individual who uses the original but false information to criticize the church.
And in the rare case when the media does try to manipulate me, I’ve still found it best to challenge them privately.
Several years ago I debated the head of Fundamentalists Anonymous on a tv program aired in Cleveland. The moderator took questions from a small audience in the studio. One woman stood up and said, “I’m a Jew; are you telling me that if I don’t accept Jesus Christ I’m going to hell?”
People had asked that question everywhere I went, and I answered it as I had dozens of times before. I discovered after the show, however, that she was an employee of the station, planted in the audience and told what to ask. The question didn’t bother me, but the manipulation did.
Several months later I did the program again. Before it started, I told the interviewer, “I don’t mind answering any questions people have, but I don’t appreciate that when I was here last, you had one of your employees sit out there acting as if she was part of the audience.”
He smiled, but he got the point.
Still, in our information age, it’s usually not worth confronting a faulty press. And usually it doesn’t matter: to most people, news goes in one ear and out the other.
• Let your good works shine. Sometimes churches are tempted to counteract bad press by running an advertising campaign, to improve their image. I’ve never found that to be effective. 1 Peter 2:15 says, “By doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” Attempts to improve public image through an advertising blitz will be seen for what they are, and they’ll waste money. It is our integrity and commitment to helping people in need that wins the respect of outsiders. In the long run, for a community-serving church a public controversy is just a blip on the screen.
• Bring in the gospel whenever possible. Even if the situation becomes a circus, I find some way to insert the Good News. I concern myself more with the gospel finding an open door than with maintaining my image or the church’s image.
A number of years ago I was on the Phil Donahue show. When I was introduced the audience booed. I was defending the Boy Scouts who had dismissed an eagle scout who was an atheist. It was a knockdown-dragout hour. However, I did have the opportunity of briefly sharing what it means to believe in God and have a relationship with him.
Dealing With the Law
Most pastors don’t intentionally or knowingly break the law, so we may be prone to give it less consideration than we should. Any public relations crisis has the potential to be a legal crisis. Through some hard experiences, I’ve learned two lessons about legal matters.
• Whenever in doubt, check with your lawyer. A married university student who attended our church put her child in our nursery. Before long the nursery workers suspected child abuse and informed me. When I confronted the father, he admitted it. We secured a licensed psychologist to care for him and put the child under a physician’s treatment. We intended to report it to the local government agency, but because we had placed the parents and child under professional care, we delayed the notification.
Big mistake. The father abused the child again. This time the government agencies found out, and I was arrested for failure to report suspected child abuse.
I went to court, and the judge cleared me of all liability, but I learned a painful lesson: don’t mess with the law. Although a pastor may have a casual attitude toward the fine points of the law and not get burned for decades, one law suit can cost tens of thousands of dollars and waste uncounted hours, not to mention the public embarrassment.
So when in doubt, especially with church discipline cases, I phone our lawyer. That call costs money, but it could save much, much more later on.
• Guard against libel. One legal pitfall of any public controversy is libel. A safeguard against inadvertent libel is a phrase I learned while working as spokesman for Moral Majority; Jerry Falwell’s lawyers hammered at me to preface everything with, “In my opinion.” Apparently, according to the law, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that little phrase alleviates you and the organization from liability.
The relentless, overwhelming power of a hurricane is a frightening thing. Unlike a tornado, a hurricane seems like it will last forever. But eventually the swirling, low pressure zone moves inland; no longer fueled by the heat of the ocean, the winds peter out.
And gradually, out from their basements and shelters come the residents of the windswept area. They find destruction, all right. But if they’ve taken the right steps, the damage to their homes and property has been limited. After a few weeks of clean-up and repair, their lives go on as if the hurricane had never hit.
So it is with a public controversy well-handled.
Copyright © 1992 by Christianity Today
