This is part three of our week long look at Guy Greenfield’s The Wounded Minister. Greenfield believes (as do I) that there are six characteristics that all clergy killers have. Yesterday we discussed the first two characteristics: The arguments of a pathological antagonist are usually founded on little or terribly misrepresented evidence and The pathological antagonist will initiate trouble. Today we will look at the next three traits Clergy Killers exhibit.
The pathological antagonist is never satisfied.
This one should go without saying. Clegey killers will never be satisfied ever. Greenfield writes, “No amount of accomodation on the minister’s part will ever suffice.” Often the CK will lay down the ultimatium, “It’s my family or the minister.” And the minister is shown the door. This cycle of abuse continues because the church body routinely follows Chamberlain’s example of appeasement. Remember Chaimberlain? Instead of standing against Hitler, Chamberlain decided that the best couse of action in dealing with the Nazis was to sign the Munich Pact with the Axis Powers. He chose appeasement. This decision to appease Hilter actually empowered the Nazis and the Axis Powers. Greenfield puts it this way,
When the good, prayerful, dedicated, loving lay leaders are afraid of conflict in the church and have no stomach for challenging those who are using secular political methods to run the church, they will choose a philosophy of appeasement rather that reasonable confrontation. Evil will then take advantage of what appears to be an open door to take over and control the church.
As a leader, I would much rather be a Churchill than a Chamberlain. Let’s stand up to those who cannot be appeased and tell them, “No.” It is time for the silent majority to stand behind our ministers with a loud William Wallace-style cry of “Stop!”
The pathological antagonist will lead a campaign of attack on the minister.
When my wife and I were first dating, we attended a very small church about 30 minutes away from our university. We would go down on Sundays and Wednesday with our close friends and work with this small congregation. I was charged with working with the youth group. The church itself was led by 3 men who not only served as elders but two of these men kept the congregation afloat with their money. This church had been established after another church in town spilt. During that first year I was there, things went very smoothly. When summer came, I went to work in VA as a youth minister summer intern. During that summer, I recieved a very cryptic email from the pulpit minsier who told me that he was leaving the church back in AR and warned me to watch my back. He never gave me any other information. When we returned in the fall, nobody at church acted any different. Things went on. After a while though, there was a growing uneasiness about the congregation. My wife and I felt the call to move on. We had just been married and we were involved with a young married ministry closer to the campus. We felt that something wasn’t right but we couldn’t say what.
A few weeks later, some of our friends who had continued to work there called us over to their apartment. Something had happened at that church and they said we needed to know. Apparently, there had been a power struggle between the two elders who funded the church. One of the elders had been asking the members of the congregation to sign a petition against the other one. This elder had even gone to people who had been members there years before but no longer attended. He had even told people that this elder was the reason that my wife and I had left. Completely untrue. When the new minister stepped in to help unify the congregation, he became the next target. In a few weeks, the church spilit again.
Imagine what would have happened if the congregation had lived by 1 Timothy 5:19. What if the good men and women had stood up to this antagonist and demanded that this smear campaign stop unless it is handled in the correct manner? We will never know. This anagonist’s goal was to control the church. He had the position and the money but he wanted the power. Whatever the problem was between them it should have been handled differently. Instead it became a personal attack on the first minister and then the other elder. Christ died for people to act this way? I don’t think so. Thankfully I escaped the wrath. My wife and I sensed an uneasiness and left just in time. We were blessed by the ministry we moved into. The Lord provided a firm foundation built by godly men and women for us to begin our marriage on. It truly was a blessing.
The attacking behavior of the pathological antagonist is selfish in nature but is wrapped in a shroud of altruism.
I won’t editorialize this one. Greefield simply says that pathalogical antagonists will often “seize on some spiritual goal or objective, such as the good of the church and its work in the community, and pretend that this is what he is fighting for. The person is rarely interested in authentic spiritual goals. If one rationale no longer works to his advantage, he will devise another. His stated reasons for opposition are a ruse for his own hidden agenda. That he really wants is power, control, status, and authority.”
Today’s Conclusion
As the body of Christ, we have a duty to stand up for truth, justice, and mercy especially when it comes to our ministers. Do not entertain wild accusations. Go to that minister or leader and speak with them directly. Remember that these antagonists will not be appeased so be wary coming to them with a peace offering. They are seeking power and control. Their behaviors are like a cancer growing in our churches. The most effective cure for cancer is surgery. Remember Paul’s words to the church in Rome:
Love from the center of who you are; don’t fake it. Run for dear life from evil; hold on for dear life to good.
Brothers and sisters, love your ministers and stand up for them.