So as a pastor, my social media circles are full of other pastors. Which means that my newsfeed is full of articles and ads that revolve around that demographic. I’ve seen an article making the rounds over the last week. And it’s the kind of article that has not only created a lot of thoughts rolling around in my own head, but also several waffling decisions on my part as to whether or not I should step in and say something. So rather than a hot take, I waited a week. And rather than a comment war on someone else’s Facebook wall, I took my foot off of the gas pedal and collected some of those thoughts into an article of my own. If you’re interested, you can read the original post and then dig in to my contribution to a larger, pastor-focused conversation:
I want to be as gentle as I possibly can with pastors and other church leaders who are hurting. Combat stories in ministry are a real thing and I have my own scars to show off at a different place and time. I also trust there are bad situations out there right now, that truly outpace my ability to imagine their toxicity. That being said though, this might just be the most narcissistic blog post I have ever read by a [former] pastor. Whatever incredible personal talents Mr Lang had for keeping all of the institutional plates spinning at a 1000 member church, and whatever genuine passion and ability he may have possessed as a public speaker— That does not mean that there were not also a litany of other dysfunctions that were always eventually going to blow up.
In just this single blog post, I see an unbiblical but personally pragmatic ecclesiology. He seems to have embraced the role of CEO until it didn’t work anymore. The Bible never calls him to any such task. Even if he disagreed with the Bible’s teaching of a plurality of Elders, there is neither a need, nor an allowance to act as a unilateral leader in a local church. And because he apparently served in a presbyterian context, I genuinely wonder where his other Elders were during his tenure.
I see in this article a veiled assertion that Mr Lang identifies himself as some kind of progressive martyr. The renaissance art in the middle of the post is of the burning of Marco Antonio De Dominis. Antonio was a Catholic priest who left for Protestantism and then returned again to Rome after what he considered to be a more progressive pope came to power. That pope soon died and Antonio was then executed by the conservative pope that followed him. Antonio styled himself as one who spoke against what he believed was illegitimate authority. I would agree with his negative view of the office of the pope, but for Antonio, that illegitimacy was not rooted in the office itself but rather, that science and reason ought to be a higher authority. Even from a single blog post, I get the impression that Mr Lang holds up Antonio as a personal hero.
I see an insufficient commitment to the creedal theology of the church he was supposed to be a part of. Mr Lang appears to have served pastoral roles in both the PCUSA and the Methodist Church. Certainly pastors are allowed to grow in their doctrinal understanding and even switch denominational teams when conviction dictates that they do so. That would be a move buried deeply in integrity. But based on both the tone, and literal quotes from of this article, I think it’s more likely that Mr Lang held loosely to the doctrinal convictions of either body. He considers himself to be someone who was comfortable “dismantling traditional Christian belief” and that ultimately, he realized that “his skill set and perspective was a mismatch for the institutional church”.
But while each of these issues appears to be a red flag, for me, the main concern is that there appears to be an insufficient love for Christ and His word. In an article swimming with therapeutic vocabulary, and even an entire section devoted to a therapeutic cognitive system, there is not a single verse quoted from the Bible, nor is there is a single sentence devoted to how this way of doing church leadership has affected his personal relationship with the Lord. While I do not know Alexander Lang, and while I am fully aware that not everything can be covered in a blog post, it’s not hard to assume that this post will eventually be followed in the near future by another post outlining his deconstruction.
The pace and reach with which I am seeing this article shared on social media, leads to me to fear that pastors in slightly dysfunctional churches (read: Real churches, full of real sinners, fleshed out by real shortcomings) are leaning in to the complaint simply because it feels cathartic to air grievances rather than heeding the warning that churches and church leaders built on unsustainable foundations will never work. They might work in some ways for a little while. Maybe even in ways that leave everyone else quite impressed. But they will always eventually burn through whatever non-Christ fuel source that they’re using. They will either cease to be a church, or (more likely) they will burn through a series of pastors as if it were nothing more than simply throwing a new log on the fire.
As someone who has also personally experienced (in another church) what it’s like to have a silent cadre of bad actors turn into a very public wave of manipulation and seeking to throw me out— The idea that every problem must necessarily exist outside of my own heart and that the systems cannot possibly be reformed, is a textbook definition of hubris. There are certainly bad churches who burn down good leaders. And there are also bad leaders who burn down good churches. But let’s be honest— Most of the time, it’s a mixture of the two. It’s modern therapy that tries to argue that all of our problems are the wicked system imposing itself on who we actually are. But that is neither the posture, nor the logic of the Kingdom of God.
Can many of the things that Mr Lang articulates as problems be real problems in each of our own churches? Of course they can! In fact, I suspect that there are several ministry contexts out there where Mr. Lang’s critiques sound painfully too familiar. But last I checked, leading our churches to spiritual health is precisely our role as pastors. If you ever inherit a perfectly healthy church, don’t touch anything. You’re imperfection won’t take long to bring it all crashing down.
No one should ever knowingly sign up for emotional abuse, or faulty expectations, or even for churches telling you that they will not change over things you believe to be necessary changes. But leading God’s people through God’s word to see, and value, and pursue what OUGHT to be seen, and valued, and pursued is literally the job we have signed up for. When a church refuses to change because it has not been faithfully taught, that’s not their fault. When churches refuse to change over something that cannot be faithfully taught because it’s not actually in the Bible, that’s not their fault either. When churches refuse to change regardless of the biblical promise that that change is good, then blame may indeed be appropriate, but it would be intellectually dishonest to act like that’s somehow, the first time God’s people have ever done such a thing.
We are privileged to be counted with Jesus in the category of those who lay down our own ambition for the good of the flock— Especially when the flock bucks at what is best and beautiful. (My records show that God’s people tend to do that a lot). So let us not embrace the catharsis. It’s too easy. In fact, it might even be lazy. It’s also far from the model that our Savior has left for us. Be warned brothers, but do not whine. Church leadership is indeed hard. But both the immediate and promised rewards are worth it.
stecawoo.com 