I worked with three pastors whose churches declined in attendance, giving and membership during their tenure as leader. Then, all three pastors accepted positions at larger churches. Why would a church look at a ministry history of decline and hire a loser?

The dictator 

The first pastor led a mainline church in the suburbs of a major city. This pastor began his tenure with 1,350 members. In 13 years he "grew" the church down to 650 members, then moved on to a church with 2,000 members.

Generally speaking, pastors "grow" a church down to a size that fits their capabilities. In this pastor's case the church would have had to downsize to zero before it would have been small enough for him to manage.

I worked with this pastor for two years and found him to be an abusive leader. He was a dictator. If you didn't do what he wanted you were in trouble, and since he didn't know what he wanted, you were always in trouble.

I found it difficult never knowing where I or anyone else stood with him at any time. The church went through countless staff people in his 13 years, and the leadership obviously didn't think anything about it.

The agent of change

The second pastor was at a church that I used for a consultant training class. This was a mainline church right in the heart of a major city. In the seven years he was at this church he "grew" it from approximately 400 members to around 250—not earth-shattering numbers, but still not growth or even a plateau.

In all honesty, I hoped that this pastor would learn how to lead a church of this size and stay, but he, too, felt a call to another church. The church he went to is larger than the one he left.

I really enjoyed working with this pastor. He was very personable, a strong evangelical Christian with a passionate desire to build the church, but he came to a church that was already on its way down. This church had major problems with an old line membership that "had done it this way for years" and they weren't about to change. This pastor could never break through their cultural facade and was never able to add enough new people to change the culture, so away he went. Someone new will have to come in and try to make those changes.

I feel like this pastor has an opportunity to be the leader that he is meant to be at his new church. He really has the understanding to do what needs to be done, but will need to be dealt a better hand than he had at the former church.

The abuser

The third pastor I mentioned worked in a mainline church that had a change of culture in its immediate neighborhood during his tenure. This did create some problems, but his dictatorial leadership style will hinder him wherever he goes. In his seven years he "grew" the church from 250 to 165.

I consulted with this church on their sound system and reconfiguring their platform. The pastor told me that I wouldn't be able to do anything with the sound system because of the sanctuary configuration. The sound system was actually quite simple to fix and they currently have a sound system where everyone can hear—what a unique experience. Incidentally, the pastor never told me thank you or acknowledged that the new sound system made any difference.

Not too many months before he resigned he told the music director that he felt like he had tried everything "in his bag of tricks" and if the last thing, "The Purpose Driven Life," didn't work, then it was time to go.

That's interesting. Sometimes we use our "bag of tricks" and God doesn't fit into the equation. God definitely wasn't a part of this pastor's attempts to revive the church. Maybe if God had been included, things would have been different.

This pastor is definitely an abusive leader who didn't care what he said or did to anyone. There were a few people who he treated with a little "respect"—the people who gave the big bucks. The pastor and these other people treated the staff with total disrespect, but if one of the staff said or did anything against any of those people they were in big trouble with the pastor.

I am already feeling sorry for those churches who hired the first and third pastors. They are in for many years of torture and decline in membership. As far as the second pastor, I am praying that he will be able to overcome any of his difficulties with the size of church and become a successful pastor of a larger church.

Why hire a loser?

Why would a church hire a pastor who had literally killed his most recent church? Maybe the pastor is a good interviewer, maybe even a good liar. But any church can research what happened at a ministry applicant's previous church. Maybe he convinced the new church that the other church's slow death was not his fault. Who knows? Maybe the question to ask is not about the character of the former congregation but about the character of the pastor.

In his book "Breakout Churches," Thom Rainer writes that the temperament of the pastor is one reason that many churches become great. He writes that the pastors of all 13 breakout churches were humble. These pastors didn't allow people to walk all over them, but they were humble. What a unique idea.

Two of the three pastors identified above have no idea what being humble means, so it won't make a difference where they go.

What about you? Are you a dictator in your leadership? Or are you humble? Do you encourage people or do you lord your authority over them? Are you including God in your plans for the congregation?

© 2005, Ken Johnson, President and CEO of The Ken Johnson Group, LLC, e-mail: ken@thekenjohnsongroup.com or visit the Web site to receive a free subscription to Newsletter Tips for the 20th Century Church and The Phantom Pew Sitter.