Not everyone who disagrees with your leadership is undermining it. But some people are.

And knowing the difference matters.

Every church has members who question decisions, challenge ideas, or disagree with the direction leadership is taking. That's not necessarily a problem. Good leaders should welcome thoughtful criticism.

But there's a difference between someone who disagrees with a decision and someone who works behind the scenes to make sure it fails.

You've seen it. The hallway conversations. The carefully worded complaints. The "I'm just concerned about the direction of the church" comments that somehow reach another five people.

Sometimes the concerns are legitimate. Other times, the goal seems less about solving problems and more about creating distrust.

The problem isn't disagreement. It's destructive behavior.

Don't confuse criticism with sabotage

Labeling everyone who disagrees with you as divisive isn't leadership. It's insecurity.

People should be able to question decisions and challenge assumptions without fearing consequences. But spreading misinformation, misrepresenting conversations, or deliberately undermining people behind their backs is different.

The distinction isn't whether someone supports your decision. It's how they handle their disagreement.

Have the conversation

When you become aware of destructive behavior, ignoring it can feel like the safest option.

Confronting a church member might make things worse. They could become defensive, accuse you of silencing them, or recruit others to their cause.

But avoidance rarely solves anything.

First, make sure you have credible, specific information. Don't confront someone based on rumors.

Then have a private conversation.

You might say:

"I want you to know that disagreeing with a decision isn't the issue. You're welcome to raise concerns and challenge our thinking."

"What concerns me is that you've been telling other members that leadership is ignoring their concerns, even though we've discussed those concerns with you. That's creating distrust and misrepresenting what's happened.

"I'm willing to continue talking about the decision. But I need you to bring your concerns directly to us and represent those conversations accurately."

You're not demanding loyalty. You're establishing expectations for how disagreement should be handled.

Don't fight politics with politics

Leaders sometimes make the situation worse by recruiting their own supporters, defending themselves in private conversations, or warning others about the difficult member.

Before long, the church has two competing camps. And leadership has become part of the problem.

Instead, address the behavior directly. Correct misinformation appropriately. Follow established church processes if further action is necessary. And remain willing to acknowledge when the criticism reveals something leadership needs to change.

Courage requires humility and boundaries

Healthy churches need members willing to speak up. They also need leaders willing to confront behavior that damages trust.

You can welcome criticism without tolerating sabotage. You can listen carefully without surrendering your responsibility to lead.

Courageous leadership doesn't require everyone to agree with you. It requires refusing to let destructive behavior become normal.

A question for you: Is there a difficult conversation you've been avoiding because you're afraid of how a church member might respond?

Bryan Blackford
Executive Advisor to Ministry Leaders

This is third installment of Conversations Courageous Leaders Have, a ten-part series on the difficult conversations ministry leaders must navigate. Each installment includes a practical conversation guide. You can download the guide below.

​Undermining Leadership Conversation Guide.pdf​

​​​