Tactics of Manipulative Church Members, Part 2

The Representative (or Ambassador) Tactic

Some of these articles are going to be pretty uneven. That’s just the nature of the subject—some tactics are simple and easy to explain, and there’s no use saying more than needs to be said. This is one of those.

Let’s call this the Representative or Ambassador tactic.

This is the person who presents themselves as an insider to the pastor or elder. They know what’s going on in the church. In fact, they don’t just know—they represent a group of people who have concerns or opinions. Maybe they’re worried the building isn’t being managed well. Maybe they think so-and-so should be an elder or deacon. Maybe they’re upset about how something was handled last Sunday.

What’s key is that this person’s talk is never just their own—it’s talk about talking. They’re always saying, “People are saying…” or “Some folks are concerned…”

They hover around the pastor—or if it’s a woman, maybe the pastor’s wife or the wives of elders—and start relaying what “people” are thinking. Their voice is not their own voice. It’s the voice of “many.” They’re a senator. A liaison. An ambassador of the people. To reject them is to reject the people.

But here’s the thing. Nine times out of ten, that group they claim to represent is either:

1. Extremely small, or

2. Not even real

This is a simple manipulation tactic. They’re trying to add weight to their words. They want more influence than they actually have. They’re inflating their concern into a constituency.

There’s a simple and effective way to deal with this—and I learned it from my former senior pastor, Andrew Dionne.

One time, I did this to him. I told him that “people” were upset about something in the church. He didn’t flinch. He just asked me:

“Who?”

I paused. I thought. And I realized… it was really just two people. I told him who they were, and he said something like:

“Those people are always upset.”

And I laughed—because it was true.

So now when someone comes to me and says, “People are saying…,” I just ask: “Who?”

If they won’t tell you, they’re probably playing you.

Maybe they’ll say, “Well, they asked to remain anonymous.”

That’s when you make it clear: You’re not concerned about the opinions of anonymous people. If someone isn’t willing to put their name on a concern, then it’s not a concern worth addressing. You can tell the so-called ambassador plainly: “I don’t care to hear about it again unless they’re willing to speak for themselves.”

Tell them: “If someone has something worth saying, I want to hear it—but not through a whisper campaign. This church has pastors and elders for a reason. If they can’t talk to us directly, maybe this isn’t the church for them.”

And then ask the obvious question: “Why is it that they can talk to you, but not to us?”

If the ambassador brings up the grievances of the nameless, you can be pretty sure the people aren’t real—or their concerns are being wildly exaggerated.

And here’s the real kicker: when the so-called ambassador eventually leaves your church, for some strange reason, most—if not all—of the problems and concerns disappear with them.

Isn’t that odd?

Almost like those problems were never really out there to begin with.

Now, just a word of caution: don’t slap a manipulator label on someone just because they try this once or twice. A lot of people have never been taught how to communicate concerns rightly in the church. I know—I tried this exact thing once, and my pastor corrected me. That one conversation shaped me.

It’s not the occasional slip that defines a person. It’s when the behavior becomes a pattern. It’s when they double down, not learn. That’s when you’ve got a problem.

Until then, be firm, be kind, and ask for names.