The responses of evangelical churches to allegations of abuse have been vitiated by five factors: wrong expectations, wrong priorities, a wrong reading of biblical stories, a wrong approach to sin and crime, and a wrong view of love and justice.
Photo: [link]N. Mullet[/link], Unsplash, CC0.
‘There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be … unholy, … without self-control, brutal, … lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God … Have nothing to do with such people.’
2 Timothy 3:1–5
The responses of evangelical churches and organisations to allegations of abuse have been vitiated by five factors: wrong expectations, wrong priorities, a wrong reading of biblical stories, a wrong approach to sin and crime, and a wrong view of love and justice. First, evangelical institutions have fallen prey to the cult of the charismatic leader. Second, when abuse has been exposed, it has been dealt with privately and/or with a focus on rehabilitating the offender rather than vindicating the victims and preventing others from being victimised. Third, the ugly truths of sexual and other forms of abuse with which the Bible deals have been replaced by narratives which protect the powerful. Fourth, the reality that we are all sinners has been used to obscure the truth that some sins are deeply destructive and amount to crimes meriting public action. Fifth, love has been wrongly separated from justice.
This is the first part of a Cambridge Paper re-published with permission. It can be downloaded in full in pdf format here. The paper is the expression of a personal viewpoint by the author acting as an individual only and not as a representative of any church or organisation.
News headlines reveal a shocking catalogue of abuses of power [1] in the police, in business [2], in sport [3], in the media [4], in voluntary organisations [5] and in the Church. Within the Church, no theological tradition is safe from abusers: they can be Catholic [6] or Anglo-Catholic [7], liberal [8] or Mennonite, conservative or charismatic evangelical [9]. Men in positions of power have been repeatedly, but sadly very belatedly, exposed as serial abusers. The recent television show, Douglas Is Cancelled, and the highest profile resignation by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, have focused attention on how institutions fail to face up to abuse or worse still actively cover it up.
Abusers exploit their power, position and reputation to perpetrate their abuse. They often rely on their ability to appear friendly with their victims [10] and count on being viewed as too valuable to lose by the institutions they profess to serve. Abusers use a combination of techniques to silence their victims: these include isolation, threats, victim-blaming, shaming, double-binds [11] and gaslighting. Another technique is normalisation: the abuser feeds the victim lies, false justifications and pretexts [12].
[destacate]We need a reflection on whether and how patterns of evangelical thought and practice led to some organisations being places which were havens for abusers but deeply unsafe for their victims[/destacate]Dr Elly Hanson, a Clinical Psychologist, observes that: ‘a large variety of beliefs and values (whether they be religious, political, economic or philosophical) can be conducive to abuse when they are held “ideologically” – followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every human being.’ [13] Although abusers can twist almost any ideas and beliefs to justify their actions, the recent exposure of serious abuses by prominent evangelical leaders, abuse which occurred or which was not addressed effectively over a sustained period, demands reflection on whether and how patterns of evangelical thought and practice led to some of our churches and organisations being places which were havens for abusers but deeply unsafe for their victims [14]. What are the institutional factors to which evangelical churches and organisations are prone that have contributed to abusers flourishing within our midst?
Evangelical churches and organisations are vulnerable to the cult of personality; they can have the wrong expectations about what godly leadership looks like, about the likelihood of leaders acting wrongly or abusively, and about what missional success looks like. Our emphasis on the Word and the Spirit can reinforce wider cultural trends which prize charismatic, heroic, male leaders [15]. We can too easily place on a pedestal leaders who can command a stage, hold a congregation spellbound by their words and inspire others to donate their finances and their time. We can, consequently, be willing to overlook their narcissistic tendencies, toxic masculinity and patterns of behaviour designed to insulate themselves from criticism.
This need not be the case. Wise leaders actively encourage others to hold them to account, as Paul did when he urged the Galatians to be on their guard lest he should preach a false gospel (Galatians 1:8–9). George Verwer, the founder of the missionary organisation Operation Mobilisation, would repeatedly warn his audiences that he might get it wrong, fail or fall, and that if he did so, people should not follow him, they should follow Jesus.
[destacate]Teaching which overemphasises the impact of conversion, the idea of anointing, ignores the vital Reformation truth that believers, though justified, remain sinners who constantly need to be held accountable[/destacate]Evangelical churches and organisations can be naïve about the likelihood of leaders acting wrongly or abusively. Teaching which overemphasises the transformative impact of conversion, the work of the Holy Spirit, the idea of anointing, or suggests the possibility of perfection in this life, ignores the vital Reformation truth that believers, though justified, remain sinners who constantly need to examine themselves, repent and be held accountable. The Bible tells us to expect that there will be wolves in shepherd’s clothing (Ezekiel 34:8–10). Paul cautioned the church leaders in Ephesus that ‘Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!’ (Acts 20:30–31a). Such warnings come too rarely from our pulpits and platforms.
We have read the Bible with too little imagination, bravery and honesty. We have shown too little interest in power relationships. The New Testament repeatedly warns against ‘sexual immorality’ (porneia) (1 Corinthians 5–7; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; Revelation 2:20–23). This is not limited to extramarital sex between two freely consenting adults but includes all sexual abuse and impropriety. The New Testament writers are honest that this sort of behaviour was happening in multiple locations in the early Church. We have read the condemnation in 2 Timothy 3:1–5 of those whose seeming godliness is a cloak for pride, greed, abuse, slander, brutality and their own pleasure without seeing that it describes the pastor obsessed with their own celebrity, the dishonest treasurer and the trustee or volunteer who is using their position in order to exploit others.
Effective accountability is the antidote to the cult of the heroic leader. Accountability is a basic principle of good organisational design, which guards against the abuse of power by forcing leaders to explain how they have exercised their responsibilities. The biblical pattern is for church leadership to be plural: whether the terms ‘deacon’, ‘elder’ and ‘bishop’ are meant to refer to leadership within a congregation or in wider associations of churches, we need structures in which a public rebuke can be delivered as effectively as Paul did to Peter (Galatians 2:11–14) or as Paul urged Timothy to deal with elders who were sinning (1 Timothy 5:20). [16]
[destacate]Even if structures of plural leadership are in place, we need to be vigilant about the risk of what Marcus Honeysett calls ‘accountability capture’[/destacate]Even if structures of plural leadership are in place, we need to be vigilant about the risk of what Marcus Honeysett calls ‘accountability capture’. Accountability capture occurs where the only people who can hold a leader accountable have such a close relationship with them or are so dependent on the continuing success of leader and organisation for their own reputation and livelihood that they can no longer offer independent insight or effective challenge [17]. It can also occur where a clever and determined abuser is able to manipulate those who are supposed to be supervising them [18]. One question which must be taken seriously is whether women’s voices are listened to and whether women are part of the decision-making process when allegations of abuse are raised. If women are silenced or sidelined, this is an open field for abusers to thrive.
Accountability capture can only be overcome when those who have the power to hold a leader to account are willing and able to do the costly right thing of exercising that power, even if the short-term cost of doing so is to strain or even break the relationship with the leader who has come to assume that their power is unquestioned. When abuse may be occurring, either those who have the power to stop it pay the price of intervening or those who are the victims pay the far greater price of it continuing.
The risk of accountability capture and of abuse by leaders being covered up is greater if we have the wrong expectations about what a successful ministry looks like. It is all too easy to measure missional success by tangible factors such as numbers of congregants and supporters, size of donations and the quantity of events and publicity being generated. It is all too easy to forget that by those measures, Jesus’s public ministry was a failure (see, e.g. John 6:66).
David McIlroy, a practising barrister, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame (USA) in England, and a theologian.
1. For reasons of space, this paper will not be examining the boundary between appropriate and inappropriate uses of power or the complex questions which arise when an action is felt to be legitimate by a leader but hurtful by the recipient. Such instances can be important early indicators of behaviour which, if not challenged, can escalate. The focus of this paper is, though, on responses to egregious abuse.
2. Jeffrey Epstein, Mohammed Al-Fayed.
3. Larry Nassar, Barry Bennell.
4. Jimmy Savile, Huw Edwards, Philip Schofield.
5. Jean Vanier, Abbé Pierre.
6. Bishop Peter Ball.
7. John Howard Yoder.
8. John Smyth QC, David Fletcher, Ravi Zacharias, Mike Pilavachi, Frank Houston.
9. Those who have experienced abuse can be understandably sensitive about the terms used to describe them. For some, it is important to be called ‘survivors’, whilst others find the term ‘victim’ or another term to be more appropriate. Indeed, to cater for this, it is not uncommon to hear the phrase ‘victims and survivors’. Nonetheless, this paper uses the term ‘victim’, to recognise the fact that those who consider themselves to be ‘survivors’ were undoubtedly ‘victims’ and, as this paper is concerned with egregious abuse, to echo the language used in the courts to describe those against whom a crime has been perpetrated.
10. ‘Independent Learning Lessons Review – John Smyth QC’ (‘Makin Review’) para. 6.3.23.
11. Makin Review, para. 11.3.15; Michael Wagenman, ‘Power and a Powerless Church: A Reflection Essay on Not So With You: Power and Leadership for the Church’.
12. Makin Review, para. 11.3.15.
13. Rachael Denhollander, What Is A Girl Worth? One Woman’s Courageous Battle to Protect the Innocent and Stop a Predator – No Matter the Cost (Tyndale Momentum, 2019) pp.140-41.
14. Edwin Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (Guilford, 1985), identifies expertise and charisma as the two qualities our contemporary culture seeks from its leaders.
15. This is a problem both in independent churches, where power is often concentrated in the hands of the Lead Pastor, and in the Church of England. Although well-developed safeguarding systems exist, the legal structures of the Church of England impose little effective accountability on bishops and give incumbent clergy a pre-eminent role within their benefices with influence and authority which exceeds that of churchwardens, PCCs, and assistant clergy.
16. Marcus Honeysett, Powerful Leaders? When Church Leadership Goes Wrong and How to Prevent It (IVP, 2022) p.52.
17. Makin Review, para 13.1.59.
Las opiniones vertidas por nuestros colaboradores se realizan a nivel personal, pudiendo coincidir o no con la postura de la dirección de Protestante Digital.
Si quieres comentar o