Over the years, due to pastoral and leadership circumstances, I have had to be involved in teams working on the restoration and discipline of several leaders who had committed serious sins. They had led a double life that was unworthy of the holy calling they had received from the Lord.

I have learnt a number of things from this experience that I would like to share in a series of three articles. 

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp

When a Christian leader sins in a clear way, particularly where there has been an abuse of power or behaviour that has harmed others, a process of discipline and restoration is usually initiated.

After some time, we hear that they have been supported by pastors, mentors, and counsellors, and that they are ready to begin a new chapter.

[destacate]We must distinguish between providing spiritual support to someone who has sinned and certifying that they once again meet the requirements to exercise pastoral authority[/destacate]However, one question is often left unanswered: who has assessed their restoration, and who takes responsibility for endorsing their return to ministry?

It is positive for a person to seek pastoral and professional help. It would be worrying if they did not. However, we must distinguish between providing spiritual support to someone who has sinned and certifying that they once again meet the requirements to exercise pastoral authority.

The first is an expression of Christian care. The second involves a responsibility towards the entire Church. The principle that we must neither forget nor compromise on is that no one should restore themselves.

No one should restore themselves

We cannot be satisfied with statements such as "I have been restored by my pastors” or "I have been under spiritual oversight” unless someone publicly explains what that oversight actually entails.

When a person announces their return to ministry, claiming to have completed a restoration process:

• Who can verify it?


• What criteria have been applied?


• Have the facts been examined, and those affected heard, through secure procedures?


• What measures have been taken to prevent such behaviour from happening again? Above all, who is accountable for that decision?

[destacate]Confidentiality is essential to protect people, but it should not be used as an excuse to avoid accountability[/destacate]We are not asking third party pastors to sign the personal letter of repentance written by the individual in question. We also do not intend for confidential pastoral conversations or therapeutic information to be disclosed.

However, if someone is reinstated to ministry, those who endorse this important decision should publicly explain their views.

The church deserves to know which spiritual authority has overseen the process; what the scope of the decision is; and what safeguards and oversight mechanisms have been put in place, while always respecting the privacy of the victims.

While confidentiality is essential to protect people, it should not be used as an excuse to avoid accountability.

Pastoral friendship does not replace independence

As pastors, we must resist a particularly dangerous temptation to protect our friends simply because they are our friends.

Ministerial fellowship is precious, but it can become a problem when we confuse personal loyalty with our responsibility before God and before the people we are called to protect.

[destacate]True pastoral friendship does not consist in facilitating the return of a friend to the pulpit, it is about helping them to walk in the truth, even when that truth prevents them from returning[/destacate]True pastoral friendship does not consist in facilitating the return of a friend to the pulpit, rather it is about helping them to walk in the truth, even when that truth prevents them from returning.

Therefore, when faced with serious and repeated misconduct, assessment processes should not depend exclusively on those close to that person. We need independence, competence, documented procedures, and identified church authorities who are accountable for their decisions.

In order to ensure greater effectiveness, transparency and impartiality, those authorities should be external to the church or institution to which the implicated person belongs, at least in part. This brings us to another issue that we must address.

Examining the institutions

Another question we cannot avoid is how certain behaviours were able to continue without an adequate response.

Were there people who knew about worrying incidents and remained silent? Were those who spoke out discredited? Were there structures in place to make sure nobody could question the leader?

While we must not assume that there was always a cover-up, we must investigate whether there were institutional failings.

Sometimes, the problem is not just one person improperly exercising their authority, but also a structure that allows someone to use power without sufficient oversight.

[destacate]Accountability does not end with the person who committed the abuse. It extends to those who oversee their restoration and endorse their return[/destacate]Restoring the credibility of a church requires examining its mistakes where they exist and correcting them. It is not enough to temporarily remove the person responsible and hope that the scandal will blow over.

Paul urges us to take accusations against elders seriously, and to exercise the necessary discipline (1 Timothy 5:19–20). The protection of the Church requires fair procedures and accountability in its governance.

When a pastor endorses the ministerial suitability of another pastor, he compromises his own judgement and credibility. If someone reoffends, we must ask not only what the person in charge did, but also how the decision was made that allowed him to regain authority.

Accountability does not end with the person who committed the abuse. It also extends to those who oversee their restoration and endorse their return.

A church committed to the truth cannot allow spiritual leadership to become a space where everyone exercises authority but no one takes responsibility.

In the next article, I want to address a crucial issue: when apologies are made without listening to or restoring the victims.

Marcos Zapata, evangelical pastor in Lugo and president of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance. 

[analysis]

[title] Do you see a need for this kind of journalism? [/title]

[text] Evangelical Focus is a network of many people in Europe and beyond who strive to bring a uniquely Christian perspective to the big issues of conversation.

Through news, interviews, opinion and analysis, we seek to build bridges between evangelical churches and the societies in which they live.

As a non-profit entity, the big challenge is to be sustainable, month by month. We invite you to make a difference! Join the readers who make Evangelical Focus possible.

[/text][/analysis]