Elders Behaving Badly (2): How To Deal With Them

Continuing with the topic of spiritual abuse by church leaders, I came across a post by Gene Redlin regarding how to deal with those who mislead.  Here, Gene lists some scriptural direction for the believer:

TEST THEM: Believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (I John 4: 1)

MARK AND AVOID THEM: Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Rom. 16:17)

REBUKE THEM: Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. (Titus 1: 13)

HAVE NO FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

WITHDRAW FROM THEM: We command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us. (II Thes. 3:6)

TURN AWAY FROM THEM: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:5)

SEPARATE FROM THEM: Come out from among them, and be ye separate and touch no the unclean thing. (II Cor. 6:17)

Although not every context of these passages deal specifically with those who lead, there doesn't seem to be any prohibition from applying them to church leaders.  I think I've done each of these in relation to church leaders.

Elders Behaving Badly: Speak Up or Hush Up? (1)

"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;"  Ephesians 5:3 NASV

"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful to even speak of the things which are done by them in secret."  Ephesians 5:11-12 NASV

In the debate that has taken place over the rise of so-called "spiritual abuse" or "survivor" websites and blogs, one argument that has been made is that such people ought not discuss any sins of spiritually abusive pastors due to the above verses.  But before I go any further, I want to note that there has been more than one way that this passage is interpreted.  And the interpretations I have come across can lead to opposing beliefs about speaking up.  They are...

Hush Up

I have heard this interpretation my entire Christian life.  People have been taught to interpret these verses so that we should be silent about sin.  This is not a rare interpretation, and I think it has led to comments like this one.  The commenter asserts that it is shameful to even talk about their misdeeds.  Here's the thinking behind the interpretation.  "...for it is disgraceful to even speak of the things which are done by them in secret." v12.  One grammatical possibility for this verse (and there are more than one) is this.  I emphasized the word "even" to show the point.  Not only is it disgraceful to speak of the things done openly, it is even disgraceful to do so in secret.  So we can't discuss the sins in question among us, even in secret, for it is a disgrace.  So, in this interpretation, the speaking about sin is what is in view and it is disgraceful.  The sin itself is not in view.

This is given support by the same type of interpretation of verse 3.  The two interpretations go together.  "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints."  This interpretation puts forth the idea that the names given to various sins should not be used in our conversation.  The sins should not be named.  And this is proper among saints.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, or a coincidence, that some of the people speaking out against the abuse blogs are people influenced by John MacArthur.  I found a site that compares commentaries of scripture, and if you scroll down far enough here, you will see that he warns about describing sin in his Eph. 5:12 comments.

So what does this interpretation have to say about exposing sin, as in "but instead even expose them"?  As the commenter said in my first link, we expose sin by the light of our proper living before God.  The summary of this "hush up" view is, "we shouldn't discuss or name the sin, but expose it by godly living.

Speak Up

A "speak up" interpretation might look something like the following.  Contrary to the "hush up" view, the disgrace mentioned in verse 12 lies not in speaking about the sin, but in merely speaking about it in secret.  Secrecy is not where the sin should be spoken about, but rather it should be exposed: "but instead even expose them."

And the exhortation in v3 to not have immorality named among the saints does not mean that we should not name sin, but that none of us should commit those sins so that the name can be pinned on us.

This does appear to be a difficult passage to interpret and apply consistently.  I will attempt to speak more to it in another post.

A Question of Authority

Recently it was suggested to me rhetorically that I don't think we should submit to church leadership, based on a point I was trying to make about the church.  This raises a question.  What is the extent to which a church leader can exercise authority and I be expected to "submit"?

It comes down to a question of authority.  Really it does.  What authority do church leaders have?  Do they have the authority to tell me what I can eat and drink?  Do they have authority to dictate to me what movies I can and cannot watch, or even if I am allowed to watch movies at all?  Do they have the authority to dictate to me which translation(s) of the bible I may read?  Do they have the authority to tell me just how much I need to give, and how much I need to give to the church - their church?  And do they have the authority to demand to see my paycheck to make sure I'm giving the correct amount?  Do they have the authority to demand that I believe every jot and tittle of their church constitution, confessions, creeds and by-laws before I am allowed to attend?  Do they have the right to have control over the who, what, when, where, why and how of using my spiritual gifts in the edification of others?  Do they have the authority to tell me I cannot blog about theology?  Do they have the authority to determine whether blogging about theology is biblical in the first place?  Do they have the authority to tell me what kinds of cars I'm allowed to drive?  And, do they have the right to not be questioned about such things?

If they demand certain of these things, and their demands are beyond the authority given to them by scripture, may I act contrary to them?  Is there a higher authority over my life in these areas than church leaders?

No matter how absurd any one of these questions may seem - or all of them together - they are real questions that a great many people have to deal with on a daily basis.  Sometimes discernment on these issues may take a great deal of time.  Sometimes people notice over time that "submitting" to these things as put forth by church leadership results in bruises, aches and pains in life.  Then they start to question.  They may actually search matters out for themselves and come to the conclusion that they have been led astray all along.  Did Jesus or the disciples submit to all the teachings of the religious leaders of their day?  No?  Then why expect it from the rest of us?

Pastor Loses Suit Against Blogger

A pastor who sued a former church member over comments she made on her blog has lost his case.  I posted about the case here, and now the judge has dismissed every single claim in the defamation suit against Julie Anne Smith and four others.  The judge has also awarded costs and attorney fees to the defendants, including for two defendants who were dropped from the pastor's suit after it was filed.

You can read about it from Julie Anne herself here.

I am grateful for Julie Anne and the others for the judge's decision.  Hopefully, this case will help to further illuminate God's people on the existence of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse within the church.

Gossip, Slander and Divisivness

The words "gossip," "slander," and "divisive" are all words that appear in the bible and are strong words that are used to describe very bad behavior.  Over my 20 years within Christianity, I have heard these words used many times and in many contexts to describe behavior, call out behavior, warn against such behavior.  I have also heard multiple definitions and descriptions of these behaviors.

It is the description of such behavior that I will attempt to write about here in the near future.  I have wanted to do this for quite a while, and in the heightened attention given to the topic of spiritual abuse recently I think now is a good time to do so.

One reason for this is that I have seen these words used in a context where they are applied to behavior where it is not warranted, and used to flip-flop the places of the guilty and the innocent; the terms don't fit the behaviors.  I will try to show examples of what these behaviors are not, in order to give a better idea of what they are.  Coming soon.  Hopefully.

Elders Behaving Badly: Matthew 18 Isn't The Only Way To Deal With Sin

Amidst all the commotion over bloggers who have aired their complaints against so-called abusive leaders, there is the belief that those who have done so have failed to follow the prescription set down in Matthew 18 for confronting their offenders.  This perceived failure to follow the black and white teachings of Jesus on the matter [or red and white as the case may be] have led many to dismiss out of hand any stories told.  Nevermind whether those stories are true, it's that they are told in the first place that is the problem.

Well, there is a flaw in this line of thinking.  The flaw is the assumption that Matthew 18 is the one and only way to deal with sin, even when - or especially when - church leaders are involved.  A good look at Matthew 18 will reveal an important assumption that Jesus makes when he gives this method.  Actually there are a number of assumptions - and I will look at these here - but the overarching assumption is one of accountability.  The sinning offender will be accountable to you, to witnesses and to the church.

First, "If  your brother sins, go and show him..." This first step assumes that the offender is approachable.  Then, "...Show him his fault in private" This makes the assumption that the offender is willing to listen.  Following, "If he listens to you [i.e. agrees with you and decides to repent], you have won your brother"  makes the assumption the offender might just do so.  This first step of confronting one who sins is a step of optimism.  There is the hope that this will restore the sinner.

Next, the second step, "If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."  Again, there is the assumption that the offender is even now open to listening further to your argument - open enough to listen to witnesses that further your claim.  The third step is key here.  "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church."  This is a huge assumption.  This assumes the church will be agreeing with you.  Not with the sinner, but with you.  Not only this, but "and if he refuses to listen even to the church..." makes the assumption that not only will the church take your side, but the church as a whole will be confronting the offender.  Each step in the process, Jesus is making optimistic assumptions about the results.

This brings me back to the bloggers who tell the stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.  Their stories are completely different than the optimistic picture Jesus paints about confronting those who sin.  In these cases - and the big stories come to mind; Mars Hill, CJ Mahaney and SGM, Beaverton Grace Bible Church; but there are many, many more small stories - in these cases the church leaders are outside of accountability.  They are unapproachable.  They won't listen, and they don't listen.  In many of the cases of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse, the church leaders hold to systematic sins.  Sins that are taught to their churches as a way of life.  These churches have many people who lack discernment and swallow the teachings of these leaders.  They've already drank the KoolAid.  These churches can't recognize that the offended people realize that the offense really is sin.  These churches won't confront their leaders because they don't see the sin.  Or if they do, they are so afraid of what their leaders will do to them that they keep silent.  This makes it difficult or even impossible to get two or three witnesses to confront somebody who is unavailable in the first place.  In addition, these leaders have peers who have bought into the same system and have taught their churches the same things.  Their peers will not hold them accountable either.

Then to make matters even worse, they use their power to attack the offended people in any way they can, to discredit them, to slander them, to call the church to shun them.

How is Matthew 18 even possible in situations such as these?  I've already gone long here, so discussing other means to address sin - especially the sin of leaders - will have to be left for another post.

Pastor Sues Woman Over Church Comments

A woman who made negative comments about her former church on Google Comments is being sued (along with several others) by the pastor for defamation.  This woman, whose name is Julie Anne, found that her comment mysteriously disappeared from the site, and when repeated comments were erased, she started a blog (Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors) addressing the legalism and spiritual abuse present at the church in Beaverton, Oregon.

Now if this story wasn't interesting enough, the pastor met with an elder from John MacArthur's church to receive counsel.  He then claimed that the elder advised him to go ahead with the lawsuit.  Phil Johnson was dragged into the fray and Grace Community Church is denying they gave this advice, pointing to their wide and staunch teaching against Christians suing other Christians in civil court as proof they would not do such a thing. (I believe Phil Johnson, by the way)

Subsequent to all this, many more people who have attended BGBC have come out and backed Julie Anne in the matter.  So here we have a pastor who denies being legalistic and abusive by suing those who think so?

There are many more bizarre details than what I have outlined here, so you could follow the story at Julie Anne's blog, or sort through the last several weeks of posts at The Wartburg Watch (site temporarily down for maintenance as of this post). This case will have some far reaching effects in how social media interacts with religion.  It is also yet another example in an increasing number of internet stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse reported by people who have been harmed by churches and their leaders.

Elders Behaving Badly

The following is taken from a Facebook comment by Kevin Johnson, who blogs at ReformedCatholicism.com.  Kevin responds to two FB commenters who state that speaking publicly of one's spirutual abuse stories amounts to the blemishing of the good name of Christ, soiling the reputation of the church, aiding the enemy, and other such things.

Johnson has a much different view and responds to the commenters in what I think is a reasonable fashion, and calls attention to some things not routinely addressed in the blogoshpere over such matters.  I think his comment is valuable for us to read in the light of the many recent stories of authoritarianism and abuse coming out on the internet.  Kevin graciously allowed me to post his comment here on From the Pew.

-------

It is a mistake of course to pretend that passages like 1 Timothy 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 6 woodenly apply to particular situations involving spiritual abuse when no real justice is available for the offended party via traditional means. Really, though, when does the Law of God ever woodenly apply without recourse to godly wisdom? While I agree that we should not go to secular law courts in general to solve Christian-only issues, there are times when such is required as a result of spiritual and/or physical abuse. In our society, aside from civil charges, criminal charges are brought by the State anyway and not by individuals. In the case of sexual and physical abuse on the part of ministers any such activity should be reported and brought to the authorities because that is generally required by law. So, we can't just quote 1 Cor. 6 and say that's the end of the story.

In America, freedom of religion makes real discipline in any Reformed environment absolutely voluntary and well beyond the sort of environment where all parties are able to receive justice at the hands of an ecclesial court. Denominational loyalties also generally preclude any sort of fair trial for laymen when brought against an elder and therefore one should think long and hard before going down that road. Sometimes the only right recourse is just to let people know what happened.

In the case of elders behaving badly and participating in spiritual and other abuse, the church needs to take care of the real widows and orphans caused by such men in the life of the church and not pretend that double honor is due only where an office exists and no real performer of that office is found except in the manifest ways he can display and model wickedness in the community of the faithful. The most severe punishment in the Scriptures is reserved for those who knew better yet still violated the term and intent of their office.

The warnings in Matthew 23 do not appear to be cushioned with the sort of statements wanting to preserve the good name of Jesus Christ, the reputation of the church, or the right of the local church to handle the problem contra making it so public. Rather, Christ matter-of-factly calls out men by name -- those sitting in the seat of Moses -- in a rather small community of people who undoubtedly knew who he was talking about. Furthermore, Christ makes clear to show the community that the system is broken and only prophetic rebuke and his coming is left to fix it. So, there is no need to think this could even be handled by local church discipline as John 9-10 make quite clear. And, the sort of descriptive terms our Lord used generally outweigh any sort of invective we've seen in the likes of testimony against people like Mark Driscoll in the links above.

The prophets of the Old Testament mirror similar concerns in passages like Ezekiel 34 where the messianic promise of Christ is wrapped up in freeing men and women from oppression at the hands of pastors and ministers behaving badly. In other words, the behavior displayed by those who practice spiritual abuse and ministerial malpractice is directly opposed to the mission and work of the gospel in and among the community of the people of God. Paul, too, has no problem excoriating certain men by name when found to be in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ even to the point of wishing them emasculated.

In Reformed circles, we are happy to eject men both out of the ministry and the church on what may seem the smallest of theological technicalities (cf. Frame, "Machen's Warrior Children") but we will not take similar action when similar men abuse their ministerial authority and use the leadership they have in ways that are unfaithful to God. This is a huge inconsistency that shows us where our real loyalties lie as Reformed church men and women. Often, we demonstrate that we care for our doctrines and our pet leaders more than we care for our fellow believers. And, that's just idolatry.

The Reformers of course had no problem speaking against ministerial corruption and naming names. Sometimes, they even used anonymous and very drastic means to do so in ways that would make even the strongest among us today wince. For example, I haven't seen anyone draw a cartoon where Mark Driscoll is ushering demons out of his posterior and other sorts of lambasting sixteenth-century divines had for those who supported the papacy. That's hardly an objective and fair rendering of the truth sufficient for us to make a qualified decision on the matter (as if the real reason for making things public is so we have the right to decide)! Somehow the Reformers knew they were telling the truth and had authority to speak prophetically in the community. Christians have not lost that today either in spite of what [commenter #1] or [commenter #2] might argue. For all their interesting methods, the Reformers valued transparency and consistency in calling a spade a spade and that was most certainly true in exposing ministerial corruption. Why we can't do the same is beyond me.

Telling the truth is not a scandal and does not hurt the name of Jesus Christ. If that were true, the Bible would be so much more bland than it is--filled with the details of corruption prophetically confronted even in the highest of sacred places in both the Old and New Testaments. It is only when we attempt to hide the truth that real scandal comes and continues to be enabled. Providing the truth on the Internet does not aid the enemy. The enemy is aided by works of darkness which elders behaving badly do in spades and under cover of their title and work because many congregants don't take their fellow believers seriously over and above their devotion to their pastoral leaders even when presented with irrefutable evidence from a variety of reliable sources or witnesses.

And, to tell people to be quiet when they speak against their leaders when you have no basis to judge the veracity of their comments can be just as damaging to the truth as not. Since you don't know what the truth is, speaking against outspoken voices can work to unduly silence those whom God has moved to make certain things public quite outside normal means. Rather, we should let anyone speak as they feel led and then the church and community can work to take action as required. After all, how many witnesses did Nathan bring to David? Or, Elijah to Jezebel? Yet, would it not be a mistake to have been there and spoken against God's prophets and his word to David or Jezebel? We have to realize that the call to silence a voice is as much a judgment as one that raises a concern in the larger community of the faithful -- and that's the hypocrisy of the position presented to us by [commenter #1] and [commenter #2] even if they haven't personally come to such conclusions.

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. - Rom 12:9-16 NASB

Why People Blog Their Spiritual Abuse Stories

I've noticed an increase in the number of people who have blogged about their experiences with spiritual abuse in the church and problems with authoritarian leadership.  I think I know some reasons why. 

Often, people who blog about such things are criticized for doing so, sometimes harshly.  After all, if you have a problem with somebody, aren't you supposed to go directly to them to deal with it? Well, not exactly, and that's where an explanation can be useful.

You see, there is a big difference between one person sinning against another in ordinary things and people using positions and systems of power (with the supposed backing of God and the threatening of excommunication or hell for dissent) in accomplishing the sin.  In the first case there is a much easier path of recourse; in the latter there may be none at all.  Try confronting a friend who dealt you a minor insult.  The whole thing might be solved and over with in a couple of minutes.  Your friend may not want to insult you because he is your friend, and he will realize his pettiness and the greater value of God and friendship.  Now try confronting a group of church leaders who view the confronting of church leaders as one of the most heinous things one can do.  How far do you think you will go with that one?

With nowhere else to go, and with no real way of getting the problem solved, telling others about the story may be the only way to go.  And this isn't merely the airing of dirty laundry.  This is the exposing of evil deeds that are purposed in the heart of those who commit such things.  Look to the example of Jesus and the bible to see how these types of problems are dealt with.

What did Jesus do with the ruling religious leaders of his day?  Where are the examples of private, personal confrontation?  Rather, Jesus spoke openly and publicly about the evil deeds of the religious leaders.  His concern was for those who might be affected by their teachings and deeds.  Where is the concern for "protecting their good names?"  And what did the Holy Spirit think about all of this?  Well, he decided to inspire four gospel writers and several apostles to write these things in a number of books and a church to collect those into one larger book!  And what did Zondervan think about all of this?  Zondervan, without consulting descendants of these religious leaders to see if exposing these deeds would tarnish family images, decided to print millions of copies of the book!  And what did you and I think about all of this?  We bought the book!

I hope in all the hoopla surrounding the stories that expose such things we remember that the pain and hurt caused by power and systems are a different animal and warrant a different response than that of personal offenses.  More to come.

Adding The Wartburg Watch

I am adding a new blog to my links.  See The Wartburg Watch.  The Wartburg Watch, to paraphrase their basic description, is a blog authored by two women who are dedicated to the discussion of disturbing trends in the realm of Christendom.  This includes the topics of spiritual abuse within churches, authoritarianism, legalism and other such things.

I occasionally visited TWW upon finding a link there, but the recent news over the church discipline case at Mars Hill prompted me to add TWW to my links (it can be found under my "Notable and of Interest" section).  The authors have personally experienced mistreatment from church leadership and have decided to write about their own experiences as well as the experiences of others.  I would encourage anybody with an interest in such things to check out The Wartburg Watch.

On Authoritarian Church Leadership

Recently the disturbing story about "church discipline" at Mars Hill church broke.  Mark Driscoll was in the spotlight again, and a new conversation about authoritarian church leadership started. (I will provide links in another post) Numerous other people commented and responded with blog posts of their own.  All of this came on the heels of the less popular topic of problems with CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries not long before.

One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches.  I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches.  The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.

In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories.  I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides.  Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages.  Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.