GUIDELINES FOR DUE PROCESS FOR ORDERLY CHURCH DISCIPLINE, GRIEVANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

GUIDELINES FOR DUE PROCESS FOR ORDERLY CHURCH DISCIPLINE, GRIEVANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Introduction

Christian organisational disputes often go very wrong as a result of failure to follow due process. Errors of process can result in escalation of small conflicts to a scale far beyond the original dispute; damaged relationships and reputations; divided organisations; guilty people escaping justice and innocent people being abused. The following principles will help reduce problems and ensure fairness. Most church leaders don’t have the time or interest to read a legal textbook to study due process, so the following summary can help.

Principles of fair due process should as far as possible be followed at early stages of a process and even on small issues, which helps to avoid escalation. Neglecting due process at an early stage tends to result in raised stakes, hardened attitudes, inflexibility, unwillingness to admit errors and authorities going through the motions of procedure after decisions have already been pre-judged.

1. Fair judgement
1.1. Disputes chaired and judged by persons with no conflict of interest in the dispute (e.g. relatives, other parties in dispute, financial beneficiaries, strong loyalties or other conflict etc);
1.2. Judge/chairman may not participate in a substantive debate, but only raise points of order, ask questions, clarify the standards of the authority and judge after hearing both sides.
1.3. Clear ruling with reasons given;
1.4. Fair hearing of both sides including freedom of speech during hearings and reasonable opportunity reply to accusations and object to procedural problems;
1.5. Principles of justice should be equally applicable to all in a similar situation (i.e. create precedent; right to know what principles/rules in decision).
1.6. Should a judge fail to follow due process, pre-judge a dispute, or otherwise use abusive tactics (e.g. insulting or intimidatory language, shouting, numerous speculative allegations) against a party, that judge must be replaced.

2. Clear roles and purpose
2.1. Right to know the purpose of the meeting beforehand (e.g. whether it is discipline, negotiation, arbitration, dispute resolution; friendly discussion etc).
2.2. Establish nature of dispute: e.g. personal, public morals, theological, class action.
2.3. Each persons role in the dispute should be known and people should not take on multiple roles in the same dispute (e.g. are they a mediator, a judge, a prosecutor, an advocate for a party; a witness; a disputing party etc).

3. Authority of the church, the Bible and the state
3.1. Immediate authority is the church authority constituted for the process, subject to higher church structures, rules and procedures; the Bible and the law of the state.
3.2. Where multiple church and/or para-church authorities are involved, the jurisdiction of each should be established.
3.3. The Bible is the final authority in all disputes on procedure and ethics.
3.3.1. Where disputed, this must be interpreted in line with the broader and historic church.
3.3.2. The interpretation used must be clear and publicly verifiable.
3.3.3. Follow Biblical process in Matthew 5 & 18 and 1 Timothy 5 and elsewhere.
3.4. All should comply with the law of the state and broadly accepted due process rights, as far as this does not involve disobeying the scriptures.
3.4.1. Where the meaning of the law is in dispute, an expert may advise or arbitrate.

4. Order of resolving issues
4.1. First clarify purpose, procedure, roles, objective standards for judgement and institutional arrangements (including jurisdiction).
4.2. Second deal with allegations in order of seriousness.
4.3. Third establish the facts of the case and the biblical ethics of the main issue under dispute.
4.4. Fourth establish the guilt or innocence of the parties.
4.5. Fifth the sanctions against the guilty party(s).
4.6. Sixth restoration of any offender or healing of relationships and feelings.

5. Fair procedures
5.1. Clear and consistent procedures as to how they will be handled;
5.2. Investigations focus on the main issue in dispute, rather than multiple secondary issues;
5.3. Procedures and structures once initiated and agreed remain to the conclusion of the dispute;
5.4. Where rules are deemed unworkable to follow, agreed due process should be cautiously followed to resolve the dilemma, change the rules or make an allowed exception – the rules should not simply be overlooked.

6. Witnesses, information, questions and records
6.1. Records kept of disciplinary meetings, to which parties involved should have access.
6.2. Right to bring witnesses to disciplinary hearings (including the right to make records of the proceedings).
6.3. Right to ask relevant questions and receive answers from the opposing parties and the authority.
6.4. Right to access information and records of the authority necessary to defend their rights.
6.5. Acknowledgement of receipt of correspondence.

7. Any confidentiality requirements must be:
7.1. Well justified; Clearly defined in scope of issues, duration and people involved; Freely agreed.
7.2. Limited by other issues such privilege to reasonably consult for advice; seek emotional counselling; inform a spouse; to avoid colluding in a cover-up of scandalous sin; protect others against serious threats; appeal a decision.
7.3. Limited by a procedure for fairly changing the scope, if possible with the consent or at least knowledge of the parties.

8. Right to fair defence and representation
8.1. Right to be represented by another party and to consult other parties for advice;
8.2. Right to a fair time to consider evidence presented by the opposing parties and collect defensive evidence before having to answer accusations, have judgement decided or made public;
8.3. Hearing of disputes and rendering of judgment within a reasonable time frame;

9. Authority beyond the initial judgement
9.1. Right of appeal
9.1.1. Appeals must be heard by someone other than that who made the original decision;
9.1.2. If appeals are not heard, reasons should be given for not hearing them.
9.1.3. Parties should not appeal to unbelieving authorities (1 Corinthians 6).
9.2. The findings of another church authority should be respected, unless:
9.2.1. The evidence and process has been independently reviewed and found to be in error.
9.2.2. The authority itself has since been discredited ethically or in governance abuse in a manner that casts doubt on its findings.
9.2.3. The findings were due to theological error or differences with the other authority.

International Charismatic Leaders Meet to Discuss Ethics Crisis

Dear friends

I forward the article below on the recent Orlando Statement (January 2004),
which I think should be of great interest to all, and especially us
Charismatic Christians, as regards Church governance and how we can avoid
more scandals. Any statement endorsed by such an influential group of
leaders acknowledging a crisis in leadership integrity within their own
movement deserves wide publicity and sober discussion. For those unfamiliar
with the names in the article below, I am not aware of any other meeting
having drawn such a high level group of international Charismatic leaders.
Please find here, my comments on the issue, then an article on the subject
and finally the Orlando statement itself.

We have to note that Jesus preached more against the hypocrisy of religious
leaders than any other issue. It therefore should deserve a similar amount
of our attention. While attacking specifically the religious leaders of his
day, he encouraged his disciples to avoid the same mistakes (Matt 23:11),
which indicates he was concerned about Christian religious leaders today -
not just Jewish ones in ancient Israel. A logical reason is that it
discredits our message on all other issues. Our enemies love to publicise
the fall of Christian leaders, because it hurts our cause.

Firstly I endorse the view the statement acknowledges, that we do have a
leadership ethics crisis today. Secondly, I endorse the general thrust of
the statement, but feel it doesn't go far enough in certain areas - for
example dealing with the need for accountability to followers. Possibly
this is being evaded because it would create unwelcome accountability and
reduced power for many senior Charismatic ministry leaders - and precisely
because the Orlando statement was probably drafted only by high level
leaders all with a vested interest in protecting their power. Real follower
accountability, I feel would require painful changes in many ministries, in
which there are currently no real avenues by which their leaders can be held
accountable.

I argue that accountability to seniors and peers is insufficient as these
people often don't know what other senior leaders are up to. Because of
excessively autocratic and well defended power structures and mythological
celebrity images, it is extremely difficult for followers to hold many
senior Charismatic leaders accountable. Those who try to hold leaders
accountable, simply become the targets of organised spiritual abuse.
Leaders can then backslide undisturbed hidden behind protective layers of
employees afraid to lose their jobs; important titles; symbols of power;
abusive organisations; public relations image building etc. The Orlando
statement below emphaises personal rather than organisational/legal
accountability structures, which I view as a half-truth. They are not
enough alone, but safer to have them than not have them. The problem is
with purely relational accountability is that the backslidden leader can
simply protest a breakdown of relationship and cut relations with anyone who
challenges him. A formal accountability structure is harder to manipulate.
I feel that while these offices are valid, the Orlando statements
endorsement of the use of religious titles is contrary to Matthew 23:7-10.

I also feel the statement fails to address the problem of leadership
idolatory of 'superstars' within the Charismatic movement. This is a sin of
followers as well as leaders who tolerate it (Acts 12:23). It leads to the
unbiblical assumption of infallibility (Romans 3:23) and thus the view that
it is disrespectful to hold leaders accountable. It would have been very
helpful also for the statement to have said something about how spiritual
gifting should not be used as an assumption of integrity (Matthew 7:22-23).

I feel the statement should also have said something about the judgement of
God on leaders who fail to act against others serious sin (1 Sam 3:13),
which would hopefully create more accountability through more fear of God
and less fear of human leaders in our ministries.

Nevertheless, while I feel the statement is inadequate, I welcome the fact
that this issue is now on the central agenda of the core leadership of the
Charismatic movement I think is progress. Hopefully the statement will lead
to discussion will lead to more thought and perhaps further statements which
will bring real changes in ministries.

I would hope that the Orlando statement would embolden members of many
ministries to quit idolatory of unquestioning obedience and follow the
Matthew 18 procedure and Acts 6 procedure to hold their leaders accountable.

Does your ministry have any mechanism by which leaders can be held
accountable by their followers? For example, who decides what the leader
earns? Does he decide himself? Who is the leader obliged to consult before
making major decisions on your behalf? Who can force the leader to answer
questions if you hear rumours of scandal? Is the leader accountable to
anyone other than his paid staff or relatives? Does the leader chair every
meeting he goes to, so he can avoid discussion on topics he is afraid to
talk about? What set procedures for discipline exist in the organisation?
If none, then that makes it easy to manipulate? How could a grievience, for
example on of abuse of power or money be addressed within the organisation?
Are those who previously questioned the ethics of the organisation still
with the organisation - or were they intimidated into silence and encouraged
to
leave? Why not ask and find out? Don't wait till you discover unethical
behaviour before you argue for increased accountability.

Someone may question my standing to debate a statement by such an eminent
set of leaders in my own movement. I do so with appeal to the scriptures
(referenced above) and also with much first hand experience of the problems
described above. Charismatic ministries are not the only ones who
experience these problems, but perhaps being a young movement - have not yet
learned some of the lessons of the older denominations in restraining power
abuse.

Philip Rosenthal

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Report: A Call for Accountability

http://www.ministriestoday.com/specialreport.html

Charismatic leaders issued a strong call for ethics at the Ministries Today
Symposium in Orlando, Florida.

From Staff Reports (For the full text of this article, see the March/April
issue of Ministries Today.)

More than 50 charismatic leaders drew a line in the sand at an historic
meeting in Orlando, Florida, in January. Their message: "It's not about
power or titles, it's about winning the lost."

It was a virtual "who's who" of the charismatic/ Pentecostal community at
the first-ever Ministries Today Symposium, where high-profile ministers met
to discuss key issues relating to leadership and ethics January 6-7.

In light of the magazine's year-long emphasis on the fivefold ministries and
senior editorial adviser Jack W. Hayford's challenge for ethical
accountability (see "Practicing What We Preach," November/ December 2003),
Ministries Today's publisher Stephen Strang felt compelled to assemble a
group of leaders to address topics such as the use of titles, leadership
abuse, financial integrity and ministry ethics.

Hayford moderated panel discussions on three topics: leadership issues
regarding the fivefold ministries, spiritual and moral issues and questions
which challenge the credibility of the larger charismatic/Pentecostal
community's witness and the future of the movement.

Besides the positive relationships forged and productive discussion, one of
the immediate results of the symposium was a collection of affirmations
called "The Orlando Statement," compiled and agreed upon by the group at the
conclusion of the gathering.

During the first panel discussion, participants Reinhard Bonnke, Joyce
Meyer, Bill Hamon, C. Peter Wagner, Kingsley Fletcher and Rod Parsley
addressed the continuation of the fivefold ministries, the use of titles to
identify the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.

None in the panel or audience disputed the legitimacy of the post-New
Testament ministry of all the fivefold gifts, but some expressed concern
that the power invested in titles of apostle and prophet often causes the
holder to exercise authority and not service.

While a variety of opinions were expressed regarding if and when those
ministering in the fivefold gifts should be granted titles, the overarching
consensus of the discussion was the need to return to the work of
soul-winning and shepherding that the Scriptures demand-activities from
which the use of titles sometimes distracts the church.

The second panel, including Cindy Jacobs, John Bevere, Keith Butler, Steve
Hill, Mark Rutland and Rick Joyner, concerned itself with the ethical crisis
in the charismatic/Pentecostal community. Citing issues such as marital
responsibility, "cheap concepts of restoration" and a lack of
"self-moderating standards" in issues of finances, Hayford expressed his
concern at the outset of the discussion.

"Like the book of Judges, the movement is increasingly moving toward
everyone doing what is right in their own eyes," he said. "We're watching
the dumbing down of a movement, in many ways-dumbing down in the thoughtful
pursuit of what we're really about."

Hayford suggested that ethical issues threaten the continued viability of
the movement and the willingness of many to identify with it. Although many
may embrace the theological perspectives of the movement, they are reticent
to be a part of what they see as the excess and shoddy ethics of many
high-profile charismatic leaders, he said.

The third and final panel, including Ted Haggard, R.T. Kendall, J. Lee
Grady, Francis Frangipane, Myles Munroe and Frank Reid, explored the future
of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement.

The discussion largely surrounded the issue of the continued identity of the
movement and the need for a unified response to the gay agenda, same-sex
marriage, universalism and other issues on which there have not been strong
statements made.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

http://www.ministriestoday.com/OrlandoStatement.html

The Orlando Statement
Fivefold Ministries

Statement of Objective: In light of the current misgivings concerning the
awakening and release of the fivefold ministries in the
charismatic/Pentecostal movement, we observe six distinct areas of general
agreement. The following affirmations are presented in hope of promoting
relational harmony and ministerial partnership. In light of our biblical
mandate to be unified in the task of equipping the body for the task of
world evangelism, we express the following:


1. Unity and Diversity: We affirm that the proper functioning of the body of
Christ depends on the "unlikeness" of its members. Thus a diversity of
perspectives and an ideological tension must not only be allowed but also
encouraged for the sake of fruitfulness, maturity and interdependence.

2. The Heart of Ministry: We affirm that the heart of all ministry is
servanthood, the task of all ministry is shepherding, and the goal of all
ministry is the salvation of the lost and the equipping of the saved.


3. Continuation of the Fivefold Ministries: We affirm that there is an
ongoing post-New Testament activity of the charismata of 1 Corinthians 12,
as well as the ministries of the pastor, teacher and evangelist described in
Ephesians 4. Therefore, it would naturally follow that we affirm the ongoing
post-New Testament activity of apostles and prophets.


4. Current Escalation of Apostolic and Prophetic Activity: We affirm that,
while all of the fivefold ministries have been active since their bestowal
by the ascended Christ, that the last 30 years has evidenced an increase of
apostolic and prophetic ministry, resulting in substantive growth of the
church in the developing world and a resulting influence on the charismatic
church in the United States and Europe.


5. Distinction of Offices and Giftings of the Fivefold Ministries: We affirm
that there is a distinction between the office and the gifting of each of
the fivefold ministries: "office" being endowment of position with authority
and responsibility granted by a legitimate body of one's peers, in
recognition of gifting; "gifting" being those capacities and spiritual
qualities that only God entrusts to become manifest through an individual.

6. The Use of Titles: We affirm the appropriation of titles by those who
demonstrate the character and giftings requisite those titles, but we also
affirm that the use of titles be submitted to the demands of servanthood and
not become a distraction or hindrance to the very offices that they claim to
serve, or the gifting they have been granted to minister.

Ethical Accountability

Statement of Objective: The pursuit of this statement is to affirm those
commonly-held values of biblical discipline and grace that have been
timelessly honored by the people of God in reference to ethics, morality,
marriage and ministry lifestyle. Our interaction has targeted the
formulation of statements which we acknowledge as essential to sustaining
the purity of the witness of the broad fellowship of charismatic believers.
We recognize that there is no human agency that can mandate or administrate
conformity to any set of values. Nonetheless, we present these summary
affirmations, in hope that:

1. We hope all who embrace life in the Holy Spirit would give an equal and
total embrace to the whole of the Scripture's requirements regarding ethics,
moral purity, sexual integrity, marital fidelity, financial accountability
and the spirit of Christlike ministry.

2. We hope we may present a point of reference for all charismatic Christian
believers that thereby they may be assured of the constancy of their
majority leadership to live by the character expectations of leaders as
revealed in the eternal Word of God.

3. We hope the values focused in these affirmations might become
acknowledged and honored as reflecting the common convictions and values of
the broad fellowship of charismatic tradition.

4. We hope we might recognize and affirm that, apart from the ongoing
transformation of the Holy Spirit, both structures and relationships will be
ineffective in the establishment of and the adherence to any moral or
ethical standards.
We seek neither to establish a governing group nor attempt to frame and
administer legal structures for enforcing ethical standards. We know that
ultimately such are impossible apart from hearts of submission to God's Word
and Spirit. Still, with all, we hope that we may project an informal
mechanism for identifying and marginalizing those who independently pursue a
lesser commitment to Christian discipline or who demonstrate an indifference
to a biblical lifestyle, thereby separating themselves as apart from and
unrepresentative of true charismatic Christian standards. We embrace the
following affirmations:


1. Ethical Crisis: the Problem: There is a crisis of ethical standards in
the church in general and among charismatic/Pentecostal leaders in
particular, characterized by: (1) an increasing tolerance for sexual
infidelity; (2) an escalation in instances of abandonment of marital
responsibility under the guise of commitment to ministry callings; (3) an
indulgent understanding of the concept of restoration and; (4) a lack of
self-moderation and discipline in areas of financial responsibility and
extravagance.

2. Ethical Crisis: Causes: This ethical crisis is in part due to (1) an
increase in the number of ministry leaders operating outside existing
accountability structures; (2) the failure of existing accountability
structures to enforce legal standards because of an absence of authentic
peer relationships; (3) an increasingly prevalent perspective of ministry as
a profession in which the importance of success and power outweigh the
demands of servanthood and integrity and; (4) a growing perception that the
private life of the leader has no bearing on his/her public ministry as long
as that ministry continues to gratify its followers.

3. The Ineffectiveness of Strictly Legal Accountability Structures: Proposed
structures of ethical accountability that are strictly defined by legal
limitations have not worked in the past and thus will not work unless
accompanied by the relational networks composed of both peers and superiors
who are willing to openly confront moral failure and constructively provide
avenues of restoration for the repentant. Thus, we urge assertive acceptance
of the responsibility to minister discipline with love and righteousness
with grace, so any independence from and persistence to behaviors adverse to
godly values be identified as alien to the lifestyle of charismatic
Christians and unrepresentative of the true charismatic Christian community.

© Copyright 2004 Strang Communications, All Rights Reserved

Why Must An Adulterous Elder Lose Office?

WHY MUST AN ADULTEROUS ELDER LOSE OFFICE?

Author: Philip Rosenthal (Philip@rosenthal.net)
Date: 9 November 2005

INTRODUCTION 2
THE CONTEXT 3
COMPROMISED HOLLYWOOD CHRISTIANITY LEADS TO MORAL CONFUSION 3
THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY FOR VARIOUS SITUATIONS 4
When did the adultery occur? 4
The alternatives for disciplining an elder 4
The degree of the offence influences the penalty 4
Other forms of sexual sin 5
MESSAGES TO THE READER 5
For those who have committed adultery 5
For those involved in church disciplinary processes 5
For Christian activists 6
For elders who have tolerated adultery of others in the pulpit 6
SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 6
FAILURE TO MEET THE BIBLICAL CHARACTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN ELDER 6
OTHER SCRIPTURES INDICATING THE NEED FOR STRICTNESS 8
Requirements for deacons indicate further strictness 8
Other penalties for adultery in scripture 8
Old Testament requirements for priests and leaders indicate the need for strictness 9
Adultery is destructive and harmful and so should not be treated lightly 10
Exposure will normally make followers leave or pressure the leader to resign 10
God’s direct judgement 11
PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS 11
AN ADULTERER CANNOT PROPERLY PERFORM THE JOB RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN ELDER 11
An adulterous elder can’t be a good example to the flock 11
An adulterous elder can’t teach with credibility 11
An adulterous elder has no moral authority to exercise church discipline 11
An undisciplined adulterer cannot properly perform the leadership function of praying for his followers 12
An adulterous elder cannot be trusted to counsel his followers 12
AN ADULTEROUS ELDER MAY USE HIS POSITION TO HARM HIS FOLLOWERS 12
An adulterous elder will corrupt other good people 12
An adulterer is likely to be abusive to try cover up 13
The office of an elder gives a man power he can abuse to seduce women 13
OTHER PRACTICAL REASONS WHY AN ADULTEROUS ELDER MUST LOSE OFFICE 13
An adulterer will likely repeat the same offence if not properly disciplined. 13
It is in his own best interests for his spiritual recovery 13
Christians and outsiders will lose respect for all ministers’ offices 13
Adultery can have serious consequences which the elder may have to deal with 14
If a church or organisation does not get rid of an adulterous elder, its elders are responsible and guilty for his sin 14
If we tolerate adulterous elders, the gospel loses credibility 14
Getting rid of the adulterous elder publicly will cause others to fear 14
If an adulterer is not removed, all discipline will break down 14
SHOULD THE CHURCH HAVE LOWER MORAL STANDARDS THAN THE WORLD? 15
Many nations had serious criminal penalties for adultery 15
Most professions and sports have disqualification 15
Churches which tolerate sexual abusers are liable for damages 15
ANSWERING ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING AN ADULTEROUS ELDER IN OFFICE 16
The man’s wife has forgiven him 16
The seduced woman has forgiven him 16
He will get counselling 16
His wife is also cheating on him 16
It was a momentary moral lapse and not an ongoing pattern of sin 16
But many great leaders were adulterers 17
The adulterer is the only well qualified person to do the job 17
The ministry is dependent on the adulterous leader for fundraising 17
The man has to eat 17
But shouldn’t we forgive him? 17
Doesn’t mercy triumph over judgement? 18
HIDDEN REASONS FOR KEEPING AN ADULTEROUS ELDER IN OFFICE 18
CONCLUSION 18


Introduction

A number of South African church denominations and Christian organisations have allowed adulterous Christian leaders to stay in office even after they have been proven guilty. This is an abomination against God and a disgrace to the Christian faith. It is disobedience and must not be tolerated. We must show adulterous Christian leaders love and mercy, but let them find another job. Such people do not belong in church leadership or Christian ministry organisation leadership. If we allow such people to stay in office, they will corrupt the entire church.

Two of the most famous examples of a failure to justly discipline Christian leaders are those of the adulterous TV evangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. Swaggart defied the Assemblies of God request that he step down after being caught undressed with a prostitute, claiming he needed to keep his job, because thousands of orphans depended on his fundraising efforts. His ministry shrank and he was caught again with a prostitute – severely damaging the reputation of Christianity. The case of Jim Bakker was even more serious, because after his ministry leaders found out, they helped him cover it up for years – doing secret counselling with one of his employees and paying the girl to keep quiet. The ‘counselling’ didn’t cure Bakker and he began a homosexual relationship. When the truth finally became known, the Assemblies of God revoked the ordination not only of Bakker, but also his administrator, Richard Dortch, who helped Bakker cover up the scandal. Afterwards, Dortch wrote a book ‘Integrity: How I lost it and my journey back’1, in which he expressed the view that people had been too harsh with him since he had not committed the adultery himself, but only helped cover it up – and that Bakker should have been allowed to carry on running the PTL TV network since he had repented privately. What Dortch didn’t seem to understand is firstly that a man who commits adultery disqualifies himself from Christian leadership and secondly that followers have right to know about such scandalous behaviour. One sin leads to more sin. Bakker ended up defrauding his followers of millions, and Dortch joined him in jail for unwittingly helping him with this. Dortch had formerly been a respected pastor and executive in his denomination, but by keeping a hypocrite in office, he paid a very high price. Dortch had been deceived by ‘Hollywood Christianity’ – the idea that if Christian leaders just act well in the public eye – their private lives can be ignored. This article seeks to make clear why Dortch and those like him who support adulterous elders also commit sin – and hopefully stop others making the foolish mistake of covering up or being soft on adulterous Christian leaders.

One of the main reasons why we have a difficulty finding the moral courage to confront evil in the world is a failure to enforce church discipline against Christian leaders who fall into scandalous sin. As costly as it is, they must be dealt with, if we are to maintain our spiritual authority from God in relation to the devil and the world. Nevertheless, in a situation where a Christian leader has sinned scandalously, a lot of Christians get confused because they are used to following leaders and doing what they are told. Other leaders get confused because of personal relationships with the fallen leader and his loyal supporters.

Is pressing for the resignation of an immoral leader rebellion or vindictiveness? Or is it something we have to do because the Bible tells us to? There has tragically been a lot of compromise in this area – which has severely damaged the spiritual credibility of much of the church. Sadly many churches and Christian organisations have allowed adulterers to continue in leadership after they have been found guilty. Are you going to be a ‘no-compromise’ leader? If so, you need to be clear on what the Bible says on why an adulterer can’t be an elder.

The problem is not restricted to any one stream of Christianity. It has infected Protestants and Catholics, pastors, lawyers and activists, Charismatics and traditionalists. It is an evil corrupting and compromising the church that must be rooted out.

This article should be read in conjunction with another detailed article ‘Why we shouldn’t cover-up sandal?’, which was written to explain why 1 Timothy 5:20 must be strictly applied. Email Philip@Rosenthal.net to request a copy.

The context
Compromised Hollywood Christianity leads to moral confusion

We must understand the context in which we are living and why there is so much confusion on this issue. The church in the Western world is currently in probably the most backslidden state it has been in the past 500 years. This backsliding includes the prevalence of scandal in the ministry. The rise of liberal ‘higher criticism’ scripture interpretation has gutted respect for the Bible in most of the older denominations, and sadly, this disrespect has also influenced those who profess to respect the Bible. This liberal false view of scripture has lead to the death of Christianity in Europe. People realised there is no point in going to church if the churches don’t respect the Bible. In North America and South Africa, many historic Western churches, having departed from scripture, have not yet died but are in the throes of death.

Further, most newer churches and organisations tend to function on an ad-hoc basis without many checks and balances or rules for accountability and fair procedure. Often they are isolated from serious accountability relationships with other leaders and ministries. A consequence is that discipline is often not exercised at all, and when it is exercised, this is done either too weakly or too harshly. Given the chronically backslidden state of the church, we therefore cannot use present general practice as an indicator of what we should be doing. We must go back to scripture.

If Christians are to be salt and light in the world, we must first ensure high moral standards in the church, with the highest moral standards for those who serve as Church leaders. Many Christian have been seduced by ‘Hollywood values’. They think the marital unfaithfulness of ‘super-hero’ Christian leaders can be brushed off like the immoral lives of Hollywood film stars. That is not what the Bible teachers. We must restore true Biblical values.

Most of Western Christianity has become intoxicated with a ‘Hollywood media culture’, where Christians spend more time watching, listening and reading the mass media than the Bible. Thus often their worldview is more influenced by Hollywood than the Bible. Even when listening to Biblical teaching in church, such Christians filter what they hear to fit with what they already believe from Hollywood. Consequently, most either don’t know or do not take seriously the explicit teaching of scripture. Hollywood values superstars and success, believes in relativism and pragmatism and rejects moral purity as ‘politically incorrect’. Thus, unlike previous centuries, scandalous elders are commonly able to get away with gross disobedience to the scriptures. We are living in a society and in a church environment where moral standards and respect for scripture is sadly very low. In this environment, we must try to be a light in a dark place, and use the scripture as a guide, rather than current general practice.

Those Christians who chose to spend less time absorbing the mass media and more time with their Bibles will better understand the seriousness with which the Word treats the issue of sin and especially that of leaders.
The appropriate penalty for various situations
When did the adultery occur?

Where a man has committed adultery before conversion is a different situation than if he does so after conversion. In the former case, many years would need to pass before he would have proven the character that would give the church the confidence to allow him to be an elder. A new convert should not hastily be made an elder (1 Timothy 3:6), but the church should be even more cautious about making someone an elder who has scandalous sin in his past. Nevertheless in these cases, at least one can assume that the work of Christ through conversion may have changed the man.

However a man who commits adultery after conversion has trampled on the grace offered to him in Christ. He would need a longer period to demonstrate repentance and changed character before being allowed to be an elder.

A man who commits adultery while in the office of a church elder has not only trampled on the grace offered him in Christ, but has also proved grossly unfaithful in his duties in that position. There is a debate amongst biblical evangelicals as to whether such a person should ever be allowed back into an office of Christian leadership at all. I personally believe that in some cases, such a person may in certain circumstances be allowed back after much caution and many years to ensure he has properly repented. Nevertheless, some Bible scholars argue such offenders should never be allowed back.

The alternatives for disciplining an elder

The alternatives for disciplining an elder are:
1. To stay in office, whilst keeping the sin a secret.
2. To stay in office, whilst giving the man a public rebuke.
3. To suspend the man from office for a period and then automatically return him to his old job.
4. To remove him from office for a period after which he may be considered.
5. To bar him permanently from office.

* Alternative 1 is clearly a violation of 1 Timothy 5:20, which requires public rebuke.
* Alternative 2 complies with 1 Timothy 5:20, but not with 1 Timothy 3:1-7, which requires character standards for elders.
* Alternative 3 fails to comply with the requirements of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, which require the man to pass a character and reputation test and not just assume he is fit for office.
* Alternative 4 and 5 are within the constraints of scripture.
The degree of the offence influences the penalty

Very often, adulterous elders cover-up, lie and manipulate to avoid exposure and losing their leadership positions. In this case, these are also compounding offences, which also need to be disciplined. Other elders may have helped in the cover-up process and they will also need church discipline, which is at minimum public rebuke (1 Timothy 5:20). There is also a difference in the severity between a long-term adulterous affair and a once off act of adultery, to which the elder immediately confesses and repents.

Where an elder is guilty of multiple offences, then depending on the number and severity of the offences, it would take much longer to regain trust in his character – if it is ever restored at all. Nevertheless, as an absolute minimum an adulterous elder must be publicly rebuked and also removed from his position of leadership at least until a sufficient number of years have passed to regain confidence in his character.
Other forms of sexual sin

Adultery is not the only sexual sin condemned in scripture – nor the only sin that warrants exclusion from the office of elder. The term ‘adulterous’ is used here to refer to the broad category of sexual contact across the marriage boundary – which includes things other than copulation such as ‘heavy petting’ or viewing nakedness in a sexual context.

Other sins should be disciplined according to the scale of severity which the scripture treats those sins and in relation to the harm caused. Adultery is dealt with in detail here, because it is very serious and unfortunately also fairly common.

Sexual sin which crosses the boundary of gender (homosexuality) (Romans 1:27) or species (beastiality) or the innocence of children (paedophilia) is an even more serious perversion than adultery and consequently must be treated even more severely.
Messages to the reader
For those who have committed adultery

Some of the people who read this article may have committed adultery in the past. If you are such a person and you have repented, then God will forgive you (1 John 1:9). Nevertheless, you may have to suffer some consequences for the sin. If you have not already done so, go and speak to the pastor of your church and ask him what you should do for spiritual restoration and to restore relationships.

If you in a Christian leadership role and have committed adultery whilst in office, and have not been disciplined properly, please resign and confess your sin to other leaders who will deal with the issue in a Biblical manner.
For those involved in church disciplinary processes
Church discipline is not for the faint hearted. Anybody who gets involved in a church disciplinary process is likely to get counter-accused of wrong motives, wrong procedure, an exaggerated petty offence or some other invented offence. Don’t be surprised when this happens and don’t flinch in your prosecution of the scandalous offence. Unjustified criticism will be more painful the closer the relationship or the more respect you have for the person making it. Remember what happened to Jesus when he accused the religious leaders of his day of gross hypocrisy (Matthew 23): they counter accused him and then crucified him on the basis of false accusations. We are called to follow Jesus’s example – and participating in godly church discipline process is one of the ways we do this and share in his sufferings. But don’t be under any illusions that the task will be easy or surprised when you get hurt. You are almost 100% guaranteed to get slandered and threatened in the process.

We don’t get involved in church discipline because of benefit to ourselves in this life, but because God commands us to and will reward us in the next life.
For Christian activists

Is this an issue worth fighting about or is it just a distraction from ‘bigger issues’ in the world? Is it worth the conflict and disharmony that is created inside the church and the harm to relationships? Yes, it is necessary and worth it because if adultery is tolerated in the pulpit we have no credibility with God, with Satan or with the world. Furthermore, the tolerance of adultery in the pulpit makes the church weak on other issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Abortion is commonly used as a method of hiding adultery2. Therefore adulterers are likely to favour the option of abortion, since it gives them a way of getting rid of unwanted babies. Ministers who tolerate adultery will lack the moral courage to attack other evils in society. One leader commented regarding the Episcopal ordination of homosexual bishop Gene Robinson in the USA, ‘Sadly, Protestants, evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals have nothing to say on this matter, because there is a regular stream of reports of pastors and ministers who have affairs’3.

If we want to win on issues of abortion and homosexuality in society, then unfortunately, we have to also tackle the thorny issue of adultery in the pulpit.
For elders who have tolerated adultery of others in the pulpit

The secondary sin of tolerating adultery in the pulpit is serious. This is what caused the high priest Eli to lose his office in ministry – not only for himself, but his whole family line. ‘Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.’ (1 Samuel 2:22). Thus God judged Eli and his family. “For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.” (1 Samuel 3:13)

The specific cases would need to be looked at on the merits of what happened – what the person knew, what they did and what their authority was in the situation. Nevertheless, such an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant the removal of those who protect adulterers in the ministry as those who commit it – as was the case with Richard Dortch in the case example cited in the introduction. At minimum, this is due case for very serious public repentance (1 Timothy 5:20).

For those who are in the serious category such as Dortch, please resign, public confess your sin, and submit to a Biblical disciplinary process.

Scriptural arguments
Failure to meet the Biblical character qualifications for an elder
An adulterer fails the character qualifications to be an elder, which are specified in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Different Bible translations use the terms like ‘overseer’, ‘elder’, ‘shepherd’, ‘pastor’ and ‘bishop’. These words are used interchangeably in different scriptures indicating that the requirements all apply to the same group of people, who in this article will be referred to as ‘elders’. Nevertheless, the same applies to those Christian leaders who use other titles such as ‘home group leaders’, ‘ministers’, ‘archbishops’, ‘apostles’, ‘moderators’ and ‘superintendents’ etc. These are really just different levels of eldership responsibility. Leaders of Christian NGO’s often use titles like ‘CEO’, ‘director’ or ‘chairman’. While they may not be ‘church elders’ in the same sense, they perform a very similar ‘eldership function’ and sometimes even more influential role in the Christian community than do ‘church elders’. Thus they need to be subject to similar moral qualification standards.

The character requirements for an elder listed in the above scriptures are very much higher than that which is required for an ordinary Christian to be accepted as a member of a church. An elder is not expected to be perfect, but he is expected to consistently behave in a way that is a good example to others in and outside the church. A man who is nominated as an elder can be disqualified for offences much more minor than adultery.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 " 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap."

With regard to the above criteria, an adulterer fails on the following counts:
1. An adulterer is not above reproach. The act of adultery is a serious reproach.
2. An adulterer has violated the spirit of the requirement to be monogamous. An adulterer sleeps with more than one woman. The scripture requires that he must be the husband of one wife (i.e. not polygamous). Thus the requirement given for an elder (monogamy) is stricter than simply avoiding sexual immorality. It implies avoiding sexual immorality as an obvious minimum standard that does not need to be re-stated.
3. An adulterer is not self-controlled. He has shown himself unable to control his sex drive.
4. An adulterer is not respectable. The scripture requires that the offence be made public (1 Timothy 5:20). The day it is made public, he has lost his reputation.
5. The requirements of an elder ‘being temperate’, ‘hospitable’, ’not loving money’ set the standard a lot higher than a mere prohibition on adultery. None of these other requirements are punishable offences under the Old Testament law. The only requirement that comes close to an offence under the Old Testament law is that Old Testament priests were forbidden from drinking alcohol during their duties. This indicates that the Biblical requirement for an elder is much higher than just avoiding adultery.
6. As for the ‘ability to teach’ an adulterer does not have the moral authority to tell others how to behave in a Christian manner, since he has failed to do so himself. If he teaches, his obvious disobedience will destroy the credibility of his message and that of other teachers.
7. An adulterer has not ‘managed his own family well’ and has likely lost the respect of his children.
8. An adulterer who has been publicly rebuked according to 1 Timothy 5:20 will not ‘have a good reputation with outsiders’. Most non-Christians frown on adultery as much as much as Christians do. Unbelievers are disgusted and disappointed at the failure of Christian leaders, which is why such stories make media headlines. They will not respect an adulterous Christian leader and therefore if the church does not get rid of such leaders, unbelievers will lose respect for the church.
9. While an adulterous leader is not a ‘recent convert’, he is even more suspect in terms of repeating his sin than would be a ‘recent convert’. Therefore, even after disciplinary action, if he is ever reinstated at all, he should have an even longer period to prove his reform than a new Christian who has not had an immoral history.

Thus an adulterer fails on the criteria listed in 1 Timothy 3.

Titus 1:6-9 "6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."

The letter to Titus adds a few more criteria:

10. An elder must be ‘blameless’. An adulterer is not blameless. Adultery is a serious sin. He has offended God, his wife, his family, the congregation and the wider body of believers. Blamelessness is defined in Titus 1:7, amongst other things as being ‘not overbearing’ or ‘not quick tempered’. The Old Testament law prescribes no penalty for these offences, while it prescribes death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10). Therefore adultery is a much more serious sin and if these smaller sins can disqualify an elder, then adultery will surely disqualify an elder.
11. An elder must be ‘upright, holy and disciplined’ (Titus 1:8). An adulterer is not upright, not holy and not sexually disciplined. He is crooked, unholy and undisciplined. He fails the test.

Thus the adulterous elder fails on two more criteria listed in Titus. Note that almost all of the biblical qualifications for an elder are character qualifications. The scripture doesn’t list that the elder must be popular or good at public speaking or a skilful church business manager or have some academic qualification or fundraising ability. Yet some Christian organisations are prepared to ignore character issues, if the leader is has some great abilities.
Other scriptures indicating the need for strictness
Requirements for deacons indicate further strictness
A deacon is a lower level of authority in a church than an elder. This person serves in the church but does not have a governance and teaching function. Nevertheless, deacons are subject to a screening process in which the congregation have a say. This implies then, that elders, who have a higher authority should also be subject to a similar screening process. Perhaps this is not mentioned because a person would not be made an elder until he had first served as a deacon.

1 Timothy 3:10 "They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons."

Thus, the scripture implies that before a leader is given a position, there should be a consultation with people who know him and/or his future followers to determine whether his character is acceptable. If a person has committed adultery, then that is surely an issue that such people would bring up against the prospective elder. Thus there would not be ‘nothing against him’. He would be disqualified by objections.
Other penalties for adultery in scripture

The model of governance of civil and religious communities by elders is rooted in the Old Testament law. Therefore, while under the new covenant we may not be bound by all the detail of Old Testament laws, it does give principles we can take forward – unless there are other scriptures that indicate we should interpret the law differently. The Old Testament law on adultery was simple:
Leviticus 20:10 ”‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Thus any elder in Old Testament Israel who committed adultery would not be able to continue in office, because he would be dead. Any discussion on the merits of the issue would be pointless, because he would not be able to fulfill his duties while dead.

Now under the New Testament, firstly, the church does not have the authority to put anyone to death and secondly, there is the opportunity of forgiveness for those who have sinned and repent. Nevertheless, forgiveness does not restore a man’s bad reputation and bad character. That can take many years to restore – if it ever is at all.

The New Testament scriptures indicate that unrepentant adulterers are going to go to hell (1 Corinthians 6:9; Revelation 21:8, 22:15). In addition, irrespective of whether or not they repent, they will suffer God’s judgement in one form or another (Hebrews 13:4).

We Christians are not to associate with others who call themselves Christians, but who are sexually immoral (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). Such a person, if he does not repent and comply with discipline, must be thrown out of the church (1 Corinthians 5:13). If such penalties are prescribed for ordinary Christians, how much more so to an elder, minister or pastor. While the sin of a private individual can be dealt with privately, the sin of an elder is a public issue (1 Timothy 5:20). Where such a leader fails to comply with the disciplinary requirements imposed on him, then we must all disassociate with him. When an adulterous elder does manage to stay in office it is very often a result of cover-up, deceit and manipulation. Such behaviour is evidence of a lack of repentance.

Thus adultery in the Old Testament is a capital offence and in the New Testament, unrepentant adultery is an offence resulting in excommunication. The New Covenant does allow the grace of repentance, but treats the issue just as seriously as the Old Covenant, prescribing the maximum penalty possible.

Elders are judged more strictly than ordinary congregation members both by God (James 3:1) and also by the church in their selection for office (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). Thus adultery by an elder must be dealt with much more severely than adultery by a church member.

All of this indicates that appropriate discipline for an adulterous elder must be severe. Removal from office would logically be included in a severe penalty.

Old Testament requirements for priests and leaders indicate the need for strictness

An elder is not a priest in the Old Testament sense of the word, nevertheless he performs many similar functions of spiritual leadership, teaching, hearing confessions of sin, praying for others as did the Old Testament priest. Therefore, we can deduce that while the qualifications for priests are not identical to those of elders, some similar principles apply. The Old Testament qualifications for priests include a long list of ceremonial and physical purity requirements. For example, the priest is not allowed to have a physical defect (Leviticus 21:17-23). He must also go through various ceremonial cleansing rituals to establish his purity. He must also wear perfectly clean clothing whilst performing his duties (Leviticus 16:4). All of these physical and ritual requirements are indicators of a very strict moral purity requirement for religious leaders. Since the symbolic in the Old Testament ritual usually is interpreted as having a moral application in the New Testament, we can deduce that religious leaders are expected to maintain the strictest standards of moral purity and holiness. This interpretations fits well with the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

Furthermore, the priests had to obey a stricter set of rules than the ordinary people. For example, if a priest got drunk, he was killed (Leviticus 10:1-9). Drunkenness is a sin for ordinary people, but it isn’t punished with death. Likewise a priest could not marry a non-virgin, such as a divorced woman – which is a constraint that was not put on the ordinary Israelites. A priest’s daughter who was immoral was to be burned in the fire, which is a harsher punishment than the normal death by stoning for ordinary people. Thus the indications are that religious leaders were expected to have a stricter moral purity standard than ordinary people. This stricter set of rules for elders is similar, but not identical, to that in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

An adulterer cannot fulfil such moral purity requirements.

If the anointed priest sins, then the sacrifice required is much greater than that for an ordinary person who sins (Leviticus 4:3). Nevertheless, there was no sacrifice for adultery: under the law, the adulterer would have to die.

All of this indicates that the moral purity of religious leaders is to be taken very seriously. While the exact requirements and penalties may have changed from the Old to the New Testament, indications are that the issue is meant to be dealt with utmost seriousness.
Adultery is destructive and harmful and so should not be treated lightly

Adultery is one of the most destructive sins, because it undermines the family. In the case of leaders, it undermines the families of all those who look to that leader as an example.

Job 31:9-12 "9“If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her. 11For that would have been shameful, a sin to be judged. 12It is a fire that burns to Destruction; it would have uprooted my harvest."
Proverbs 6:32-33 "32But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself. 33Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away;"

Amongst other things, the shame of adultery destroys a man’s character reputation.
Exposure will normally make followers leave or pressure the leader to resign

The scripture requires elders who sin to be rebuked publicly (1 Timothy 5:20). This means that his followers may take action against him. This may mean they:
1. Pressure him to resign.
2. Ask other elders to pressure him to resign.
3. Vote with their feet and leave to find another leader.

Other elders in other ministries are also likely to disassociate with him and thus he will find it very difficult to work.

Only in a situation of cover-up will mature Christian believers continue to follow an adulterous elder. If the minimum requirement for discipline of elders specified in scripture is properly followed, then in the instance of adultery, losing office is likely to follow also. Maybe a few blindly-loyal or immature Christian supporters may continue following the adulterer, but he will either lose office altogether or have a considerably smaller leadership role.
God’s direct judgement

The scripture says that ‘...it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God…’ (1 Peter 4:17) indicating both the direct judgment of God and the priority of sorting out the church before the world. This was also the pattern of judgment in the Old Testament, which symbolically began at the temple. ‘Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.(Ezekiel 9:6). Just in case anyone thinks Jesus is different in the New Testament, hew warned the church in Thyatira that he would personally judge wicked leaders and their followers ‘So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.’ (Revelation 2:22). This also applies to Christians in general ‘…for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral’ (Hebrews 13:4).

If God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:29), who had no Bible to tell them sexual immorality is wrong, how much more will he judge wickedness in the church and especially amongst religious leadership.

The mildest form of God’s judgement and also the most common, is the withdrawal of his blessing from a compromised church. If we want God’s blessing of spiritual revival, we cannot ignore his moral requirements.

Practical arguments
An adulterer cannot properly perform the job responsibilities of an elder

The job of an elder includes being an example to his followers, teaching them, counselling them, praying for them and exercising discipline against those who sin. An adulterous elder cannot properly do this.
An adulterous elder can’t be a good example to the flock

People follow the example of their leaders more than the words of their leaders. An adulterous elder has set a bad example and so should not be followed.
An adulterous elder can’t teach with credibility

Teaching is an important function for elders (1 Timothy 3:2). Followers expect leaders to practice what they preach. Family morality is at the core of Christian teaching. Those who violate this basic respect for family values have no credibility to teach in church.
An adulterous elder has no moral authority to exercise church discipline

Church elders are responsible to exercise church discipline according to Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 6:4. An adulterer cannot do this job properly, since he will have clouded and confused moral judgement – since he has severely disobeyed it himself. His main interests are likely to be to protect himself rather than to implement God’s word. Thus he is likely to be ultra-lenient on moral issues, which relate to God and ultra-harsh on issues which threaten his personal authority. This is most likely going to be abuse of authority rather than fair use of authority.

Discipline is a form of exorcism – getting rid of the devil in the church. A person who tries to engage in exorcism without proper moral authority is going to get seriously hurt. The same is true for church discipline. Authority to discipline depends on obedience (1 Corinthians 10:6).

Furthermore, church discipline is not simply a job function, but also a spiritual function. Church discipline is dealing with the devil and not just with people – that is why Matthew 18 deals with both issues in the same paragraph. A wicked man has no authority over the devil. Thus if he does try to deal with spiritual problems he is likely to get hurt (Acts 19:14-16). If the sin is publicly known, then the offenders on other issues are also likely to disrespect the judge who they know is a hypocrite.
An undisciplined adulterer cannot properly perform the leadership function of praying for his followers

One of the responsibilities of any Christian leader is to pray and intercede before God for his followers. Examples include Moses, Samuel, Elijah and Jesus praying for his disciples (John 17). An adulterous elder has a seriously damaged relationship with God. He thus needs to concentrate his prayers on repairing his own relationship with God. He does not have good standing with God to intercede for other people – until at least he has repaired this relationship. Effective prayer requires holiness and repentance. Without this, prayer is a waste of time. Not only the leader, but his followers also will be praying and working in frustration.
An adulterous elder cannot be trusted to counsel his followers

The job of an elder normally involves giving counselling advice to people with problems. An adulterous elder cannot properly do this. Firstly, he has messed up badly in his own life and thus does know the correct way to live. Secondly, he especially cannot be trusted to spent time in private with any women who may come to him with problems.
An adulterous elder may use his position to harm his followers
An adulterous elder will corrupt other good people
Bad company corrupts good character (1 Corinthians 15:33) and hypocrisy spreads like yeast (Luke 12:1). Thus an adulterous elder will corrupt other people, especially those he is close to and keep company with him. An adulterer who is not immediately disciplined is likely to develop all kinds of other character problems (not necessarily sexual) since he is a hypocrite – and he will infect others with these problems also. He will infect people irrespective of whether the sin is kept secret or not. He may seduce more women. He will badly mentor younger leaders by setting a bad example in his personal conduct. If he is left undisciplined, while the sin is made public, he corrupts others by giving them the impression that the sin is not serious. Thus others may copy him.

John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard denomination, said ‘…leaders sin, when improperly treated, is like a highly contagious disease, quickly spreading throughout the entire body of people they are ministering to.’4. This image gives an urgency to deal with the immorality properly before it spreads elsewhere.
An adulterer is likely to be abusive to try cover up

An adulterer in office will be very insecure and will have to try to intimidate people in order to keep his position and avoid investigation. Thus in the process of intimidating people, he is likely to hurt lots of innocent people by being harsh on petty issues. Cain was an example of a hypocrite who killed his brother because he was jealous of God’s favour toward him (1 John 3:12). Jesus himself attacked the hypocritical Pharisees for a list of sins ending with the persecution of the prophets (Matthew 23). It is a pattern repeated through history and specifically with Jesus that the main persecutors of the righteous have usually been religious hypocrites.
The office of an elder gives a man power he can abuse to seduce women

The office of an elder gives a man moral trust and respect in the community, which lowers a woman’s natural caution against relationship with him. It will often also give him direct authority over women in his ministry, which he can use to manipulate them into a seduction situation. For example, he can arrange to spend much time working with a particular woman he is interested in. He can awe her with the authority he commands from others in the ministry situation. He can use the excuse of wanting to counsel her for some problem. Thus an elder has power he can abuse to seduce women. The abuse of power in this way is not tolerated in the workplace by secular courts. Should the church have lower standards? No. The church should have higher standards. It should also protect its people from lustful power-abusers.
Other practical reasons why an adulterous elder must lose office
An adulterer will likely repeat the same offence if not properly disciplined.

An elder who has the audacity to commit adultery and then gets away with it, is likely to commit the same offence again. Thus he will harm himself and a woman or women through his sin.
It is in his own best interests for his spiritual recovery
Spiritual leadership puts huge stresses on a man and also tends to isolate him from the type of accountability to other people that is good for spiritual growth. It easily fosters pride and elitism, encouraging leaders to ignore others’ caution. Thus it is not a healthy environment for a spiritually broken person to be healed. It is a war-zone, where he is likely to get hurt again and fall into more sin. One does not leave wounded soldiers on the battle field to get hit again, but sends them home to recover.

A leader who resigns for several years may recover his character to the point where he may be allowed back into ministry, but a leader who stays in office is likely to backslide further, to the point where he must be removed forever.
Christians and outsiders will lose respect for all ministers’ offices

When an elder commits adultery, all Christian ministers and especially those related to him share the loss of credibility. The office of elder itself is degraded and cheapened if an unqualified person can get into the job. Would you allow yourself to be treated by an unqualified doctor or work in a big building designed by an unqualified engineer? Qualifications are there for a purpose and elders’ qualifications must be respected, otherwise all elders lose credibility if unqualified people can do their work.

Thus their leadership work becomes harder. The only way this loss of respect can be mitigated and restored is to strictly discipline the offending elder.
Adultery can have serious consequences which the elder may have to deal with

Adultery can have serious consequences such as illegitimate children, divorce, sexual disease and in some cases abortion to cover-up the scandal. These problems can also have a serious impact on the life of the elder and also on his potential for future ministry work. Illegitimate children can mean that the elder must now continuously care for children in two families instead of one. Likewise sexual disease can inhibit his work potential. Abortion is murder and a much more serious offence than adultery. It may also result in divorce – either in his marriage or in that of the woman. All these effects can also permanently scar the life of the woman with whom he has committed the offence. Thus adultery is very serious sin and must not be tolerated – especially not amongst elders.
If a church or organisation does not get rid of an adulterous elder, its elders are responsible and guilty for his sin

Adulterer causes serious harm, not only in offending God, but also often in harming other people. For example he may destroy another man’s marriage. If the church does not get rid of the adulterous elder, then the other church elders will be correctly perceived as condoning the sin.

1 Timothy 5:22 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

Laying on of hands is the method by which a man is appointed as an elder. The scripture says that if a man is hastily appointed as an elder without proper precautions to determine his good character, then if he sins, those who appointed him are guilty. How much more seriously guilty are those who know that a man is an adulterer, yet leave him in office.
If we tolerate adulterous elders, the gospel loses credibility
If the primary Biblical moral absolutes such as the prohibition on adultery, lying and murder cannot be enforced for senior Christian leaders, then they can be enforced for no-one. And if they can be enforced for no-one, then they are not absolutes. And Christianity without absolutes is not Biblical Christianity. It is just a man-made, religious self-help club.
Getting rid of the adulterous elder publicly will cause others to fear

Getting rid of an adulterous elder publicly will cause other people to fear similar consequences for themselves if they sin. Thus the church will be purified by healthy fear of God and of church discipline. Hopefully other hypocrites will get out of office before they are caught.

Proverbs 21:15 "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers."
1 Timothy 5:20 "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."
If an adulterer is not removed, all discipline will break down

Adultery is one of the most serious sins in scripture. If adultery is not disciplined, probably other issues will not be disciplined either such as abortion, lying or financial scandal. All of these sins offend God and hurt people.
Should the church have lower moral standards than the world?
Many nations had serious criminal penalties for adultery

Today our society does not take adultery seriously and sadly, many Churches have copied this attitude. Nevertheless we must remember that it has not always been this way. Not only ancient Israel, but also historically many nations, Christian and pagan have had very serious penalties for adultery. Pre-Christian Poland for example, punished adultery with public castration5. It was only about a hundred years ago that adultery ceased to be an offence in South African law.
Most professions and sports have disqualification

Most professions and sports recognise disqualification. Athlete Ben Johnson was banned after being caught with drugs in 1988 despite being the best in the world6. Those, such as Hansie Cronje who took a bribe to let the South African cricket team lose, lost his job as captain. The accountants of Arthur Anderson Consulting who covered up the financial scandals in Enron and Worldcom lost their jobs and their company was destroyed. If a civil engineer’s negligence leads to a building falling down, then he usually loses his right to practice his profession. Employees who steal are usually dismissed even if it was only a small amount, because those who steal little may also steal a lot. These measures are harsh, but they help protect everyone else from harm. More harm results if discipline is not exercised. Nevertheless, while we take all these disqualifications for granted in the professions and sports, why is it controversial in the church? Does the church have lower standards than the world? Of course it should not! But some people are confused.
Churches which tolerate sexual abusers are liable for damages

In many cases, adulterous church ministers are abusing their positions of influence in order to seduce women – for example through counselling or with employees. In such cases, the ministers are liable for civil damages from the abused women and if the church or organisation protects them, then they are also liable for damages. The Roman Catholic Church is estimated to have paid out approximately $1 billion in damages in such lawsuits7 and it is estimated they will have had to pay $5 billion by the time the current lawsuits are finished. It is a very sad day when secular society has a stricter standard of morality than does the church.

In South Africa, a business employee won a R776 000 damages from her employer for failure to properly investigate and discipline allegations of sexual harassment8. It is only a matter of time before such lawsuits are brought against churches and Christian organisations in South Africa.

But should the standards of the business world be higher than the church? No. If sexual harassment is treated severely by the civil courts – who hold the whole organisation accountable if they fail to act - why is this not also the case for consenting immorality within a Christian context?
Answering arguments for keeping an adulterous elder in office
The man’s wife has forgiven him
Answer: If a man’s wife has forgiven him, that settles a family dispute, but it does not settle a church dispute. This is a separate issue. It also does not resolve his character problem. Besides that, the wife has a vested interest in keeping her husband in his job, since she is often financially dependent on him and may suffer if he needs to get a lower-paid and/or lower-status job.
The seduced woman has forgiven him
Answer: The seduced woman has also sinned. She is in no position to determine the outcome of the disciplinary process. If he seduced her, he does need to repent to her, but he has offended many parties including God, his wife, his family, his followers, and other Christian believers. He must settle issues with all of these parties and that may take a long time.
He will get counselling
Answer: Adultery is a sin problem – not a psychological problem. Counselling may be helpful for the rehabilitation of an adulterer, but counselling does not instantly restore his character or his reputation. That can take many years to happen. Counselling done in secret to deal with adultery of an elder is just wicked cover-up and counsellors who participate in such scandal must be challenged to repent.
His wife is also cheating on him
Answer: Firstly, if an elder’s wife is also cheating on him, then that is a double reason to keep him out of office. While one may have sympathy for the extenuating circumstances the man is in, an adulterous wife is also a hazard in the church who is likely to cause double trouble. Both of them need loving help, but church leadership is not a wise or suitable occupation for him. The interests of the purity of the church must come first before the elder’s personal interests. Secondly, two wrongs do not make a right. Just because an elder’s wife cheated on him, that does not give him a right to cheat on her. If she has committed adultery, he does have a right to divorce her and marry someone else, but one adultery doesn’t cancel another adultery.
It was a momentary moral lapse and not an ongoing pattern of sin
It is argued that if the sin was just a momentary once-off moral lapse and not a long-term pattern of sin, then the elder should be let off more lightly.

Answer: Adam and Eve also had a momentary moral lapse from a previously good behaviour, but their sin resulted in the discipline of being thrown out of Eden and infected the whole human race with sin for all history. The curse resulting from their sin is still in effect today. Momentary moral lapses can have serious consequences. Likewise, David’s adultery with Bathsheba was possibly a momentary moral lapse, but it plunged Israel into civil war and brought disrepute to Israel amongst the pagan nations.

In most cases, a person who falls into sexual sin will have been entertaining the thought of sexual sin - and failing to mentally fight the temptation - for quite some time before he actually commits it. A person in such a weak spiritual state needs help himself. In many cases, he will first have been holding sinful conversations with the woman – which are also inappropriate for a church elder and worthy of discipline in their own right.

The damage resulting from sexual sin to a man’s character is not something that can heal in a short time. It opens the door for the devil and possibly other temptations. Like a broken bone it can need a long time to heal – if it ever completely heals.
But many great leaders were adulterers
Many great military and political leaders and other heroes were adulterers.
Answer: We must not lower the church to the standards of the world. While we need to promote morality outside the church, family integrity is very closely linked to the job function of an elder. The church is built on the family as the core unit. Thus the ability of an elder to set an example in conducting his family affairs in a good manner is critical to his job as an elder. An adulterer has failed in his family office and thus also in his church office.
The adulterer is the only well qualified person to do the job

The qualifications for leadership in 1 Timothy 3 are almost all character requirements – not ability requirements. Some may include a component of ability, but ability is not the main issue. Character is the main issue in all of them. Thus the elder must not be kept on because of his ability to raise money or lead people or preach or because of his Bible knowledge. We must appoint elders based on character. In the short term, the group may suffer the loss of the skills, but in the long term the gospel retains its integrity. Why should a spiritually immature man be put in charge of a congregation?
The ministry is dependent on the adulterous leader for fundraising

In many cases, the ministry of the adulterous elder is dependent on him for fundraising. These funds may be used for all kinds of good purposes, such as to pay the salaries of his staff, print Christian literature and feed hungry children. Must these innocent people then also lose their jobs and the children go hungry because the funds dry up?

Answer: This is a pragmatic argument. Firstly, Christianity is not based on pragmatism, but on obedience to God’s commands in the scriptures. Yes, the consequences of obeying God’s word can be very painful and harm a lot of people. Nevertheless, our job is to obey God’s word – not to try and do God’s job for him and bend the rules to solve problems. The argument implies that the fallen leader is indispensable to God. Nobody is indispensable to God. If we honour God, by obeying his word and trying to do our best in the situation, we can trust him to take care of the rest. Secondly, even taking pragmatic arguments into consideration, the ministry is probably going to lose a lot of money anyway due to the exposure of the scandal.
The man has to eat

Answer: An adulterous elder does not need to eat. If he suffers financial loss or even goes hungry as a consequence of his sin, then that will help him learn not to do it again. A better argument is that his family need to eat. Thus, if he complies with the disciplinary process, we should show mercy and possibly try help him find another job. However, he will not necessarily suffer financially. Often elders can get better-paid jobs outside the church. If he was a voluntary worker, then he will not lose any money.
But shouldn’t we forgive him?

Firstly, followers must personally forgive the adulterous elder for breaking their trust and shaming the church, but that does not mean they should automatically trust him again with the same job. Secondly, he not only wronged people, but also wronged God and is a potential danger to the flock.
Doesn’t mercy triumph over judgement?
Some quote James 2:13 ‘Mercy triumphs over judgement’ and say that the spirit of scripture should be followed rather than the letter of scripture.

To answer this, firstly, the example of the cross. God didn’t compromise his justice in order to exercise mercy. If he had, Jesus would not have needed to die in our place. Mercy is going beyond justice – not ignoring justice. Secondly, in any issue there are many people involved. Exercising unbiblical mercy towards an offender can result in injustice towards others – such as those abused by an adulterer. Thirdly, Jesus objected to Pharisees majoring on minors and missing the purpose of the command. With adultery, the issue is major and the purpose of the law is in line with the intent of the law.
Hidden reasons for keeping an adulterous elder in office

Besides the publicly stated reasons for leaving an adulterous elder in office, there may be some other unstated hidden reasons for doing so. For example:
* Other elders may prefer leniency because they are afraid to set a precedent, because they would also wanted to be treated leniently if they sin – or they may even have secret sins that they fear may one day be exposed.
* Other elders may fear losing their power, which they have by association with the ‘big man’.
* Other elders may fear counter-attack in the disciplinary process.
* Other elders may have a wrong idea about the meaning of grace and not understand the balancing truth about the justice and holiness of God.
* Others may pity him because he doesn’t have other skills that could produce a similar income.
* Other elders may have close personal relationships with the fallen leader and thus may want to protect him from harm.

Needless to say, such hidden unstated reasons are illegitimate and unacceptable.

Conclusion

The severity and number of offences of an elder who sins sexually will affect whether an immoral elder will ever be trusted again with a leadership position and if so, how many years he will have to demonstrate reformed character for before he is allowed back. An adulterous elder cannot stay in office. We can show him mercy by helping him find another job if he was getting a church salary, but we cannot tolerate him staying in a Christian leadership role. He must get out. Keeping an adulterous elder in office is a serious threat to the health of the church. It is disobedience to God and brings a bad reputation to the gospel.

Those who get involved in trying to discipline adulterous elders are likely to get hurt, but will be rewarded for their efforts in heaven.

An adulterous elder fails the character qualification requirements listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Other scriptures on the qualifications for deacons, Old Testament priests and the eternal judgement of elders reinforce the need to treat scandalous sin very strictly. The scripture treats adultery as one of the most severely punished sins. Under normal circumstances, the congregation will not want an adulterous elder to stay in office and he must depend on cover up, manipulation or protection by other elders. An adulterer cannot properly perform the job requirements of an elder to be an example to the flock, to teach with credibility, to intercede for his followers, exercise moral discipline on others, or counsel other people. An adulterous elder may harm his followers by corrupting other good people, by being abusive of his authority and by abusing his position to seduce more women.

An adulterous elder is likely to repeat the same offence if he is not properly disciplined. It is in his own spiritual recovery’s best interests to remove him from office. If we do not exercise discipline against leaders, non-Christians will lose respect for the gospel and standards will be lowered amongst all Christians. If, on the other hand, we do get rid of the adulterer, then others learn to fear similar discipline. The adulterer is likely to have damaged his own family and maybe those of others. He needs to focus on repairing the damage – not looking after a ministry.

Numerous poor arguments are used to try to justify keeping an adulterer in office. Nevertheless, all of these can be well answered in the light of scripture. Other church elders may have selfish reasons for keeping an adulterer in office, such as to protect their own power and jobs. Such actions are wicked and must be fought. Showing mercy and forgiveness can including finding the elder another job, but can’t include leaving him in office.

All relevant scriptures point to the same conclusion. An adulterous elder must lose his office. Anything less than this is disobedience to both the letter and spirit of scriptural teaching.
1 Dortch, Richard, Integrity: How I lost it and my journey back, New Leaf Press, 1992
2 Dancing with Delilah, Worldnetdaily.com; Chuck Baldwin, Saturday, July 28, 2001
3 Doing reconciliation, Alexander Venter, Vineyard International Publishing, 2004, p189
4 John Wimber ‘How should we treat them’; Pastoral circular letter
5 See Rousas Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973, Chalcedon Foundation
6 “The biggest drug scandal in history”, http://www.time-to-run.com/drugs-in-sport/articles/speculate.htm
7 “Priest sex abuse tab surpasses $1 billion”, http://www.detnews.com/2005/religion/0506/17/A05-211207.htm
8 ‘Warning to office sex pests’, You Magazine, 16 June 2005
??

??

??

??

18


4
Why an adulterous elder must lose office

Ref: PR: [Why must an adulterous elder lose office6.doc]27 January, 2006

Ref: PR: [H:\Email\Church governance & HP\Why must an adulterous elder lose office6.doc]27 January, 2006

Dysfunctional Leadership Cycle in Elitist Ministries

Dysfunctional leadership cycle in elitist ministries

1. Little or no real accountability of senior leadership to followers.

• Much talk about accountability, but usually just followers to leaders – not vice versa.


• Lack of transparency.


• Highly authoritarian leadership model, without space for open discussion or dissent.


• Sin and failure covered up rather than dealt with honestly and openly.


• Promotion based on blind loyalty rather than merit.


• Senior leaders surrounded and protected by ‘yes-men’.

Apparent strengths:

• Rapid growth and execution of projects.


• Lack of open discussion on failures, gives illusion of no failures.


• Rapid growth and illusion of no failure, encourages more to invest time, money and energy in ministry.


• Apparent success fuels even more rapid growth.


• Ministry appears more successful than others and so doesn’t listen.

Weakness

• People who question problems in ministry get unjustly attacked by leadership.


• Eventually dissent is silenced as thinking people are demoted or move away.


• Lots of abused and hurt people leave ministry, but are replaced by others deluded by apparent strengths.


• Leaders all overwork to produce results and under stress treat people very badly.

2. New leaders taught same elitist/abusive Pharisee model of leadership

• Those who question and think are not promoted and so don’t get to senior leadership.


• New leaders are told they are part of an elite within the ministry, which itself is better than other ministries.


• Arrogance and autocracy grows amongst leadership.


• Model is justified by apparently brilliant short-term growth results.

3. Crash

• No one opposes when leader goes off track. Those who do are marginalised.


• Leader goes further and further off track with scandal and abusiveness.


• Eventually leader crashes either because of scandal or chronic abusiveness.

4. Aftermath

• Leader (rather than system) is blamed for crashing.


• System is not questioned.


• New leader(s) take over with same elitist/abusive production oriented style.


• New leader doesn’t know any way to lead except what taught before.


• Organisation merges with another similar group and/or changes name.


• Disassociates with former group.


• A few minor changes in accountability, without addressing core issues.

5. System repeats itself from step 1 again with the next generation of leaders.

Results:

• Lots of disillusioned and hurt Christians


• Lots of highly intelligent promising leaders corrupted with elitist/abusive Pharisee style leadership model.


• Lots of wasted money, time and energy that could have been better invested in God’s kingdom.

How Abusive Ministries Defend Themselves

HOW ABUSIVE MINISTRIES DEFEND THEMSELVES

Philip Rosenthal

Date last updated: 25 Jan 2006.

THE 'KANGAROO COURT', 'GANG UP' OR 'ABUSIVE INTERROGATION'     1
HOW TO FIND ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AN INNOCENT PERSON     1
THE THREAT AND ULTIMATUM     3
ALTERNATING TO FLATTERY AND CONCILIATION     3
ETHICAL PROBLEMS     4
WHY DO OTHERWISE GOOD LEADERS BEHAVE LIKE THIS?     5
ACTION     6


When one hears news of unethical behaviour in some ministries, one may wonder how the leader managed to avoid being held accountable.  Many such ministries have developed sophisticated mechanisms to defend themselves from accountability.  Often these methods have become part of the senior leadership culture, but no one else knows about them.  Thus they can catch people by surprise.  Unsuspecting enthusiastic young Christians involve themselves under the authority of a dynamic and successful ministry leadership – not realising that the leader and his organisational hierarchy is itself not subject to proper authority checks and balances.  We all like to think that the ministry to which we belong is spiritual and in the will of God, but multiple scandals have to force us to sober up and consider what we can do to protect our own ministry against falling into such behaviour.

THE 'KANGAROO COURT', 'GANG UP' OR 'ABUSIVE INTERROGATION'

One of the most effective methods is the ‘Kangaroo Court’, otherwise known as the ‘gang up’ or ‘abusive interrogation’.  The person raising an objection is invited to a meeting, to discuss his concerns.  He is not allowed to bring any witnesses, as the meeting is supposedly a 'friendly one'.  He is also asked not to take notes at the meeting, since it is 'friendly'.  On arrival he finds four to six senior leaders in the ministry waiting for him.  Nevertheless, the issues he has come to discuss will not be discussed.  The meeting has one purpose only - to neutralise the person trying to hold the ministry accountable – by any means possible.

The abusive leader may has usually developed something of a ‘personality cult following’.  Some loyal yes-men may participate in such behaviour with the best intentions, believing they are protecting the ministry from a ‘troublemaker’ or ‘division’.

Sometimes the leaders will be introduced in a grandiose manner, in an effort to intimidate the objector - using big titles and bloated achievements. Then the accusations begin.  The leaders attack the objector with any type of accusation they can think of.  The objector may try to defend himself, but this will not be allowed.  If he tries to do so, another leader will accuse him of disrespect.  At this point it becomes evident that the meeting is an ambush and is not a friendly discussion about concerns with the ministry.  There is no logical or fair discussion.  The leaders know that if they were to allow this, they may lose, so they don't allow it.  They just attack.  The abusive leaders take turns to attack and may interrupt each other to add to the abusive accusations.

HOW TO FIND ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AN INNOCENT PERSON

How do the leaders find the accusations?  Anything in the objectors favour is reversed in these attacks.  For example, if he has raised the same concerns with other leaders, then he is accused of 'slander'.  If some of the other leaders agree with him, then he is accused of 'divisiveness'.  An objection to the ministry raised at the meeting becomes evidence of 'disrespect'.  If he wanted to bring a witness or wants confirmation of records, then he is accused of 'not trusting the leaders'.  If he doesn't bring a witness, then he can be accused of 'acting alone'.  Raising problems in the ministry is 'troublemaking'.  If the objector is part of the ministry leadership, he can be accused of 'unsubmissiveness'.  If he is not part of the leadership, then he can be accused of 'lack of accountability' or 'not being a leader' and thus having no right to raise objections.  A general accusation that can be levelled at anyone raising objections to a ministry' behaviour is 'a bad attitude', since this is unprovable.  If he is disagreeing with the ministry tradition, then this must be evidence of 'pride'.  An objection to a policy of the ministry is 'hurtful' to the leaders of the ministry.  All of the above require 'repentance'.

The leaders may try to attack the status of the objector.  A technique is to make them wait a long time outside.  Then they can be attacked for any reason e.g. marital status; lack of ordination or leadership status within the ministry; spiritual maturity; sanity etc.

Most of all, however, the leaders aim to attack the character of the person raising the objections to the ministry.

Another source of items to attack is issues totally unrelated and irrelevant to the current issues in question. Take trivial past incidents and blow them up into big issues trying to prove guilt.  This practice is know as ‘manufacturing offence’ and is related to bearing false witness against ones neighbour – a violation of the 9th commandment, with the intention of undermining or destroying his reputation.

If the abusive leader doesn't know anything against the objector, then he can at least in some ministries use his 'spiritual gift of discernment'. i.e. Pretend that the 'Holy Spirit' has shown him all kinds of problems in the life and background of the victim/objector.

Efforts are made to get the objector to 'confess his sin'.  If he does so, this can be used against him and he may feel legitimately guilty.   Trying to get the objector to do this is a clever manipulative trick, because:

1. If he does not, he can be accused of lying or covering up because everyone sins so often (1 John 1:8; James 3:2).  The objector may then be accused further of ‘obstinacy’.


2. If he does confess, then the abusive leaders can distract the focus of the meeting from the serious sin of the organisation or leader to whatever has been confessed.  The confidence of the objector may also be weakened.

During the discussion, the abusive leaders may try to legitimise their authority through dubious theology.  Any attempt to debate this or other ethical issues related to the objection will not be tolerated.  The objective of the meeting again is not to find truth, but to silence the objector.

Another tactic is for the interrogators to provoke the objector to anger with false accusations and then accuse them of being angry.  If the objector shows signs of frustration, he may be accused of ‘bitterness’.  

By attacking the objector personally, mistreating and slandering him, rather than discussing his concerns, the abusive leaders lay the groundwork for more potential further accusations.  The objector must now show even more restraint in raising his objections, lest he be accused of ‘taking revenge’ for personal reasons, rather than those of the public good.  The leaders move attention off themselves and onto the person making the objections.  Hence the saying ‘the best defence is a good offence’.

THE THREAT AND ULTIMATUM

At the end of the meeting, which may last several hours, the objector will be given threats and an ultimatum to shut up or leave the ministry.  The ultimatum may include methods to control the objector, that will have been agreed by the leaders beforehand.  The abusive ministry leaders want the objector to come under their control.  They can do this for example by setting up a structure which they invite the objector to join or alternatively demanding that he 'be discipled' or 'counselled'.  Obviously, the point of such a 'structure' or 'discipling' or 'counselling' is to change his mind or alternatively intimidate him into shutting up.

If the objector at a later time tries to clear his name either by explaining or apologising for whatever accusations have been made, this will be fruitless.  The issue is that the ministry leaders are not interested in the truth.  They just want to silence the objector.  The abusive leaders may be too busy to meet again.  Alternatively, the objector must waste his time trying to meet with each of them individually.  The point is that the ministry doesn't want to know the truth, because that might be painful and cause them to have to change their behaviour.  The only thing they want is for the objector to withdraw his objections and shut up.

By this time, the objectors mind will be focused on defending themselves rather than the original purpose of the meeting, which was to discuss his objection.  He is now in a vulnerable position to agree to shut up.

Now most people have no idea that the leaders they respect and look up to can be manipulative and abusive.  But these things happen in ministries as with some families and also romantic relationships.  So, unprepared the victim/objector may be in a state of shock and think that they may truly have done something wrong - which they need to try remedy.

An easy threat is that the leadership will publicise the abusive false accusations.  Others, not knowing that they are from an abusive ministry or otherwise in denial may believe them.

ALTERNATING TO FLATTERY AND CONCILIATION

If the above approach does not work, and the objector is not intimidated by the abusive behaviour but persists with objections, then the abusive leaders may either escalate the abusiveness or alternatively shift to conciliation and flattery.  This is similar to an abusive husband who beats his wife and then the next day tries to romance her so that she forgives him.

After such abuse, the objector/victim will often be so relieved by the shift to conciliation that he will accept anything rather than re-raise his issues of objection.  The issues can thus just be sidelined by evasion and doublespeak without the need for the use of additional threats.  The objector may be offered some benefits from the ministry in exchange for dropping the issue.

Nevertheless, if the objector does persist, the 'Good cop-bad cop' manipulation technique will shift back to abusiveness.  If they cannot silence the objector then they will have to find a way to discredit them (using true or false accusations) or otherwise evict them from the ministry.

ETHICAL PROBLEMS

Now there are serious ethical problems with the above approach:

• It is deceptive to invite someone to a 'friendly' meeting, which is actually an ambush.


• It is manipulative to forbid bringing a witness.  This then gives the abusive leaders two further tools of manipulation.  Firstly they can deny their abusiveness at the meeting; and Secondly, they can later accuse the objector of anything having happened at the meeting, for example being 'disrespectful' - and then use this to institute disciplinary procedures against him.


• It is unfair to criticise without giving a person the opportunity to defend themselves.


• It does not follow any biblical disciplinary or grievance procedure.


• It is clearly aimed at frustrating biblical procedure being used to try to hold the leaders accountable.  Because of this it can be manipulated and also the victim cannot legitimately proceed to the next stage of church discipline, because they have no witness to the discussion.  Thus the abusive leaders are protected, while the objector is vulnerable.


• It frustrates the opportunity to resolve the concerns of the objector in a reasonable way.  In this way, either it will be suppressed altogether – or alternatively escalated if he decides to pursue it.  Either method is usually unhealthy.


• The above methods are classic abusive manipulation techniques developed by the communists to try to break people who dissented with communism.  With the communists they were usually successful.  This is classic brainwashing methodology.  Communist methodology should not be tolerated in Christian ministries.


• An atmosphere of ungodly fear develops in the ministry, and less courageous people learn that they should not challenge the autocratic leadership.  Then more hypocrisy and abusiveness is tolerated.


• It is a way of 'finding out' more information from the objector so that any future real disciplinary or grievance procedure can be frustrated by cover up or false accusations against the objector.


• The goal of silencing the objector can be achieved by the following mechanisms:


• The objector genuinely is convinced by the abuse of the leaders that he is in the wrong and needs to repent. (brainwashing)


• The objector leaves the ministry.


• The objector is intimidated into silence.


• The objector agrees to participate in the recommended leadership structure, counselling or 'discipleship', by which he is then further manipulated.

All of the above constitute unethical manipulation.

1. The abuse of trust of position as a ministry undermines respect for the office of other good ministry leaders.


2. Such false accusations can do serious psychological damage, especially to an emotionally weak person.


3. The leaders are de-facto judging their own case, where they have a conflict of interest.  Effectively, the disciplinary process is inverted and reversed.  Rather, if it cannot be resolved privately, outside mediation should be brought in.


4. The leaders have pre-determined an outcome which they want to manipulate the victim/objector to accept.


5. The biggest problem with the above is that most of the time it is effective.  Once all objectors are silenced and the ministry is in denial, then all types of hypocrisy and abusiveness can flourish.  The climate has been created where scandal can fester and grow.

WHY DO OTHERWISE GOOD LEADERS BEHAVE LIKE THIS?

Many people will have a difficulty with understanding how leaders who are otherwise often nice people can use such manipulation and thus not want to believe it.  One must understand that in abusive families, the father is usually outwardly a nice person, but sometimes something triggers his abusiveness, for example alcohol.  The dynamic is similar in abusive ministries.  In this case, the trigger is a threat to power.  Abusive leaders are driven by a love of power.  Any attempt to take it away will elicit a violent reaction.  To those who don't threaten their power, they will be nice people.  Abusiveness on various levels can become part of a culture of a ministry.

So-called Christian ministry driven by a lust for power, fame, money, success or anything else worldly is actually idolatry.  Leaders can shift from good spiritual motivation to worldly motivation without realising it.

There is also the issue of presuppositions.  All denominations read the same Bible, yet their members come to different conclusions from it – because they start with different assumptions.  Usually one of those assumptions is that my denomination is right - or alternatively that the error is not important.  A hunt is made for scriptures seeming to defend the denominational position and those against it are ignored.  In the same way, most people in abusive ministries assume the leader is right.  Thus any evidence showing the leader is wrong is ignored or trivialised.  A hunt is made for evidence to discredit the objector and the evidence he presents is ignored.

Nevertheless, beyond this, there is a culture of denial.  Ministries don't want to admit they or their leaders have behavioural problems.  It leads to fundamental painful questions.  It is much easier to pretend nothing is wrong.  In the same way most alcoholics refuse to admit they are alcoholics.  The first step in coming right is to acknowledge they have a problem.

False accusations repeated often start to be believed.  The abusive leaders are likely to have previously discussed the issue in the absence of the objector.  Any number of stories or accusations or half-truths can be raised at such meetings without the objector having opportunity to know them or defend himself.  The leaders want to believe these, because it is much easier than considering the possibility that their ministry is unethical/hypocritical etc.

Elitism in many ministries creates a spiritual blindness.  Anyone below the level in the hierarchy is simply ignored or at best treated like a child. Their concerns are treated as personal worries rather than real problems with the ministry.

Such ministries develop a culture where leaders are obligated to defend each other rather than investigate the truth.

In most ministries, leaders use the senior leader as an ethical guideline, thus no one questions his behaviour.  If invited to such an abusive interrogation, they just assume the procedure is acceptable and that the objector is a troublemaker needing to be 'sorted out'.  

There is no moral feedback to the abusive leader, and he becomes more and more like a problem child who never matures due to lack of discipline.

As with abusive families, also, there is usually a culture of silence.  The whole family knows, but they want the family to stick together and keep their social reputation - so they say nothing.  Often the abused are financial dependent on the abuser.  The same in ministries.  Money is used as a tool to manipulate and control people.  Anyone who breaks the 'no talk' rule, will in both abusive families and abusive ministries be usually accused of insanity.

As with abusive families, most abusive leaders have been mentored by another abusive leader – and thus think that the behaviour is ‘not so bad’ or even legitimate.

Similar tactics of trying to discredit a witness are commonly used in law courts - often successfully.   Lawyers will interrogate a witness to try to get him to admit something that will discredit him.  Nevertheless, in a law court, both parties have access to lawyers and the judge tries to be objective.  In a church 'kangaroo court'/'gang up'/'abusive interrogation', there is no one being objective and no support for the objector.

If anyone thinks this is far fetched, look at the behaviour of the Pharisees and priests at the trial of Jesus - when he challenged and undermined their religious power.

Most people will not be brave enough to confront authorities that behave in the above manner - or even get near such a meeting.  Thus any type of hypocrisy and abusiveness can flourish in the ministry.

The above techniques and many others have been well documented by those helping people from abusive ministries and I have seen variations on these techniques more than once first hand myself.  The organisation 'Rape Action' has recommended that sexual accusations against people in ministry should be taken directly to the secular courts and not dealt with internally within ministries – citing the abuse and manipulation of church discipline.  At the time, I argued against them.  Unfortunately, I now think they have a point.

To read more on these abusive methods in the discipleship context go to
http://ubf-info.de/doc/pile.en.htm
And do a search for books on ‘spiritual abuse’ at www.amazon.com

The are many other tools abusive leaders use to defend themselves against accountability, but the abusive interrogation is one of the most powerful.  This practice needs to be attacked and stopped, because if is successfully stopped, then the entire abuse system of abusive ministries will collapse – rather like how the Soviet Union fell apart once they stopped the government killing people and exiling them to Siberia for speaking up.
ACTION
To try to prevent abusive interrogations and other abusive behaviour:

• All ministries should have a policy to ban the practice of kangaroo courts/ abusive interrogations.  There should be proper channels and procedures in every ministry for dealing with both discipline and grievances in a fair way.  Try to create a culture of openness.


• Any leaders who have been part of such practices should repent to their victims.


• Ministries which have covered up sin in this way need to repent both of covering up sin and for the sin itself.


• All Christians should be taught their rights and the proper discipline and grievance procedure to follow in terms of Matthew 18 and Acts 6.


• Anyone who discovers they have been invited to a ministry 'kangaroo court''/ 'gang up' or abusive interrogation should walk out immediately. There is no benefit in dialogue in such circumstances.  Anything a person says may later be used against them.  They should then re-convene the meeting at a later date with witnesses.


• Christians should be taught to beware of abusive and unethical leaders and hold them accountable rather than blindly following authority.


• Christian leaders should avoid symbols and behaviours of spiritual elitism, which make them unapproachable and thus their ministries unaccountable.


• Leaders should withdraw support from other leaders who behave in an abusive manner.


• If you are raising an objection to the ethical behaviour of your ministry, you must chose your witnesses from outside of the salaried employees of the ministries.  Financially dependent people will almost always defend their employers (otherwise they lose their job stupid!).  Preferably chose a witness from outside the ministry.


• Anyone who has been a victim of spiritual abuse in the above or other ways or is otherwise interested in trying to combat it should contact me and I will email you some literature that will help you.


• If you are a leader:


• Consider whether you may have defensively used or participated in such methods in the past – possibly without realising it.  If this is the case, you need to repent.  You will not get away with it forever.  Remember Jesus warnings of God’s judgement against abusive religious leaders (Matthew 23).


• Examine your own heart, motivations and life to see whether you have developed the fear of man (Matthew 10:28), turning aside from your first love (Revelation 2:4) and the love of money (1 Timothy 6:11).


• Missionaries going to communist countries or other hostile governments should practice the skills of combating abusive interrogation before leaving - as the techniques are the same.

Philip Rosenthal

How Do We Prevent Leaders Crashing?

The casualty rate in our spiritual battle to scandal or burnout is very high. Will you or your organisation be next? Apart from damaging leaders themselves, these hurt followers and discredit our faith. Even small mistakes can undermine our moral authority with the devil and the world. Credibility lost is often never recovered. How do we make sure ourselves or our leaders aren't next? The devil targets leaders because he knows how much damage he can do. Samson and Solomon in the Bible are tragic examples of leaders who started out well, but didn't finish well. Most fall due to money, sex or power.

As Christians because we know all men are sinful (Romans 7:18), we assume a pessimistic view of human nature. Thus leaders need self-discipline, checks and balances to protect themselves and others from their desires and foolishness. We must take precautions in both our personal lives and in our organisations.

Those that don't are like a Ferrari without brakes. They can go faster than others, but can't stop - and thus crash. Likewise leaders and organisations without these precautions may look like they are doing very well - but when they hit a problem, they are at much higher risk of being destroyed by them. The larger and more powerful your work, the more careful you need to be.

Personal precautions

• Our relationship to God needs to be maintained as a priority above all else. This includes the disciplines of daily personal prayer, Bible study and worship (in addition to that for our ministry). Successful leaders suggest at least an hour a day (longer when in intense spiritual conflict) in order to remain plugged in to our source of power. It also means repenting quickly and fully when we make mistakes.


• We need close Christian friends to share responsibility, workload, problems and consult on major decisions. Somebody must know what is happening in our lives, so they can warn us if we go off track. We must find personal friends, close co-workers, prayer supporters and mentors. Senior leaders can easily become isolated and lose these. We must also pray for and warn our friends and co-workers.


• Our personal moral boundaries must be set far from the absolute Biblical limits, especially where we are weak.


• Set limits to giving in our work, except in extreme circumstances, to avoid draining of finances, emotions and health.


• Stick to what God has called us to do and not be distracted (2 Timothy 2:4).


• Don't seek more power than needed to do what God has called us to do.


• Keep trying to develop additional qualities of virtue (2 Peter 1:3-10).


• Avoid arrogance (Proverbs 16:18) and not see ourselves as above challenge or beyond temptation. The disciplines of self-humbling through fasting, praying prostrate on the floor; periodically doing menial work; reporting to authorities and confessing sin can help keep us safer.

Organisational precautions

Our organisations must be built on the assumption that humans leaders are weak material. Many organisations deceive themselves with superficial defences that fail in practice because sinful leaders can easily get around them.

• Accountability structures protect finances and decision-making. People who can really hold the leader accountable are those who are independent (not financially dependent or family). They must have the competence to advise; the interest to keep informed and the courage to confront. They need formalised status and procedures to do so. Otherwise they may be fearful and fail to challenge the leader when needed.


• To communicate properly, everyone in an accountability relationship must be easily contactable; transparent; willing to answer questions, make suggestions and follow up issues. If accountability authorities do not know what the person is doing, for example through reports and meetings, they are just symbolic and cannot do their job properly.


• Multiple-accountability helps protect against mistakes or collusion. Keeping peer leaders informed of all planned decisions and activities and checking each-others work can help avoid stupid mistakes.


• Written records help hold leaders accountable to their own word and decisions. These include: statements of faith; policies; periodic reports; rules; minutes; constitutions; accounting records; and agreements such as employment contracts - which enable others to challenge the leader. Otherwise leaders can easily change their minds; break promises and be ambiguous, forgetful, non-committal or confused. Public verbal agreements and reports have a similar purpose.


• Organisations must enforce discipline against members and leaders who sin. This must be done according to fair and agreed procedures, rather than discretion, which can be manipulated for selfish ends.


• As part of the Kingdom of God organisations must be accountable to other biblical Christian organisations for example, networks, local fraternals or denominations, which can question and challenge their beliefs and practices. Even partly isolated communities, groups or denominations easily go off the rails.


• Organisations must seek to build character in people and not just achieve goals, visions and projects.


• Discourage idolatry of leaders.


• Where people are at risk of compromise, set safety rules or guidelines.


• Organisations like individuals need committed prayer supporters who know what is happening.

Identify delusional excuses

The following dangerous lies of the devil delude lots of Christian leaders into thinking they are safe, when they are not. Each applies equally to individual leaders, leadership teams and followers:

• Overconfidence and pride: We are the voice of morality; the ones who stand for right and thus can't do wrong.


• I have Gods call and destiny on my life. God will fulfil it no matter what I do.


• Our leader helps us decide what is ethical. Therefore, what he says and does must not be questioned. We are safe following him and need not think for ourselves or listen to outsiders or followers.


• We, the leaders in this area, are more knowledgeable and superior. Followers that question us undermine our status.


• The end justifies the means: It is God's will for us to get this. Therefore, it doesn't matter too much how we go about getting it. Any opportunity must be God helping us and in the will of God. Or our cause is so just that any way we try to achieve it is justified.


• Trivialising sin: I have done so much good for God, that even though I may have faults - my good deeds more than compensate for my sins. God will excuse these faults, so holiness is not so important.


• Yes, this is a problem; I will deal with it some time in future. I have such important work to do that I can't slow down to deal with this. God is concerned rather about big things like my vision and projects - not small issues like my worldly behaviour.

These excuses may sound ridiculous, but lots get blinded by them and we can too. Did you see some missing defences in your personal life or organisation? If so, think about how you can add some ideas. Discuss them with your leader. They may not stop all crashes, but they will help a lot.

Why We Shouldn't Follow Abusive and Deceitful Leaders

Why we shouldn't follow abusive and deceitful leaders

IS IT BIBLICAL TO SUBMIT BLINDLY TO CHURCH AUTHORITY? 1
HOW DOES ONE IDENTIFY ABUSIVE LEADERS? 1
WE MUST OBEY LEGITIMATE CHURCH AUTHORITY 2
PREPARE FOR PERSECUTION 3

Abusive, deceitful and hypocritical Christian leaders often teach an authoritarian message to try to obtain absolute unquestioning obedience. Once obtained they can manipulate other for their own benefit (for example in the accumulation of power or money or covering up an immoral lifestyle) rather than that of service Christ or the flock. Disobeying or opposing the leader is considered as if it were disobedience to God.

IS IT BIBLICAL TO SUBMIT BLINDLY TO CHURCH AUTHORITY?

Is it biblical to submit blindly to every instruction of every church authority? No. Not at all! The Bible teaches explicitly that we should test leaders, and not just follow those who assert themselves.

The apostle Paul warns the Corinthians against false apostles and rebukes them for tolerating them. They get absolutely no credit for their suffering at the hands of the abusive and deceitful leaders.

2CO 11:13 "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve..... 19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21 To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!"

On the contrary, Jesus commends the Ephesians for testing those who claimed to be apostles, but were found false.

REV 2:2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

The apostle Paul himself:

• Never claimed such absolute authority. When accused of wrong, he defended himself based on rational argument based on scripture - not just by pulling rank and demanding unquestioning obedience.


• Never used church money to enrich himself to live a lifestyle far above his congregation. Rather he supported himself by tent making and encouraged money to be given to the poor. 2CO 2:17 "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God."


• Never treated people abusively and rebuked those who did.


• Publicly rebuked the apostle Peter, when he behaved hypocritically, rather than blindly submitting to him.

HOW DOES ONE IDENTIFY ABUSIVE LEADERS?

How does one know if a leader is habitually abusive? Every leader will make a few mistakes in dealing with people and at times be too harsh. Nevertheless, a Godly leader will usually apologise after he makes a mistake. An abusive hypocrite will not apologise unless forced to do so and he will keep on doing the same thing again and again to other people. If a leader treats you in a way that is totally unreasonable and disregarding due biblical process, find out if they have a history of such behaviour with others. If so, then get a group to go challenge the abusive leader together.

How does one know if money is or has been greedily wasted? Ask some questions from your church or Christian organisation financial advisory board? Look at the lifestyle of the leader. If you don't get straight answers to your questions, why trust them with your money?

Why is abusiveness often linked to hypocrisy? Answer: Because a hypocritical person is insecure and needs to make people fear him so that they will be afraid to challenge him and ask questions about his behaviour. A Godly man who has nothing to hide will not be afraid of honest sincere question or challenge - he will in fact welcome correction.

Why is a leaders greediness with church money often linked to hypocrisy and abusiveness. Answer: Because in order to hide his backslidden state, the abusive and hypocritical Christian leader needs to make everyone else think he more important than them - so they won't question him. To do this, he need lots of status symbols: e.g. a bigger car, a bigger house, a bigger office etc. These cost money. That doesn't mean that such symbols are always a sign of sin, but when combined with a hyper-elitist infallible image they are often an indication that something is wrong.

Also, abusive hypocrites tend to get a sense of entitlement, that they are so important, they are entitled to anything they want - whether money, power or sex. Thus they fall deeper and deeper into sin. Nevertheless, not every problem leader has all of these problems.

Rather, than spirituality, these characteristics are indications that a leader is at best spiritually immature or at worst false and should not be followed. You are going to get no reward in heaven for giving money to a religious con-man who promises that God will make you rich if you help make him rich. You are going to get no reward in heaven for tolerating the abusiveness of some leader who goes around bullying and trying to intimidate people, while he himself is not properly accountable to others. You will get no reward in heaven for helping to cover up and protect leaders who are immoral, deceptive or abusive.

That is false Christianity. It is a waste of time. It is not serving Christ. If your leader behaves in such a way and is unapproachable, elitist, above question, instills fear - then don't follow him. You have a limited number of years on earth to serve Christ. You have a limited amount of money to give. Supporting such leaders is not following Christ. Find someone else to follow. Support disciplinary action against such leaders. Encourage them to resign and find other jobs. If they have not backslidden too far, then perhaps lend them a book or tape on spiritual abusiveness.

Jesus Christ did not blindly submit to the religious authorities of his day - the Pharisees and Saducees. He publicly rebuked them for deception, abusiveness, manipulation, love of money etc (Matthew 23).

WE MUST OBEY LEGITIMATE CHURCH AUTHORITY

This should not be used to justify general disrespect for Church authority. We should under most circumstances submit to our leaders.

HEB 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."We should obey leaders within the sphere of their legitimate authority in church governance, within the constraints set out in scripture. The leader must follow due process of discipline (Matthew 18) and must himself also obey scripture.Nevertheless, when such a leader has either committed some scandalous sin or alternatively is repeatedly behaving in a manner that is unChristian such as abusing their authority and/or the money of the church, then one must challenge them according to due biblical process (Matthew 18) and have them disciplined. When a leader simply condemns any legitimate challenge on an ethical issue as a sin and disobedience to God, then he is out of line and needs to be challenged even more forcefully so that he is not able to do so again.

What of a Godly leader who starts down the path of abusiveness and hypocrisy. Do you help him by ignoring such sin? No. If you love them many, you need to challenge him and steer him back towards the straight and narrow path. Get him to repent of whatever he has done wrong.

Is an abusive ministry actually part of God's kingdom - or is it just a human enterprise designed to advance the power and ego of a few arrogant, deceitful and abusive men? Sadly, it is often a mixture of both. The church is often includes God's kingdom at work, whilst also ungodly humanempires at the same time. Try to see that your effort in time and money goes to best build up God's kingdom rather than just human empires. Your tithe money belongs to God - not automatically to the church to which you attend. If your church isn't using that money to employ Godly men who serve God - then you are wasting God's money by giving to them.

Friends, please don't con yourselves into thinking that God is pleased with unquestioning obedience and donation of money towards hypocritical and abusive leaders. Don't expect to get any reward in heaven for such things. How does it help God's kingdom to keep an abusive hypocrite in office? Now there may be people who don't know that their leader is an abusive hypocrite - and still give to and serve his ministry faithfully. In such cases, God will reward the faithful intention, even if it is misdirected.

PREPARE FOR PERSECUTION

Rather, expect to get reward for suffering the persecution that results from opposing such religious abusiveness and hypocrisy - just as Jesus did.

MT 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. MT 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." JN 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.

What of an organisation that includes some abusive hypocrites and other Godly leaders? Encourage the Godly men to take a stand against the abusive hypocrites. If they don't, then one must question whether they are truly Godly and/or whether they have the courage to lead. Chose to follow those who are Godly within the organisation and try to donate your money in a way that will not end up in the pockets of abusive hypocrites. Raise issues with the financial advisory board if you have concerns. Perhaps donate directly to sponsor those leaders you know, trust and believe in or some church associated welfare project.

Philip Rosenthal

Principles for Orderly Church Discipline

Principles for orderly church discipline, grievance and dispute resolution

Church discipline is often either neglected or misused or applied unfairly. The following principles will help ensure fairness.

Fair judgement

1. disputes chaired and judged by persons with no conflict of interest in the dispute (e.g. relatives, other parties in dispute, financial beneficiaries etc);


2. clear ruling with reasons given;


3. fair hearing of both sides including freedom of speech during hearings and reasonable opportunity reply to accusations;


4. principles of justice should be equally applicable to all in a similar situation (i.e. create precedent; right to know what principles/rules in decision).

Fair procedures

1. clear and consistent procedures as to how they will be handled;


2. investigations stick to the issue in question, rather than bringing up other issues;


3. procedures and structures once initiated remain to the conclusion of the dispute;

Right of appeal

1. appeals heard by someone other than that who made the original decision;


2. if appeals are not heard, reasons should be given for not hearing them;

Witnesses, questions and records

1. records kept of disciplinary meetings, to which parties involved should have access;


2. right to bring witnesses to disciplinary hearings (including the right to make records of the proceedings);


3. right to ask relevant questions and receive answers from the opposing parties and the authority;


4. acknowledgement of receipt of correspondence;

Representation

1. right to be represented by another party and to consult other parties for advice;


2. right to a fair time to consider evidence presented by the opposing parties and collect defensive evidence before having to answer accusations, have judgement decided or made public;


3. timeous hearing of disputes;

Clear roles and purpose

1. right to know the purpose of the meeting beforehand (e.g. whether it is discipline, negotiation, arbitration, dispute resolution; friendly discussion etc);


2. a persons role in the dispute should be known and people should not take on multiple roles in the same dispute (e.g. are they a mediator, a judge, a prosecutor, an advocate for a party; a witness; a disputing party etc).

Healing Abusive Organisations

Healing abusive organisations

The following programme of action is proposed for healing an abusive organisation:

• Teaching:


• Integrate into courses, conferences & preaching themes of organisation.


• Key subjects:


• Spiritual abuse


• Correct      discipline


• Godly leadership


• Fallenness of human nature – potential for evil in seemingly good men.

• Staff change:


• Discipline abusive hypocrites – preferably remove from leadership.


• Bring in leaders from outside to stop inbreeding.


• Send leaders on Sabbatical to spend time in other organisations or in business exchanging ideas and learning new things.

• Structural change:


• Accountability forums to members.


• Accountability to trans-local leadership in relationship to local.


• Constitutional reform.


• Encourage openness and transparency.

• Leadership reform:


• Leaders get new mentors from healthy ministries


• Take time off.


• Read books and study how to lead in a fair and non-abusive manner.


• Spiritual time to focus on God.


• Public rebuke of leaders for sin.


• Public repentance for wrong done.


• Get rid of religious status symbols.

• Relationship


• Leaders form relationships with other leaders in healthy ministries


• Organisations form relationships with other healthy organisations

• Protection of good leaders


• Prayer mobilisation for leaders

Should We Follow Leaders Without Hesitation?

Should we follow leaders without hesitation?

Many naïve Christians believe that what they need to do is find a leader who they can trust absolutely and follow without hesitation.

This belief is a major cause of trouble in the Christian community. i.e. the belief that there exist leaders who can safely be followed without hesitation - and that we just need to find them. Rather I argue that Jesus Christ is the only leader who we can follow without hesitation and every other leader must be subject to critical analysis of his teaching and behaviour in the light of the scriptures. Those who follow leaders uncritically, ignore the scriptural teaching on the fallen nature of men - in character and ability (Romans 3:23).

We have to question whether what they say and do is right or wrong in the light of the scriptures. We have to question whether an instruction is within the legitimate authority of the particular leader. An instruction may not be sinful, but it may be outside their authority. Even if it is not sinful and within their authority, it may have very negative consequences, which the leader may not have thought properly about.

The ultimate authority in the Christian community is not human leaders, but rather the Bible - and every Christian has a right to use this to hold everyone else accountable for their actions (Matthew 18).

Ironically, those leaders whose followers do follow them without hesitation are those most likely to end up shipwrecked and in disgrace - rather than being men of integrity - the opposite of what the article is trying to promote. There are many who confuse being a 'yes-man' with being submissive to leadership. I argue that 'yes-men' get leaders into trouble. Take the example of 'yes-man' Joab who helped David to kill Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11:14-16) and thus plunge the whole kingdom into a civil war caused by God's judgement. Rather, a loyal follower will tell a leader when they think he is doing something foolish or unethical - following the correct biblical procedure outlined in Matthew 18. Obviously, it is however important to do some Bible homework and checking of facts to ensure there is good grounds for the challenge.

For myself as a leader, I ask - please never follow me without hesitation. Think about what I do and say - and if you think it is wrong - then tell me so. In doing so, even if you are incorrect - you will be helping to protect yourself and myself against mistakes. You have a right to challenge and question what I say in my articles. I have a policy of answering everyone who challenges me in writing. If you need to, you can use this to take the matter further.

Philip Rosenthal

Why We Shouldn't Cover Up Scandal

Why we shouldn’t cover-up scandal

By: Philip Rosenthal (Philip@rosenthal.net) Feedback welcome ; Last updated: 25 Dec 06


INTRODUCTION 2
Arguments in favour of exposing unpleasant truth 2
How should one deal with scandal? 3
Know where you place your loyalty 3
When is it legitimate to withhold information on leadership sin? 4
PERSONAL EXCUSES FOR NOT WANTING TO DEAL WITH SCANDAL 4
You are offending me and other people by raising the issue 4
I do not have the gifting/courage to stand up to leadership 4
What can we do? I can’t make any difference. 5
Everyone has his own gripes with the organisation 5
I don’t understand church governance 5
I just serve. I don’t get involved in church politics 6
I was innocent, but deceived by others as to what happened. 6
I have to a certain extent also compromised and failed in my duty 6
PEOPLE GET HURT ISSUES 6
Many people will be hurt by exposure of the truth 6
The organisation will be hurt by the exposure of the truth 6
Isn’t challenging sin divisive 7
The reformer/whistleblower will be hurt by the backlash 7
It’s embarrassing for all of us 7
We have invested so much in the organisation that we don’t want to see it hurt. 7
We need to protect the junior leaders and non-leaders involved in the scandal 7
We need to protect the families from collateral damage in the scandal 8
We need to protect the church from the scorn of the world 8
The leaders who sinned will get hurt. 8
The leaders who sinned may struggle to find other jobs 8
I am innocent, but getting hurt by accusations against the ministry 8
Relationships are more important than anything else 8
PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS FOR NOT DEALING WITH SCANDAL 9
But who will replace our leader? He is the only one who can do it. 9
It is too difficult to change the culture of an organisation 9
But the organisation is doing lots of good work 9
It is a waste of time talking to these people – don’t waste any more. 9
COMPROMISE IS COMMON 10
Don’t all people and organisations sin? 10
Many other denominations and churches are also compromised. 10
COUNTER ATTACK ON WHISTLEBLOWER 10
Why not start your own church/organisation? 10
Aren’t you being judgemental by criticising the leadership and organisation 10
Why does the reformer/whistleblower rather not concentrate on ‘constructive Christian work’ 11
Character attacks on the reformer/whistleblower 11
You are persecuting God’s work like Saul and the Pharisees 11
Why don’t you just forgive the leader – don’t take revenge 12
Why are you attacking us? 12
SCRIPTURE TWISTING TO PROMOTE COVER-UP 12
We must cover-up the nakedness of the fathers as did Noah’s sons 12
The example of Saul’s scandalous life and ‘Touch not the Lord’s anointed’ 13
Didn’t King David also sin? 14
Shouldn’t everything be forgiven and forgotten after 7 years as with the O.T. law 14
TIME RELATED ISSUES 15
Things have improved since it happened 15
It’s in the past; It happened a long time ago – lets forget about it and move on 15
CHURCH GOVERNANCE ISSUES 15
Membership arguments 15
The leaders may have privately repented 16
What of sin in a family – does it also need to go public? 16
We are accountable to XYZ higher authority/denomination/pastor/pope etc. 16
We operate on a ‘need-to-know’ basis 16
It has been dealt with/ Its our responsibility 17
This is not my responsibility or department (Stonewalling) 17
You are not a leader – so it is none of your business 17
Our ministry is under new authority now 17
GOD’S JUDGMENT 18
God is blessing the church – so it must be okay 18
God has already judged the leaders in the organisation 18
OTHER ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEALING WITH SCANDAL 19
Professional counseling ethics 19
Have you had a special word from the Lord? 19
CHALLENGE 19


Introduction

I have received numerous communications encouraging me to participate in the cover-up of leadership hypocrisy. By hypocrisy in organisations, I refer to serious scandalous issues such as abortion, financial issues; and marital unfaithfulness. I am not referring to the day-to-day sins that almost all leaders at some time commit. I also do not advocate the publication of unnecessary sordid details.

Organisations are not made of just one type of person, although there is a lot of pressure to conform to the culture of behaviours and this does influence people over the long term. Not everyone in leadership necessarily knows about the scandal(s) the organisation covers up. One does not want to discourage good, honest, hard-working, non-abusive Christian leaders because of the misbehaviour of others. Rather than placing all under suspicion, pastors need love, support and encouragement from their congregation. One should not assume a person guilty until there is evidence to prove it and due process has been followed.

While the need to tell the congregation the truth may be obvious to those outside scandalous ministries, they are often not obvious to those inside them. Hopefully, this writings will help some people.

It would be nice if we didn’t have to deal with integrity or heresy problems inside the church. It is an unfortunate reality that Satan is active inside the church as well as outside it. The great Christian writer Francis Schaeffer made the comment that Satan seldom gives us the luxury of fighting on just one front. Therefore, we need to maintain discipline and accountability to thwart Satan’s work inside the church.

Everyone must decide whether he is ultimately serving God or man. If the latter, then the reward is on earth. If a person is serving God, then the reward is in heaven.

Many people participate in cover-up in Christian organisations because of the natural human instinct to defend your own community. Nevertheless, this instinct is misguided when used to cover up scandal, because the enemy is actually within the organisation – not without. What is needed is moral discipline to deal with such problems.
Arguments in favour of exposing unpleasant truth

I offer some principal arguments in favour of the disclosure of relevant unpleasant truth regarding scandals in Christian groups:

• 1 Timothy 5:20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.


• The congregation has a right to know what their leaders are doing with their financial and other support for purposes of accountability and if necessary the need to make reforms and staff changes in the church.


• Christianity is based on the core value of ‘truth’, with the metaphor of ‘light’. Light exposes evil rather than hides it.


• The failure to discipline sin of leaders was one of the principal reasons for the backsliding of Israel in the Old Testament. Examples include Eli and his immoral sons; Samuel and his corrupt sons; King David and his wicked sons and uncle. The same in the church today.


• Public exposure will make other leaders afraid to do the same thing, lest they also be exposed. It will increase the fear of God.


• Integrity does matter. Lack of integrity inevitably affects behaviour in other areas of ministry such as through abusiveness, worldly competitiveness, elitism, false promises etc.


• If not exposed, good honest leaders will waste much time and money supporting and being abused and manipulated by those who behave hypocritically.


• When not disciplined, leaders tend to repeat the same sins again.


• Failure to discipline leaders leads to a lowering of moral standards in the church amongst its members also.


• We have absolute moral values. That means we must apply them even when it hurts.


• We need integrity in the church to have moral authority in the world.


• We must destroy a culture of protectionism, where hypocrisy and abusiveness thrives.


• Where a ministry is hypocritical, many will suffer God’s judgement. To protect the innocent, the truth must be exposed, and God’s anger appeased by repentance.


• Followers will be more weary in future of the specific offender, to help him prevent repetition of the same sins. They will also probably demand stronger accountability for all leaders. This is healthy.


• One must ask what is the purpose or value of a church or organisation to God’s kingdom if it is unwilling to enforce God’s commands through church discipline.


• The church belongs to God and God is not backing religious fraud, however successful it seems.


• God’s blessing and revival depends on repentance from sin.

How should one deal with scandal?

Answer:

1. Have a proper investigation in which those involve are forced to answer questions clearly and truthfully.


2. Discipline and repentance for those who have sinned.


3. Reform of the system of governance to bring more accountability to repent repetition of problems. For example, an unsalaried board of elders to hold the leadership accountable.

Know where you place your loyalty

Many organisations develop a tribal type loyalty that in extreme cases is stronger even than their loyalty to Christ. The Bible makes clear that our loyalty to God must be before tribe, family, organisation, leader or anyone else.

Moses commended the Levites for helping resolve the scandal of the worship of the golden calf

EX 32:27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: `Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

The law required loyalty to God first to be enforced.

DT 13:6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Jesus expected his disciples to put loyalty to him before loyalty to family:

LK 12:49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Now this should not be taken out of context to encourage arbitrary divisiveness or dealing with scandal without regard for due process, but it does mean we put loyalty to Christ and God’s commands before loyalty to our friend, organisation or leader.

When is it legitimate to withhold information on leadership sin?

It is legitimate to withhold information on leadership scandalous sin, when:

1. For a reasonable time period, where there is due process of church discipline by the relevant authorities.


2. To withhold the ‘gory details’ of sin and avoid pornographic voyeurism.


3. When the sin is not scandalous and one wants to avoid damaging the reputation of the leader.


4. When there is not yet sufficient evidence to prove the case in a church court.


5. The actual sin occurred long before the leader got into leadership and he has repented privately of it.

Personal excuses for not wanting to deal with scandal
You are offending me and other people by raising the issue

1. Jesus, most of the Bible prophets and apostles also offended lots of people (See Matthew 23 for example).

1. PR 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

I do not have the gifting/courage to stand up to leadership

One must draw a distinction between the overall responsibility of the congregation to confront hypocrisy and heresy and the personal responsibility of each individual. Not every individual has the same ability to handle confrontation. Nevertheless, those who don’t have such ability should find ways to support those who do, for example with prayer, finances encouragement etc.

What can we do? I can’t make any difference.

You can influence a church or denomination to reform by:

1. Supporting those parts of the group that are healthy with your time, presence and money, rather than those parts which are compromised. For example, go listen to an uncompromised pastor and support him and his work financially. Do not just give to the main pot of money, where some of it may be used to financially support compromised or heretical ministers.

1. Provide pieces of information and testimony for the investigation. Ask questions and report what you find out. Encourage others to do the same.

1. Challenge issues of compromise or heresy either privately with leaders or in forums of church governance.

1. If no such forums exist, then press for the establishment of such forums. This is both your right and duty as a church or organisation member.

1. Participating in a lobby group within the larger group, which presses for integrity and reform within the larger church or denomination.

1. Writing and distributing literature in favour of reform and good governance.

1. Contributing financially to help those pressing for reform.

1. Encouraging good relations with leaders of other more healthy organisations.

1. If all else fails, you can vote with your feet and find a more healthy congregation in or outside the same denomination.

1. Senior leaders can be encouraged to exercise discipline on others.

Everyone has his own gripes with the organisation

The argument is that everyone has their own personal issues (complaints) with an organisation and we should infect others to think negatively with our personal issues.

Answer 1: We must distinguish between personal frustrations and major scandal. Personal gripes should be dealt with as privately as possible. Scandal can’t be dealt quietly as it affects everyone.

Answer 2: Lack of integrity in an organisation will have secondary effects of causing multiple people harm and frustrations, since God’s blessing will be withdrawn and Satan’s demons will move in. Solve the integrity problems and you will solve a lot of other problems at the same time.
I don’t understand church governance

Okay. Just pray and keep out of leadership. Study the issue in the mean time.
I just serve. I don’t get involved in church politics

Answer 1: Be careful. You can keep out of a lot of church politics, but if you try ignore scandal you can end up compromising your integrity. Be careful to distinguish between cowardice and genuine lack of ability. Do what you can, even if it means you lose your position.

Answer 2: If you don’t have the guts to confront sin, you should keep out of senior leadership.
I was innocent, but deceived by others as to what happened.

Okay. Then help bring out the truth so more people are not deceived.

I have to a certain extent also compromised and failed in my duty

If you have to a certain extent also compromised and failed in your duty, then you need to repent. If you did so in a leadership capacity, you should to so publicly to the people you failed. Your failure should not be an excuse to lower standards and let everyone else off as well. Your views and actions should not be used as a benchmark for values. Rather the Bible should be.

Nevertheless, one should draw a distinction between personal responsibility of an individual and community responsibility of the group. The community responsibility is the responsibility of the group to God. It is primarily with the leaders, but also to a lesser extent with other parties who are aware of the facts.

People get hurt issues
Many people will be hurt by exposure of the truth

It is true that some people might be hurt by exposure of the truth. Nevertheless, if handled correctly, such hurt will be short term. If hypocrisy in an organisation is not dealt with, the people and especially younger leaders will be hurt much more seriously by the spread of hypocrisy, spiritual backsliding and double standards. The longer it takes to discover the truth, the more people will get hurt. More people will get hurt if there is no repentance.
The organisation will be hurt by the exposure of the truth

It is true that an organisation will be hurt by exposure of scandalous truth.

1. Nevertheless, if the procedure is handled well and leaders are cooperative with the disciplinary process, then that damage should not prove fatal to the organisation. Even if it does prove fatal, God can resurrect something good afterwards. If the leaders do not cooperate with the disciplinary process, then the chances of a good recovery are much less.

1. Nevertheless, our loyalty to the truth of the gospel has to be greater than our loyalty to an organisation – no matter how much good it is doing.

1. Church members, barring those very young, need to be treated like adults and not as small children, who have information hidden from them.

1. On the same basis of protecting the organisation you could say that scandal such as fraud in business should be covered up to protect investors from getting hurt by the fraud discovery. It is a bad reason.

1. A smaller organisation with integrity is better than a bigger organisation without integrity.

Isn’t challenging sin divisive

Yes challenging sin is divisive unless the offender has a good response such as Peter in the book of Galatians and repents immediately. There are good and bad reasons for division. Scandal is a good reason to cause division, although we should seek to try to limit damage and repair it as fast as possible after exposure.

The reformer/whistleblower will be hurt by the backlash

It is true that the whistleblower may be hurt by the backlash. Nevertheless, if he follows due biblical procedure (Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5), then he is innocent.

Jesus set an example for us to copy in his confrontation of religious hypocrisy. He suffered the backlash on the cross. Nevertheless, that is the example we are called to follow. Furthermore, almost all the great reformers of the reformation and church history suffered a similar fate.

Furthermore, the same backlash has been encountered by all the prophets before us and the Lord has promised a special reward for such people in heaven ( MT 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.).
It’s embarrassing for all of us

Christ’s interests are more important than your interests. The purity of his church must come first – not our embarrassment.

We have invested so much in the organisation that we don’t want to see it hurt.

1. Did you do it for God or for the organisation? Do you want reward in heaven or on earth? If you did it for God, then you will chose loyalty to God rather than loyalty to the organisation. If you did it for the organisation, then you will get your reward from men. Don’t expect to get anything from God in heaven.


2. If you invested so much, then why not invest some more in a disciplinary process to protect your earlier investment against corruption.


3. Your resources belong to God. If one place is not serving kingdom interests, then invest the rest of your time and money elsewhere.

We need to protect the junior leaders and non-leaders involved in the scandal

For example, we need to protect the women who may have had affairs with a senior leader.

Answer 1: Anyone who gets involved in a scandal with a church leader forfeits their right to privacy.
Answer 2: It is possible to keep the name of the non-leader secret, while publicly rebuking the leader.

We need to protect the families from collateral damage in the scandal

If the offender(s) cooperate with discipline and repent, the damage can be minimised. If not, they will repeat the same offence and hurt their families more.

We need to protect the church from the scorn of the world

Answer 1: God is more concerned with holiness than with reputation.
Answer 2: There is no obligation to go to the media, and this is not a good idea anyway, but one will seldom stop them finding out.
Answer 3: If proper discipline is exercised, damage is minimised and the world will often respect this.

The leaders who sinned will get hurt.
Bad argument

We don’t want to tarnish the reputation of leaders by ‘hanging out dirty laundry’.
Response

Scandal is serious and not in the category of ‘dirty laundry’. They have lost their reputation. If they repent, they will recover and be better off spiritually. If they have sinned, they deserve to get hurt.
The leaders who sinned may struggle to find other jobs

They should have thought about that before they compromised their integrity. You can help them find jobs and give skills training they need to do other things.

I am innocent, but getting hurt by accusations against the ministry

Okay, so why not support the investigation and disciplinary process and so clear yourself.

Relationships are more important than anything else

Not quite true. The primary issue is people’s relationship with God – not with each other. God demands we obey his moral absolute standards and enforce them in the church. If that hurts relationships, well that is the cost of obedience. Relationships with other people are not absolutes.

Pragmatic arguments for not dealing with scandal
But who will replace our leader? He is the only one who can do it.

It is not acceptable to support a leader who acts without integrity simply because he is the only one who appears able to lead. Such leaders often try to engineer such a situation by getting rid of possible rivals.

1. Not all discipline requires a leaders resignation. In some cases, repentance is sufficient. In others they may return after a time of rehabilitation.

1. A committee can be set up with representatives from various parts of the church to search for a new leader. People can be considered from inside or outside the organisation.

1. Find an interim leader to keep things going until a permanent one can be found or the rehabilitation process is complete.

It is too difficult to change the culture of an organisation

The Reformation in Europe is proof that organisational culture can be radically changed. Nevertheless, it takes courage and lots hard work. If historical reformers are our heroes, then we should copy their examples today.

But the organisation is doing lots of good work

1. The Kingdom of God is about righteousness and integrity, which means applying such values first to ourselves; then to Christian organisations and lastly to society. If we do not maintain integrity, we are building on sand or to use another Biblical metaphor building with wood, hay and straw rather than gold, silver and costly stones. Good work does not justify hypocrisy.

1. Success measurable in worldly terms is not proof of God’s blessing. Plenty of heretical churches have rapid growth rates. Growth and activity does not mean the work honours God.

1. When leaders compromise, organisations to start to rot like a large oak tree from the inside out. They can still continue to grow for a while, but if not dealt with, the rot will spread till it affects the whole tree.

It is a waste of time talking to these people – don’t waste any more.

1. They don’t want to listen

Answer: If they don’t want to talk or listen, then let them explain to their own congregation. I.e. go public with the facts.

1. It is a waste of time talking to these people – they are already compromised

Answer: This is a pessimistic view. If people repent, God can restore them. Nevertheless, God often delays judgement to give offenders a chance to repent. If they don’t it will speed his judgement on them.

In response to all of the above pragmatic arguments, one can use the response that the church is not a business and Christians are not meant to take decisions pragmatically, but biblically.

Compromise is common
Don’t all people and organisations sin?

Yes, all people and organisations sin. Nevertheless, firstly in this instance, it is the sin of leaders that is of concern. Secondly, it is serious and scandalous sin that is being discussed here, not the common sins we all commit every day.
Many other denominations and churches are also compromised.

It is true that many other denominations and churches are also compromised, both in teaching and practice.

1. The compromise and heresy of other churches is primarily the responsibility of members of those churches to address. You have a responsibility to address the problem in your own group or alternatively leave that group and find one you can support without protest.

1. Many denominations have internal lobby groups that press for reform. For example, ‘Roman Catholic Faithful’, in the Catholic Church and ‘Anglican Mainstream’ in the Anglican Church. Historically, people such as St Francis of Assisi have succeeded in bringing reform to a compromised and corrupt church. We need more such lobby groups.

1. We should not lower standards and copying the compromise of more compromised denominations, but rather set an example of righteousness and good discipline.

Counter attack on whistleblower
Why not start your own church/organisation?

1. The option of starting a new organisation is a good one in some instances. Nevertheless, not everyone has the ability or calling to do so.


2. The new group is not going to be perfect either and is open to the risk that scandal may develop inside it or that there may be backsliding. Then it will also need internal discipline.


3. Why spend years building an organisation and then abandon the investment when it starts to backslide or gets into scandal. There has to be a way to repair damage.

Aren’t you being judgemental by criticising the leadership and organisation

The Bible encourages us to judge under some circumstances and discourages in others. This is a complex issue. For example:

• We need to judge based on good evidence.


• We need to follow due procedure (Matthew 18) to try resolve issues to minimise damage.


• We need to judge according to scripture.


• We need to fairly and equitably apply it.


• We need to limit our judgement. For example, we do not have a right to make a final assessment of a person’s character, which is God’s job. We can however judge others actions.


• We need to mix it with mercy.

Nevertheless, scandalous behaviour of leaders and Christian organisations is a public issue, for which followers must exercise good judgement.


Why does the reformer/whistleblower rather not concentrate on ‘constructive Christian work’

1. In most cases, whistleblowers are faithful and productive in their own area of work.

1. It would be hypocritical to speak up against evil in society, whilst not doing so in their own organisations.

1. Jesus set an example for both ‘positive/constructive’ and ‘negative/disciplinary’ work by his ‘positive’ ministry of healing and teaching as well as his ‘negative’ work of casting out devils; arguing with the Pharisees and driving the money changers out of the temple. It is cowardly and hypocritical to only do work for which people will praise us and not that which is hard and unpleasant.

1. The purity of the church and credibility of the gospel is a top priority.

Character attacks on the reformer/whistleblower

These are sadly, the most common result of leaders or an organisation trying to defend itself. For example, they may try to re-frame the conflict as a personal issue of the reformer/whistleblower or as a relational conflict between the reformer and the offenders. Thus the real issues get ignored. For example, the investigator may be accused of being a maverick or ‘not under authority’.

They should be seen for what they are: an attempt to discredit the credibility of the witness. People should not be distracted by them. Nor should whistleblowers waste too much time replying to such attacks.
You are persecuting God’s work like Saul and the Pharisees

Answer: Whose behaviour is like the Pharisees?

The principle criticism that the New Testament has of the Pharisees was their hypocrisy, not their zeal.

I would not understand how it is possible to construe holding leaders accountable for their actions as 'persecution of the ministry' or 'fighting against God's work' or compare with Saul of Tarsus.

Firstly, Saul's persecution was against innocent people and secondly it involved throwing them in jail etc. I have done neither. Challenging leaders to answer questions relating to the integrity of the ministry is not persecution. That is the right of everyone who is or has been associated with the ministry.

Leaders can experience trouble for doing good or for doing evil. Matthew 5:12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. MT 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men".

In the instance of scandalous ministries, it appears the second category. The salt appears to have lost its saltiness. I would hope to be proved wrong, but that is what I observe. In the case of the one confronting scandal, persecution is in the first category, which is persecution for doing good - and thus I should rejoice at criticism – expecting great reward in heaven.

By the same standard, you could construe Jesus confrontation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 as 'Jesus persecuting the Pharisees'. But this is not the case. He confronted hypocrisy and the Pharisees persecuted Jesus. He used much stronger language than I have.

The credibility of not just one ministry, but the gospel itself is at stake.

Why don’t you just forgive the leader – don’t take revenge

Scandalous leaders are often also abusive. PR 9:7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.” Nevertheless, regardless of their behaviour, the primary issue is scandal. This is a public and not a personal issue. You must forgive sinful behaviour, but also confront it and demand repentance.

Why are you attacking us?
Trying to hold a ministry morally accountable and reform it using responsible due procedure is not attacking the ministry. The devil attacks a ministry through compromise.

Scripture twisting to promote cover-up
We must cover-up the nakedness of the fathers as did Noah’s sons
Heretical argument
The argument has been used by scandalous leaders, based on a misapplication of Genesis 9:20-26

GE 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceededn to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. GE 9:24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." GE 9:26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. Why are you attacking us?”

Now the heretical interpretation of this passage is that we should follow the example of Shem and Ham in covering up the sins of church leaders, in order to escape the curse that came on Canaan for exposing sin.
Response

Firstly, the passage describes an event that occurred. It does not command us to do the same or live in fear of the same happening to us. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Secondly, the situation involves some serious differences from that of for example covering up a sex-scandal involving a church leader. Elders are required to set an example of a higher standard of behaviour than the level of strictness and discipline that would be applied to an ordinary Christian. Noah was not a church elder. Thirdly, through faith in Christ, we have protection against curses and so should not fear the curses of wicked men if we are faithful to Christ and pray for his protection.

We should not go around spreading slander on the smaller occasional sins of church leaders and so undermine them, but when there is serious or habitual sin, then it must be confronted and disciplined.
The example of Saul’s scandalous life and ‘Touch not the Lord’s anointed’
Heretical argument

Saul was a backslidden king, nevertheless, he was honoured because of his anointing despite his behaviour. The following scriptures are sometimes quoted by those who favour scandal cover-up, as reason to honour leaders who live hypocritically.

1SA 26:9 But David said to Abishai, "Don't destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD's anointed and be guiltless? 10 As surely as the LORD lives," he said, "the LORD himself will strike him; either his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish. 11 But the LORD forbid that I should lay a hand on the LORD's anointed. Now get the spear and water jug that are near his head, and let's go."

Based on the above scripture, it is argued that one should never ever attack a leader ‘anointed by God’. The success of the leader in ministry and the status he demands is given as proof of his ‘anointing’.

2SA 1:19 "Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights. How the mighty have fallen! 2SA 1:20 "Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.

Based on the above scripture, it is argued we should keep things quiet so that the unbelievers don’t find out and rejoice at the scandal.

1SA 31:11 When the people of Jabesh Gilead heard of what the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all their valiant men journeyed through the night to Beth Shan. They took down the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Beth Shan and went to Jabesh, where they burned them. 13 Then they took their bones and buried them under a tamarisk tree at Jabesh, and they fasted seven days.

Based on the above, it is argued that we should not expose the truth of the scandalous leaders behaviour to the public, even after he is removed form office.

Response

Regarding not harming the ‘Lords anointed’, we see the counter-example of Phinehas being commended as an example of righteousness for endless generations for his action against a sexually immoral Israelite tribal leader. (Psalm 106:30-31 and Numbers 25:6-12). Now we should bear in mind that Phinehas was a legitimate judge of Israel and so was not just a lone assassin. He operated within the constraints of God’s law. It is not acceptable for a member to simply attack a senior leader, but it is acceptable to follow due process of church discipline to bring that leader to justice.

What David avoided doing was taking personal revenge on a personal enemy, outside the boundaries of the law. This is not the same as insisting on due process of discipline and accountability of a leader. Therefore those who quote ‘Don’t harm the Lord’s anointed’ as meaning anointed church leaders have diplomatic immunity to behave as they wish are twisting and misapplying scripture. Furthermore, a leader who has gotten into scandalous sin such as adultery has lost his Holy Spirit anointing. The Holy Spirit is ‘holy’ and doesn’t anoint scandalous offenders.

Regarding not giving the pagans information on sins within the church. We should not voluntarily give them information, for example by going to the secular media with information of scandal within the church. Rather we should try to deal with it through due process within the Christian community. Nevertheless, if the secular media finds out, that is too bad. If they have already found out, then it is often necessary to comment to avoid the impression that we approve of such behaviour.

Regarding, burying the body of the fallen leader as metaphor of not exposing his sins to the world. This is allegorical interpretation of scripture, which Martin Luther commented was like a wax nose you can twist any way you like. There may be some truth in the argument, but it can’t be derived from the scripture. Nevertheless, such argument isn’t strong enough to stop the truthful disclosure when there are other good reasons to do so – for example if the leader was assisted by others in the cover up.
Didn’t King David also sin?

Yes, David did sin and brought disastrous civil war on Israel through both his own sin and his failure to punish offenders in his own family. We need to heed this bad example and not follow it – either in sinning ourselves or tolerating sin in those close to us or in powerful positions.
Shouldn’t everything be forgiven and forgotten after 7 years as with the O.T. law
Bad argument
It is argued that since the Old Testament law allowed for a cancelling of debts after seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1), so sins of the organisation should be forgotten when they are seven years old.
Response
The scripture is torn out of context. It is meant to apply to Old Testament economics. It was never interpreted to be applied to sins against God either in the Old or the New Testament. Daniel confessed the sins of his Israelite fathers 70 years to hundreds of years after they were committed by the nation (Daniel 9:5).

Time related issues
Things have improved since it happened

Okay. Good. But spiritual issues are not remedied until there is repentance; and structural issues are not remedied until there is reform.

It’s in the past; It happened a long time ago – lets forget about it and move on

Variations of the same idea are that:

• if it is in the past we should forget about it.


• because it happened long ago we should not bring it up now.


• because many people in the church of that time have left, then it is no longer necessary to apologise to them for the sins.


• The most extreme version of this is that someone will only intervene while a sin is actually happening, but not after it has stopped.

1. Unrepented sin is likely to be repeated. If sin of leadership is not repented of, God will not bless a church. They will never be in his perfect will.


2. If those who were involved in the offence or cover-up are still in leadership, their competence to lead is in question.


3. Does this mean that we reward those who succeed with long term cover up? The fact that a long term scandal cover up is possible in an organisation proves that the culture is dangerously unhealthy and needs reform.


4. If the organisation thinks cover-up is okay, then one must ask what sandals may be happening now that will only come into the open long in the future.


5. The scriptures show numerous examples of public repentance for sins that occurred not just in the past, but in previous generations. Sin is not removed until it is repented of.


6. If most of the original people have left, then the apology should be public and it will get back to the relevant people through the organisations grape vine of relationship and/or the media.


7. The concept of not intervening after a sin has happened is contrary to all biblical justice. It also makes discipline almost impossible, since it would be very difficult to catch an adulterer in the act. Further, the offender can always just say he has repented and then everything would at that point be forgotten about.

The argument is garbage.

Church governance issues
Membership arguments
Heretical argument
Two parallel arguments are used to try disqualify people from asking questions:

• Members who ask hard questions are told they should trust the leaders. Asking hard questions demonstrates distrust. If they don’t, they should leave the church. Members are told the leaders are not accountable to them.


• Members who leave the church are told that since they have left, they no longer have any business asking questions about the church.

Needless to say, the result of these two parallel disqualifications is that nobody in or outside the church has the right to ask hard questions of the leaders.
Response
These two arguments are both nonsense. Firstly, since we are all sinful, a certain degree of distrust of leaders is healthy and should not be taken as insulting or a disqualification from membership. If leaders have nothing to hide, they should answer the questions. Leaders should be prepared to answer questions of their followers.

Secondly, all Christians are part of the broader body of Christ, and are accountable to everyone else. If a sector of the church claims it is unaccountable to the rest, then it is behaving in a cult-like manner. Churches should also be accountable especially to those who have invested effort in building that church, such as past members.
The leaders may have privately repented

Private repentance is appropriate in cases where the sin is minor and of a private nature and the damage minor or where the offender is not in leadership. Nevertheless, in an instance where the sin is serious and the damage serious and the offenders are in leadership, then the issue must be dealt with publicly (1 Timothy 5:20). If a leader cannot survive the exposure of truth about his behaviour to his followers, then he shouldn’t be in leadership anyway. If in the case of serious leadership sin, there has not been public repentance, then true repentance has not happened.

I therefore ask all to support me in the process of determining and exposing the truth, whilst gaining the repentance of those who have violated Biblical values.
What of sin in a family – does it also need to go public?

No. If for example a man who is not in leadership commits adultery, then his family has a right to know, but the whole church does not need to know. If he repents, the secret can stay in the family and their spiritual supporters. Nevertheless, if he does not repent, then he must be publicly shamed and expelled from the church. Nevertheless, sin of leaders is something totally different and affects the integrity of the whole church.
We are accountable to XYZ higher authority/denomination/pastor/pope etc.

Answer:
If the higher authority covers up and refuses to deal with scandal, then they are in default of their biblical obligations. They also need to apologise for their behaviour. Also there needs to be some investigation to find out why they don’t want to deal with issues. Do they also have integrity problems or do they lack courage or understanding of Bible teaching. Whatever is the problem it needs to be remedied.
We operate on a ‘need-to-know’ basis

If the issue is doing something good, but illegal like smuggling Bibles into China, then there may be some justification for a ‘need to know’ policy. But if the issue is sexual morality of Christian leaders or the financial management of the organisation, openness and transparency should be the policy.
It has been dealt with/ Its our responsibility
Bad argument
Leaders argue that they have dealt with the issue and it is not the responsibility of the investigator.
Response
If for example, a leader is an adulterer and managed somehow to stay in office, then the issue has not been dealt with. If it has been dealt with, then you as a member or friend of the ministry have a right to ask how it was dealt with. Discipline of leaders is a public issue (1 Timothy 5:20). It is not in the same category as the personal private sin of a church member.

Further, the views of the organisations hierarchy should not overrule that of scripture. The members have a responsibility to hold them accountable to scripture. It is a big mistake to use the hierarchy as ones sole ethical guide. One also needs to read the scriptures and consult with others familiar with the scriptures.

This is not my responsibility or department (Stonewalling)
Bad argument tactic
A bad argument tactic of a scandalous ministry is for each leader to claim it is not his responsibility to deal with scandal allegations. He then sends the enquirer to speak to a different leader, who then refers the enquirer to someone else. Eventually, the investigator gets worn out and tired of going around in circles and quits investigating.
Response
An allegation of for example financial or sexual scandal or bloodguilt scandal is sufficiently serious that any leader in a ministry that is approached needs to take some responsibility for it. They should go with the enquirer to the other responsible leader.

You are not a leader – so it is none of your business
Bad argument
The enquirer is told he is not a leader – so it is none of his business.
Response
A scandal involving church leadership is a public issue according to 1 Timothy 5:20. It is not meant to be dealt with just by leaders. Members must hold their leaders accountable. Matthew 18 gives any two Christians the authority to investigate an allegation. They do not need to be leaders.
Our ministry is under new authority now
Bad argument
Since the ministry is under new authority, issues that took place under the old authority are no longer relevant.
Response

The argument is bad on a number of different grounds. Firstly, organisations don’t necessarily change overnight just because there is new authority. Old people and practices are usually still around. Secondly, even if there has been major change, it still needs to deal with the sin against God if it was not handled in the way he prescribes.

God’s judgment
God is blessing the church – so it must be okay

Since the organisation was successful and grew after the scandal, then God must have blessed it and so must have accepted the scandalous behaviour. Or since there appears to be such spiritual things happening at the meetings, God must approve.

Answer 1: Be careful to distinguish between successful organisation and God’s blessing. Lots of cults are growing fast and have dynamic leaders and ministries – but it is not God’s blessing.

Answer 2: God blessed the Israelites in the wilderness despite their rebellion, but this is not the same type of blessing as they received on entering the promised land.

Answer 3: God is more interested in obedience than pragmatic success.
God has already judged the leaders in the organisation
Bad argument

The argument is that it is not our job to judge the leaders in the organisation, since God will do it.

Response

1. It is true that God will judge leaders who sin. Nevertheless, one of the methods he uses to do so is Church discipline and for that he expects our support and cooperation – not cover up. 1CO 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

1. Many innocent people will be judged by God along with the guilty parties, even if they are unaware of the reason for the judgement. By disciplining the guilty, we help protect the innocent from God’s judgement. See the example of how the storm died down after the rebellious Jonah was thrown overboard.

1. There is no reason to think that God’s judgment will stop until it is repented of. There is an obligation on the whole church to support the investigation and disciplinary process against offending leaders.

Other arguments against dealing with scandal
Professional counseling ethics
Bad argument

In terms of professional ethics, a counselor to whom the scandalous pastor confesses must keep the confession confidential.
Response

Professional confidentiality is not absolute. For example, a counselor is required by law to report any confessions of pedophilia, because this puts children at risk of abuse. Similarly, a pastor who is in gross hypocrisy such as adultery has disqualified himself from office and is a spiritual risk to his congregation. Therefore, there is a duty on the counselor to warn the congregation of such a spiritual wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Have you had a special word from the Lord?
Bad argument

The argument is that one should not expose scandal unless the Lord has through a specific personal word told you to do so.
Response

The scripture commands us to discipline leaders in 1 Timothy 5:20. We do not need a specific personal ‘word from the Lord’. God has already said it. In fact, even amongst the most spiritual people, almost all decisions made need to be made on the basis of common sense and scripture – not through some special ‘word of knowledge’.

Challenge

Can anybody else think of any other arguments in favour of covering up sandal? Any questions. Please email to me at Philip@rosenthal.net . If not, please take your side in favour of moral discipline in Christian organisations, when dealing with integrity problems in leadership.