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:
- Have a proper investigation in which those involve are forced to answer questions clearly and truthfully.
- Discipline and repentance for those who have sinned.
- 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.
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:
- For a reasonable time period, where there is due process of church discipline by the relevant authorities.
- To withhold the ‘gory details’ of sin and avoid pornographic voyeurism.
- When the sin is not scandalous and one wants to avoid damaging the reputation of the leader.
- When there is not yet sufficient evidence to prove the case in a church court.
- 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
- Jesus, most of the Bible prophets and apostles also offended lots of people (See Matthew 23 for example).
- PR 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”
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:
- 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.
- Provide pieces of information and testimony for the investigation. Ask questions and report what you find out. Encourage others to do the same.
- Challenge issues of compromise or heresy either privately with leaders or in forums of church governance.
- 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.
- Participating in a lobby group within the larger group, which presses for integrity and reform within the larger church or denomination.
- Writing and distributing literature in favour of reform and good governance.
- Contributing financially to help those pressing for reform.
- Encouraging good relations with leaders of other more healthy organisations.
- If all else fails, you can vote with your feet and find a more healthy congregation in or outside the same denomination.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Church members, barring those very young, need to be treated like adults and not as small children, who have information hidden from them.
- 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.
- A smaller organisation with integrity is better than a bigger organisation without integrity.
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.
- 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.
- If you invested so much, then why not invest some more in a disciplinary process to protect your earlier investment against corruption.
- 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.
- Not all discipline requires a leaders resignation. In some cases, repentance is sufficient. In others they may return after a time of rehabilitation.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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’
- In most cases, whistleblowers are faithful and productive in their own area of work.
- It would be hypocritical to speak up against evil in society, whilst not doing so in their own organisations.
- 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.
- The purity of the church and credibility of the gospel is a top priority.
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.
- 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.
- If those who were involved in the offence or cover-up are still in leadership, their competence to lead is in question.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment