More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Part of the reason these structures are inadequate is that they are philosophically at odds with the church’s expressed vision for pastoral leadership.
“Our form of church government protects against exactly these sorts of problems,” they might say. This is often the case with denominations that emphasize a plurality of elders or higher levels of accountability (for example, bishops or church courts). But these forms of government don’t magically solve the problem. Indeed, many of the abuse cases I’ve seen come from precisely these circles.
Of course, if a pastor is to lead by example, then his primary concern can’t be controlling other people’s behavior. It must be controlling his own. His own holiness is paramount. Thus, Peter is saying the same thing as Paul: character matters more than giftedness.
Most elder boards, church courts, and boards of directors for Christian ministries are composed of insiders, not outsiders. They are usually composed of the leader’s close friends, sometimes even family members. How, then, can they have objectivity in holding that leader accountable? It’s the same problem as police officers holding other police officers accountable for excessive force. They are all part of the same club. Thus, real accountability is difficult to achieve.
Some abusive pastors treat Matthew 18 like Miranda rights—if the technical procedures aren’t followed, then they are unable to be prosecuted for the crime. But failing to follow Matthew 18 does not give someone a “get out of jail free card.” The church should still hold the pastor accountable for his abusive actions even if the accuser did not follow the right steps. Sure, the accuser’s failure to follow Matthew 18 should be addressed too, but there should be no attempt
not all negative reports are gossip.
The church’s biggest challenge wasn’t a secular world attacking it from the outside, but rather moral corruption arising from the inside.
Thus, the church needs to rethink the way it attracts and recruits pastoral candidates so potentially abusive leaders are weeded out from the start.
Make sure to reach out to women at the candidate’s prior church, either a volunteer leader or female staff. In my experience, search committees almost never talk to women but only men—and only men handpicked by the candidate. That is a broken system. Women often have a radically different perspective on their church than the men do.
an alternative, all hiring and firing recommendations could go first through an independent committee, composed of both elders and non-elders, including both men and women. For the purposes of our discussion, we’ll call this the accountability committee (which could also have other functions we’ll discuss). The committee would evaluate each staffing situation and then make recommendations to the elder board, which would make the final decision. REAL FEEDBACK. If elder boards
But I think churches can begin by acknowledging that they often pick elders who already fit within the traditional structures and paradigms. Put bluntly, some churches treat the elder board like the cool kid’s club, where only certain people are invited. Rather, if elder boards sought out leaders who did not fit these existing paradigms, they might find more truth-tellers than they expected. This could include those from different social classes, different vocations, different educational backgrounds, or different ethnic and racial groups.
The answer to the abusive pastor was there all the time. It is the cross of Christ. There, on display for all the world to see, was a shepherd who did not save his own life but gave it up freely for the sake of others. And anyone called to the ministry must do the same.
