Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church

by Michael J. Kruger

After all, pastors have learned to tune out most criticisms of their profession, and rightly so. The office has lost its dignity in our modern culture, lacking the respect and appreciation it once had and deserves. Every day, pastors are bombarded with unjust critiques and bravely press ahead in the midst of them. It’s part of the job. But that doesn’t mean all critiques are unjust.

And sometimes churches mistreat their pastors rather than the other way around. Being a pastor is brutally hard. (I’ve been there.) They are often overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated.

Despite the pileup of churches wrecked by domineering leaders—not to mention the merry-go-round of abuse scandals in just the last decade—some churches and pastors still take a posture of defensiveness. Rather than a response of humble self-reflection, they develop a spirit of self-justification designed to minimize the concern over abuse: maybe these church members are just resentful when someone confronts their sin, or maybe they have a particularly sensitive personality, or maybe they are the products of our modern “woke” victim culture, easily offended by any expressions of authority, and so on.

Spiritual abuse is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him as a means of maintaining his own power and control, even if he is convinced he is seeking biblical and kingdom-related goals.9

some groups claim to be complementarian but effectively operate with a patriarchal paradigm.

Consequently, when abusive pastors are finally confronted over their domineering behavior, they often vehemently deny that they have done anything wrong.35 The accusation may even shock them.

The reality that some people can be overly sensitive, feeling hurt over every interaction and every exchange, can exacerbate these hurtful missteps. But being hurt is not, in itself, proof of abuse.

However, the pattern (or lack of one) is key. Isolated instances are one thing, but if a pastor characteristically harms people by his words, there may be a bigger problem requiring investigation.

Sure, everyone is a sinner who falls short of the glory of God—pastors included. But most people give their pastors quite a bit of latitude to be real people, warts and all. They aren’t looking for somebody perfect, just somebody genuine. In a world with leaders who are sometimes cruel hypocrites, they just want a reason—even a little reason—to hope for something more.

In response to their request for the seats of power and authority, Jesus reminded them that they were thinking of leadership in a pagan (non-Christian) way: The “rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them” (Mark 10:42, emphasis mine). The key word here is katakurieuō—to “lord it over”—which is the same word Peter used when he rebuked harsh pastors in 1 Peter 5:3 (more on this later in this chapter).16 Essentially, Jesus understood that those in positions of authority are prone to domineer those they lead.

Here’s the thing: his kindness utterly shocks everyone on the team. This is what struck me the most as I watched the show: People don’t expect kindness from their leaders. We might expect them to be confident, focused, resilient, and decisive. And we might not even be surprised if they have a bit of an ego. But we do not expect them to be kind. How very sad.

Ted Lasso

His defenders said the conflicts were due merely to “a clash in leadership styles” or that “feathers get ruffled” by strong leaders.9 The reason minimizations like this are so effective is that they are partly true. Every ministry has some conflict. We live in a fallen world where clashes are part of any church.

Once a pattern appears, the leaders of the church need to do the math. There is a common denominator in all these conflicts: the pastor. Is it more likely that everyone else is the problem, or that perhaps he is the problem?

we are particularly bad at spotting bad guys when we are forced to believe something really difficult about them. He writes, “Default to truth becomes an issue when we are forced to choose between two alternatives, one of which is likely and the other of which is impossible to imagine.”

We can imagine the dilemma playing out in their minds: Is it more likely that this respected pastor has been mistreating, bullying, and domineering his flock, or that people are oversensitive and get their feathers ruffled by a strong leader?

Because bullies don’t bully everyone. If they did, they wouldn’t last long. Bullies rarely bully horizontally or upward. They almost always bully down. Thus, often the pastor has treated the people evaluating him—his peers—remarkably well.

Gladwell points out that a certain kind of rare individual is not hardwired to assume everyone is honest and truthful. A certain personality type goes against the grain—what Gladwell calls the “truth-teller.” These individuals “are not part of existing social hierarchies.”13 Thus, they “are free to blurt out inconvenient truths or question things the rest of us take for granted.”14 In the tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson, the little boy is the truth-teller. While everyone else plays along with the naked king, the boy blurts out, “Look at the king! He’s not wearing anything at all!”15

First, victims should not be asked to meet with an abusive pastor unless he has been held accountable. The foundation for reconciliation always begins with the truth about what happened and accountability for what happened.

Second, victims should not meet with an abusive pastor unless he is genuinely repentant. One can imagine a scenario where a church does hold an abusive pastor accountable but that pastor remains defiant and unrepentant. But there can be no biblical reconciliation unless there is real repentance: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3). In such a scenario, the victims of abuse should wait until an official church body has established that genuine repentance has taken place.

Third, victims should not meet with an abusive pastor until they are emotionally and spiritually ready. Even if the abuser is held accountable and is repentant, that does not mean a reconciliation meeting must take place right away. Many victims of abuse are so deeply traumatized that they struggle to be in the presence of an abuser until real healing has taken place. This may take months, even years.

A fitting illustration of the danger of peacemaking with an unrepentant abusive leader comes from a scene in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers. After the wizard Saruman’s devastating betrayal, he is finally confronted by Gandalf and Theoden, the king of Rohan. Despite the heinous and unspeakable atrocities Saruman commits, he admits no blame and shows no remorse. At the same time—and this is key—he still barters for peace with those he’s hurt. He wants what all abusive leaders want: peace without repentance and accountability.

When Saruman speaks to Theoden—whom he has sought to destroy, along with Theoden’s people—he comes across as kind, reasonable, and peaceable: “Why have you not come before as a friend? Much have I desired to see you.”21 Then he offers peace: “I say, Theoden King: shall we have peace and friendship, you and I? It is ours to command.”22 And when he talks to Gandalf, Saruman invites him up for a peacemaking conversation: “For the common good I am willing to redress the past to receive you. Will you not consult with me? Will you not come up?”23

In all these statements—as smooth and charming as they seem—notice there is no admission of guilt or wrongdoing. On the contrary, Saruman does something else abusive leaders do: he portrays himself as the real victim. He flips the script, making himself out to be the grieved party: “Despite the injuries that have been done to me, in which the men of Rohan, alas! have had some part, still I would save you.”24 And when he talks to Gandalf, he doesn’t confess his own sins but instead points out Gandalf’s sins: “You are proud and do not love advice.”25 In other words, it’s everyone else’s fault.

Thankfully, despite Saruman’s honey-tongued manipulations, Theoden and Gandalf aren’t fooled. They don’t go up into Saruman’s chambers to broker a peace deal. Theoden is quite plain: “We will have peace, when you and your works have perished. . . . You are a liar, Saruman, and a corrupter of men’s hearts.”26 Similarly, Gandalf does not accept the offer to meet: “Nay, I do not think I will come up. But listen, Saruman, for the last time! Will you not come down?”27 Instead of meeting on Saruman’s terms, Gandalf simply calls Saruman to repentance—and does so with genuineness and earnestness. But, like most abusive leaders, Saruman will not relent. Thus, Gandalf removes his office from him: “You have become a fool, ...

For defense attorneys wanting to deflect attention from the guilt of their client, this is critical advice. And one of the most common legal tactics designed to “change the lead” is to file numerous procedural objections: There was no search warrant. No Miranda rights were given. The jury did not receive proper instructions. Before long, the conversation has ceased to be about the crime and is now about the procedure. And that is exactly what the defendant wants. It is no different in abuse cases in the church. Abusive pastors often deflect the attention off what they’ve done by issuing loud complaints that proper procedures weren’t followed. So loudly do they object that they begin to look like the victims and the abused individuals appear to be the real perpetrators.

In a number of cases I studied, it was not unusual for procedural issues to become so central that the abuse itself was nearly forgotten. People were upset, but not at the pastor’s abusive behavior. Instead, they were upset about how certain procedural steps weren’t followed during his prosecution. In their minds, it was the abusive pastor who had been mistreated; he was the real victim. Often these same people express little concern over how the victims had been treated. Certainly, an accurate and fair judicial process does matter, just like in the secular courts. In any case where a person is accused, we have to make sure they are treated fairly and impartially. But we should be concerned if procedural issues become so central that the pastoral abuse itself is forgotten.

even if the accuser should have followed Matthew 18 but failed to do so, that does not mean the elder board or other governing body should overlook the sins of the abusive pastor. 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 to make the two issues equally problematic, as if failing to follow Matthew 18 is equivalent to being an abusive shepherd.

Slander is not merely saying something negative about another person. Rather, it is saying something negative while knowing it is false (or at least having no basis to think it is true). In other words, slander involves a malicious intent to harm another person’s reputation by spreading lies about them (2 Sam. 10:3; 1 Kings 21:13; Prov. 6:16–19; 16:28; Ps. 50:19–20).18

There is a rich irony, then, when the accused pastor offers a strong countercharge of slander. If he has no evidence that the accuser is lying, then the pastor himself may be guilty of slander.

Now, one might wonder what it means if there is an ecclesiastical investigation and the abusive pastor is acquitted. Does that suddenly make the original charges slanderous? Not at all. We already noted how difficult it can be to convict a pastor of spiritual abuse. All the odds are stacked against it. After all, the initial investigations of Steve Timmis, James MacDonald, and Bill Hybels all resulted in some form of exoneration. So an “acquittal” does not necessarily prove that the original charges were mistaken. It may just mean there wasn’t enough explicit evidence or perhaps that the investigative body was unable to condemn one of their own. Either way, if the victim came forward in good faith about their concerns, then no slander was involved.

Once the abusive leader is confronted over his sinful actions and called to repentance, it is often the case that his cooperative spirit will quickly disappear and he will begin to lash out at those holding him accountable.

In other words, the abusive leader is happy to offer an olive branch as long as he never has to admit any real wrongdoing. Like Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, he won’t repent of his actions but still insists on brokering “peace” with the victims. As noted in the prior chapter, this allows him to look like the better man who’s wanting to reconcile, while never owning the deep damage he’s done.

All this evidence is designed to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of the elder board or other adjudicating body. How can a man who’s accomplished so much good for the kingdom, or who’s helped so many people, be the same kind of man who would mistreat and bully members of his church? To resolve this cognitive dissonance, people default to assuming the charges can’t possibly be true. This is another way abusive pastors flip the script.

one tactic of abusive leaders is to talk about how much they’ve suffered. They will go to great lengths to describe how much pain they are in because of the unresolved “conflict” with those accusing them. They will tell how they have lost sleep, been wracked with anxiety, and are “deeply saddened” by the whole affair.28 Even Saruman wanted to talk about the “injuries that have been done to me.”29 This move is designed to engender sympathy not for the victims but for the abuser. Again, it is designed to flip the script.

They might point out how much their wife has suffered or how their kids are heartbroken and disillusioned.30 This tactic is effective precisely because we ought to feel sympathy for the family members harmed by the scandal. Often the spouses and children are unaware of how the pastor has mistreated others (though some spouses enable and defend their husband’s abusive behavior and sometimes even participate in his deceptions). Indeed, some church courts feel less inclined to prosecute such a pastor because they feel sorry for his family, which “has suffered enough.”

But sympathy for the family should not lessen the need to hold the abusive pastor accountable. It is his behavior, not that of the victims, that brought pain to his own family. Instead of blaming others, he should take responsibility for his own actions.

Frodo knows he will never be the same: “How do you go on when in your heart you begin to understand . . . there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep.”

“But,” said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, “I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.” “So, I thought too, once” [said Frodo]. “But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so others may keep them.”

Thus, the church needs to rethink the way it attracts and recruits pastoral candidates so potentially abusive leaders are weeded out from the start. This process begins with a radical reworking of the job profile for the average senior pastor position or equivalent leadership role. Perhaps we’ve been attracting the wrong kind of candidates because we’ve been looking for them.

CHARACTER OVER COMPETENCY. When churches put together a candidate profile, they need to begin by laying out a vision for what they think a senior pastor ought to be. By walking through the key texts on Christian leadership (as we did in chapter 3), they can show that they are committed to a leader who is not a bully but gentle (1 Tim. 3:3; cf. Titus 1:7); not out for shameful gain but eagerly serving (1 Peter 5:2); not domineering but setting an example (1 Peter 5:3); and not quarrelsome but kind (2 Tim. 2:24).

This candidate profile will clarify the search process because leaders prone to spiritual abuse love to talk about their competencies—what they’re good at and what they’ve accomplished.

They might also want to talk about their doctrinal positions, philosophy of ministry, or approach to preaching. But they aren’t so keen to talk about their character, especially if they are expected to embody gentleness, humility, and a servant’s heart.

If we create a pastoral profile guided by biblical principles rather than worldly ones, it will hopefully be unattractive to potentially abusive pastors.

The key issue is not only whether the church is attracted to the prospective pastor but also whether the prospective pastor is attracted to this kind of church. The latter is as important as the former when it comes to weeding out the bad apples. If potentially abusive pastors don’t like what they...

Ask for permission to contact those who worked under the candidate in their prior two jobs. This would include assistant pastors, administrative assistants, ministry coordinators, and more. These individuals, if allowed to speak confidentially, would give significantly more accurate information about the candidate’s character.

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.

Ask for permission to speak to the elders of the candidate’s prior church, and not just the ones the candidate handpicks. Their evaluation of the pastor after his departure (confidentially, of course) would be enlightening.

Ask the candidate to talk about any conflicts he’s had in ministry over the years and how those were resolved. Probe deeply about whether there are unresolved conflicts where he remains estranged from others in ministry. If the candidate casts himself as the hero in every story of conflict and everyone else is to blame because they wouldn’t submit to his authority, those are r...

TEAMWORK OVER HIERARCHY. The pastoral profile should include another desirable characteristic: a pastor who emphasizes team building and cooperation rather than one who executes his ministry in a top-down, hierarchical fashion.

the search committee should make it clear that they want a pastor who leads by consensus and by example, not by command or by coercion (1 Peter 5:3). Keep in mind that many abusive leaders take positions because of the power and control they afford. They want to know in advance that they will be the one in charge, that they will call the shots, somewhat like a head football coach who makes the big decisions and hires and fires whomever he pleases. Sure, they may give lip service to a plurality of elders and mutual submission to the brethren. But at the end of the day, they just want to be in control. Once they realize this job affords no such power, they may look elsewhere.