More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
And because I love the church—Christ’s own bride—I am now compelled to do something about it.
Such leaders embody the essence of spiritual abuse—they are domineering, authoritarian, and heavy-handed in the way they rule those under their care.
Church leaders are the primary audience because they are the ones who can prevent spiritual abuse. They can stop bully pastors.
While most pastors are gentle, kind, and patient, others have a proverbial knee on the neck of their sheep. They’ve been doing it for years with little or no consequences. And despite the pleas of the people, other pastors and elders sometimes stand by and let it happen. They may even defend the bully pastor. In sum, the problem is not just the abuse. It’s also the larger context that allows it to continue unchallenged.
But there’s a bigger issue when it comes to accountability: most elder boards or leadership boards are not composed of the type of leaders who will stand up to narcissistic bully pastors. Narcissists are remarkably good at forming alliances, building a network of supporters, and laying the groundwork for a future alienation of perceived enemies. They often groom their supporters through flattery, promises, and other forms of ingratiation.35 Most elder boards aren’t prepared for this level of coordinated manipulation.
Maybe we have hired men more eager to call down thunder than to don the servant’s towel and wash people’s feet.
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.
In his mind, he is so significant to the work of the kingdom, so important, so valuable that he feels justified in doing nearly anything to keep that ministry on track. If people get run over, then that’s because they got in the way of the great kingdom work he’s doing—collateral damage, so to speak. In a sick, twisted way, he is crushing people for the glory of God.
Even so, if the lead pastor seems to be at the center of nearly every conflict, with a “debris field” of broken relationships in his wake, then a more thorough investigation is warranted
Those who prop up bad leaders and turn a blind eye to their abusive behavior will someday have to give an account of their own actions.
As John Calvin put it, “Christ appoints pastors of His Church, not to rule, but to serve.”17
The minister of Christ’s church is not to be a person who accomplishes goals by manipulation or intimidation or with a demanding spirit. In other words, a spiritually abusive person is disqualified from ministry.
If a person is not gentle and lowly, but instead a bully and arrogant, then he should not be a pastor.
If someone is motivated to protect their power and authority, then that naturally leads to being willing to domineer their flocks.
When the rare church finally removes a pastor for abuse, that just leads to the next questions: Why did it take you so long to act? Why did you tolerate this behavior for twenty-five years?
“Often, before the narcissistic pastor is exposed publicly, there are years of painful smaller encounters that are covered up.”
People don’t see the overall pattern because the victims of abuse don’t speak out for fear of reprisal. They just leave, and the abusive pastor remains.
Also, abusive pastors often have unresolved conflict. They are typically estranged from many of the people they used to work with.
But they, like all humans, default to the idea that the person in front of them is telling the truth, especially if that person has a long track record of seemingly faithful ministry.
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?
First, victims should not be asked to meet with an abusive pastor unless he has been held accountable.
Second, victims should not meet with an abusive pastor unless he is genuinely repentant.
It’s not enough that the abusive pastor merely claims to be repentant. He must demonstrate repentance to a governing body that is able to evaluate it properly.
Third, victims should not meet with an abusive pastor until they are emotionally and spiritually ready.
He wants what all abusive leaders want: peace without repentance and accountability.
Spiritual abuse is allowed to continue because willing supporters protect and enable that 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.
Though they may never experience the beauty of church again in the same way, perhaps their actions have preserved the church so others can.
“Consider what it communicates to the watching victims when they see people gathering around the people who wounded them—to see them giving money to the institution, using their services, applauding their efforts, and endorsing their legitimacy.”
“Sometimes supporting the victim means immediately withdrawing support from those who have yet to speak the truth about the abuse and refuse to let the light shine.”
The church’s biggest challenge wasn’t a secular world attacking it from the outside, but rather moral corruption arising from the inside.
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.
This should be such an obvious step.
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.
an abusive leader often flourishes in situations where the people who hold him accountable are either his close friends or yes-men who are unable to stand up to him.
Whichever way it is done, women’s voices can prevent the church leadership from becoming overly insular and ingrown.
Or, as Matt Smethurst said, “If you are going to peer at others, become an expert in the evidences of grace you spot in their lives.”
The answer to the abusive pastor was there all the time. It is the cross of Christ.
