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

by Michael J. Kruger

Let me state the problem simply. Some of the leaders we are producing—and, if we are honest, some of the leaders we are wanting—have characteristics that are either absent from or completely opposed to the list of leadership characteristics laid out in Scripture. We have tolerated and even celebrated precisely the kinds of leaders Jesus warned us against: “Rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. . . . But it shall not be so among you” (Mark 10:42–43, emphasis mine). Such leaders embody the essence of spiritual abuse—they are domineering, authoritarian, and heavy-handed in the way they rule those under their care.

Jesus spent a remarkable amount of time warning God’s people against bad leaders—something the modern church would do well to remember.

The church can be like the nation of Israel in that we sometimes don’t want a king with the qualities God desires but prefer a king like “all the other nations have” (1 Sam. 8:5 NIV). We want leaders who are powerful, decisive, inspiring, dynamic, and get things done. Even though God warns us that such leaders might rule us harshly—he warned Israel that they would be the king’s “slaves” (1 Sam. 8:17)—we insist that we know be...

But I have come to realize this is not the case. Even the denominational tribes that we might consider the most theologically solid and the most doctrinally faithful are not immune to this problem. Rather, it is sometimes precisely these groups that are most vulnerable because they often presume from the outset that the purity of their pastor’s doctrine must somehow guarantee the purity of their pastor’s character. Perhaps a little more humility about the former may have occasioned a little more self-reflection about the latter.

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. Sometimes it takes a voice from within the ranks to point that out.

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.

To be clear, both mistakes—abdication of authority and abuse of authority—can be a problem.

Instead of protecting George Floyd, these officers protected their fellow officer.

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.

So something needs to change. For the sake of the peace and purity of the church, and for the sake of the sheep we are called to protect, we must think more carefully about the type of leaders we are producing.

At the same time, there is nothing inappropriate or unbiblical about using the term victim to describe someone who has endured serious mistreatment. The Bible recognizes that such injustices can happen to people and that God cares about such injustices (Eccl. 4:1; Ps. 9:9). One can be a victim without being only a victim.

some will take the use of the term victim as inherently prejudicial against the accused pastor. To use the term, it is argued, assumes the victim really is a victim, and we simply don’t know that. But such an objection misses the entire point of the book. I am not writing a book about judicial process—

The story of Judy Dabler reminds us that abuse can be perpetrated by women as well as men. Ironically, Dabler was the founder of two ministries—Live at Peace Ministries and Creative Conciliation—that were designed to resolve conflict in Christian organizations. However, a third-party investigation revealed that she often protected the big leaders and powerful organizations that were paying the bills, and the victims were often pressured to reach inequitable settlements.14 And if that were not enough, Dabler was also found guilty of abuse herself as she bullied and belittled staff and even sexually abused two seminary students.

In 2020 Christianity Today broke the story of how Timmis was removed from Acts 29 because of reports of abusive leadership, bullying, intimidation, heavy shepherding, and even threats of church discipline for those who resisted him.20 Those who worked with Timmis stated that when confronted with these behaviors, he not only refused to receive critical feedback but would often reverse the accusations, making the challengers out to be the real problem. They were just troublemakers, stirring up dissension in the church.

The reason for the decision was that some “saw it as a clash in leadership styles, not as indicators of abuse.”24

Most abuse cases would’ve ended right there—with the abusive leader emerging unscathed and the victims traumatized and isolated as if they were the problem. Thankfully, this case ended differently. Upon a closer examination of Timmis’s behavior, Acts 29 recognized the problem was more than a style issue; it was genuine abuse. Consequently, Timmis was dismissed.

key themes about spiritual abuse that we will revisit thr...

• Abusers typically have what appears to be a fruitful, gospel-centered ministry with a track record of success. • Abuse often happens for years, leaving a long “debris field”25 of broken relationships before it finally catches up with the abuser. • Abuse involves domineering, bullying behavior, leaving the abused in genuine fear, especially if the abuse involves threats of church discipline. • Reports of abuse rarely lead to accountability, as friends defend the abuser and the board (often made up of people much younger in age or experience) provides alternative exp...

Given the church’s propensity to mimic the culture, it’s no surprise that the previous generation has seen increasing numbers of so-called celebrity pastors. Some churches want their own franchise player—someone who is strong, dynamic, and inspiring. They want someone exceptional, a charismatic visionary who can lead the way. Consequently, such celebrity pastors are often given special privileges and entitlements, regarded as specially gifted above all others, and given a voice and authority that exceed all those around them (even if churches claim these individuals are just one voice among many).

With this sort of celebrity ministry culture, it’s no wonder that some churches have attracted narcissistic personalities to their pulpits.29 The job of the pastor is no longer just about being a faithful teacher and gentle shepherd. Now he is the centerpiece of the big show. As Chuck DeGroat observed, narcissistic leaders “are obsessively preoccupied with their reputation, influence, success, rightness, progressiveness, relevance, platform, affirmation, and power.”30 These obsessions are the perfect recipe for a bully pastor who will do almost anything to retain their empire and squash anyone who threatens it.

There is much to say about each of the individual qualities on this list, but here we simply want to note Paul Tripp’s simple yet critical observation: “What should strike every leader about this list of leader qualities, the thing that jumps off the page, is that above everything else you want in a leader, God values character.”32 In other words, in the long list, most everything is about a leader’s character; only a single characteristic pertains to giftedness (teaching). Depending on how the traits are counted, the ratio is as drastic as twelve to one.

As the Reformer Martin Bucer noted, “It is better to take those who may be lacking in eloquence and learning, but are genuinely concerned with the things of Christ.”33

When this God-given ratio is reversed and churches prefer giftedness over character, churches inevitably begin to overlook a pastor’s character flaws because he’s so successful in other areas. Leadership performance becomes the shield that protects the pastor from criticism. As Michael Jensen observed, “We frequently promote narcissists and psychopaths. Time and time again, we forgive them their arrogance. We bracket out their abuses of their power, because we feel that we need that power to get things done.”34

Imagine a church member of relatively low influence coming to the elder board and saying that the lead pastor is an abusive bully. That elder board is faced with a choice between possibly losing a dynamic, gifted pastor (and the ministry that goes with it) and losing a relatively inconsequential church member. It isn’t difficult to see which way that decision will go. Indeed, it was effectively made long before...

One further observation is in order. While some churches might prefer giftedness over character, others prefer correct doctrine over character. In some conservative evangelical churches, it’s not giftedness but doctrine that is king. If a pastor can articulate his theology, cite the Puritans, defend the truth against the l...

Pure doctrine is sometimes seen as an indicator of pure character, despite all the biblical evidence to the contrary. Thus, some people will never entertain the possibility of spiritual abuse against such a theologically sound pastor. In their minds it just isn’t possible.

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. Elders are usually part-time and have limited training, while the senior pastor can devote whatever time is needed to shore up his base of support.

But Jesus’s model for ministry is different. After James and John’s audacious request for authority, Jesus reminds the disciples that gentiles (read “unbelievers”) think this way about authority: “Rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them” (Mark 10:42, emphasis mine). In other words, Jesus knows that the default position for those in authority is to domineer and squash those they lead. Then comes the punch line: “But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (vv. 43–44, emphasis mine).

Jesus’s ministry model is paradoxical. You don’t lead by demanding your rights but by giving them up. For the bully pastor, the first will be first. But for the godly pastor, the first shall be last. As Paul Tripp put it, “Jesus reminds the disciples that they haven’t been called to lordship but to servanthood.”40

Becoming disillusioned and jaded about the church is easier than we think. We have to be careful we don’t slide, perhaps imperceptibly, from constructive critiques toward unbridled cynicism. Yet the opposite problem is a danger too. Fear over unbridled cynicism has caused some to put on the blinders, refusing to see and acknowledge the problems that are really there. We can convince ourselves that loving the church means keeping our mouths shut about its weaknesses. But what if that’s not what it means to love the church? What if loving the church means we want it to be sanctified so it reflects Christ’s beauty even more? What if loving the church means loving the sheep—whom Christ loves—and guarding them against the wolves Christ asked us to watch out for? What if loving the church means addressing the things that mar its reputation in front of a watching world? In other words, that the church is the beloved bride of Christ is not a reason to care less about her shortcomings; it’s a reason to care more.

In the Old Testament, the prophets were less concerned with defending Israel from criticisms and more concerned with calling Israel to repent of its own sins. This didn’t make them “church bashers” (or, in this case, “Israel bashers”). Judgment doesn’t begin with the world; it begins with the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). Why? John Chrysostom said it best: “Christians damage Christ’s cause more than his enemies and foes.”43 In sum, perhaps we are blind to the problem of bully pastors because, in general, the church needs to do better at noticing the “log” in its own eye (Matt. 7:1–5).44 I pray we have the courage to start by taking a long, hard look at ourselves.

I’ve spent this chapter arguing not only that spiritual abuse is a serious problem in the church but also that several factors have led us to this point. These factors include (1) a celebrity pastor culture that attracts and rewards narcissistic personalities; (2) a model of pastoral ministry that values gifts or doctrine over character; (3) a lack of substantive, meaningful accountability from the elders or boards overseeing the pastor; (4) a profound misunderstanding of how Jesus wants leaders to wield their authority; and (5) a posture of defensiveness that would rather litigate criticisms than heed the prophetic warnings coming our way.

Even so, if we are on a quest to find the perfect word to describe something, we may find that our journey never ends. Rarely does a word (or set of words) say everything we want it to say about something. It is always limited in some fashion.

we are not talking just about emotional or psychological abuse, though there is undoubtedly a significant degree of overlap.3 The main difference is that spiritual abuse involves a person who has an ecclesiastical or spiritual authority over the victim, whereas emotional abuse can happen outside such a context (for example, in the workplace).

The report reviews a number of legal cases where the term spiritual abuse is being applied (wrongly) to legitimate church functions. For example, if a pastor declares certain controversial behaviors to be sinful (for example, homosexuality), then some have insisted this is a form of spiritual abuse. Thus, according to the report, the term spiritual abuse should be avoided because it singles out religious contexts as the key factor in abuse, inadvertently giving ammunition to those who are eager to impugn the theology or activities of the church. Instead, we should just use terms like emotional or psychological abuse to avoid these complications.

I am not convinced it should be abandoned entirely. For one thing, my primary concern here is not protecting the church legally or politically (though I do think that matters) but protecting the church spiritually. And the term spiritual abuse rightly highlights the core reason this abuse is so devastating to Christians—namely, because it was perpetrated by the very pastor (or elder board) who was supposed to protect them.6 It is that dynamic that then leads to disillusionment and distrust of the church, and perhaps Christianity as a whole.

it does matter that the abuse happened in a spiritual context. To leave that factor out is to miss the whole point. If a person is abused emotionally by their boss at work, that is materially different from being abused by their pastor. And I think it’s appropriate to use terminology that captures that difference.

James Bannerman’s classic, The Church of Christ, originally published in 1868, uses terms like spiritual tyranny and spiritual oppression to refer to a pastor’s heavy-handed leadership—what we would now call spiritual abuse.7 I

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

The hallmark of spiritual abuse is that it involves one person with ecclesiastical or spiritual authority over another. Without that authority, you might have other forms of church conflict—where one person mistreats another person—but you don’t have spiritual abuse. In other words, the abuse in view here happens downward.

Johnson and VanVonderen argue, “Spiritual abuse can occur when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person.”11 Wehr refers to this dominating behavior as “pious coercion.”12

More than a century earlier, Matthew Henry lamented that “church-power and church-censures are often abused.”14 He argued that God’s Word forbids pastors who exhibit “tyranny and abuse of power . . . [Because] so hard is it for vain men, even good men, to have such authority, and not to be puffed up with it, and do more hurt than good with it, that our Lord Jesus saw fit wholly to banish it out of his church.”15

the Bible affirms the proper role of authorities—in the church and in the world. The Bible is not anti-authority, nor does it try to extinguish all such distinctions. Rather, the reason spiritual abuse is a real possibility is because spiritual authority is a real category. Some Christians have attempted to solve the problem of spiritual abuse by eliminating all authorities in the church. If we can flatten out all distinctions, then perhaps we can eliminate abuse of authority.

As we shall explore further in chapter 3, the Bible doesn’t solve abusive authority by eliminating all authority. Rather, in light of the fallen nature of humanity, the Bible repeatedly warns against the misuse of that authority (Matt. 20:25; 1 Tim. 3:3; 1 Peter 5:3). Unfortunately, some churches miss these repeated warnings. They may be so intent on defending the legitimacy of their authority that they devote little time to exploring its possible abuses.

abusers often have multiple layers of authority. For example, if a pastor abuses a member of his staff, then he is operating from two positions of authority: he is that person’s pastor and boss. And if the staff member is female, some pastors may wrongly exploit an additional male-female dynamic as yet another level of perceived authority (even though women are not called to submit to men just because they’re men).

These churches often have a severe top-down male authority structure that is not to be questioned or challenged, especially by women. These church cultures create an ideal environment for spiritual abuse. In a case I studied from a church in the Southwest, the abusive pastor tried to suppress a woman’s concerns to the elder board by using passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, where it says women should be silent in church—an appalling and irresponsible application of that passage.

If one member of the church makes derogatory remarks to another member, the remarks can be very painful. But they lack the weight of an authoritative office behind them.

In contrast, if a pastor makes precisely the same remarks, it can be crushing in a different way. It can make a person doubt what God thinks of them (after all, doesn’t this leader represent God in some way?), it can make them fearful of losing their job (if they are on staff), it can make them wonder whether this leader might invoke church discipline against them (especially if there is a track record of such retaliations), and it can cause concern that this leader is speaking negatively about them to other church members (especially if the pastor regularly makes negative remarks about others).

abuse survivors routinely testify that the most devastating part of their experience is the way the abusive pastor used Scripture against them.16 Passages from the Bible are used to attack, demean, and control them, and those passages bear extra weight on the lips of God’s appointed leader. Many victims testify that even many years l...

It is also not unusual for abusive pastors to attack their victims from the pulpit. In a testimony I received about a church in the Northeast, the abusive pastor used his sermons to target individuals in the congregation, even though the congregation as a whole was unaware...