Renewing our minds on clergy abuse

Putting the survivors first because they are the church

As an educator, I’ve come to understand that a student’s ability to learn is governed in part by their mindset regarding their intelligence, abilities, and talents. Those who learn best are the ones who believe these traits are malleable and can change and grow, while those who struggle believe they are immutable and can’t be altered. This concept applies to our maturity and wholeness as Christians, and I see evidence of both mindsets regarding sexual abuse in American Christendom.

Over the past few years, as an elder in my church and a leader of students in a university setting, I have grown personally in my awareness of sexual abuse and the power dynamic at play in its occurrence. I credit many personal friends, some engaged in the #ChurchToo movement as advocates for sexual abuse victims and others who have been victims themselves, for this heightened awareness.

However, I have witnessed a fixed mindset in many Christians regarding this highly charged topic, and I want to spotlight this calcified thinking in the hope that we will, as Paul declares in Romans 12:2, “not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of” our minds.  

I see four fixed mindsets in need of release:

1. Prioritizing the Christian institution over the individual Christian

2. Quick and complete restoration of a fallen Christian leader to a position of authority

3. The failure to acknowledge the power of temptation before restoring a fallen Christian leader

4. Wrongheaded attitudes about abuse, authority, and agency

The church is the people, not the institution

Those who elevate the preservation of the institution, the man-made organizations and edifices adorned with Christian phrases and symbology, as paramount over the well-being of the victims are missing the critical point that the people, the called-out assembly of believers, God’s ekklesia, are the church, not the ecclesiastical, academic or cultural shells we have created to house them.

When we refuse to hear the cries of the abused and humiliate and even excommunicate them, we directly inflict harm on the church and our Christian institutions. This fixed mindset within Christendom to defend the institution at the cost of the individual extends to victims of clergy abuse, adultery, or sexual, physical, or emotional abuse within the assembly of believers, and all dishonor the church, God’s beloved people.

Moreover, our haughty and accusatory response to sexual abuse victims is an act of abuse in and of itself. Sexual abuse victims in Christendom are, from my observations, thrice abused, first by the individual, then by the institution that they believed to be their sanctuary, and finally by the larger Christian community that seeks to silence or shame them lest their transparency dishonors the institution in the eyes of the world. They fail to realize that by refusing to show these precious, shattered souls the love and grace of Jesus Christ, we have already discredited ourselves before a world that is all too familiar with what sin looks like and is watching us to see something different, something otherworldly, from us. Jesus sought to set us apart from the world when he declared:

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35).

Far too often, our response to sexual abuse victims lacks love.

Rapid restoration and the mockery of grace

There is a fourth way clergy abuse victims, in particular, are abused. That is when their abusers are exposed, seemingly held accountable, yet emerge not long afterward fully restored to their positions of privilege and authority. Meanwhile, their victims never regain what was taken from them – their trust, mental and emotional health, the affirmation and protection of a loving community, their reputations, and their faith. Too many Christian leaders caught in acts of abuse are quickly restored to their high perch over the flock, usually because they are gifted teachers or charismatic leaders. However, Christ-following leaders are not defined by their talents but by their character. Even the New Testament is explicit about character as a must for those who seek to lead other Christians, and Jesus’ brother James, leader of the first church in Jerusalem, is direct when he declares:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. ~ James 3:1

Leaders in churches and Christian institutions are held to a higher standard than other Christians because their words and actions carry greater weight, and their failures in character have repercussions not only for their lives and the lives of their family members but for whole congregations and all of Christianity. When a Christian leader falls, all Christians fall with them:

The immorality of leaders has been a reality among God’s people for as long as God has had a people. The temptations for leaders are as real as they are for the rest of us, but the consequences are more severe. When a leader falls, all are punished. ~ Marshall Segal, Christian author and writer

Character is not developed overnight, and weaknesses are not corrected in months or a year, nor is the damage from acts perpetrated by people with such weaknesses. To rush someone back into the role that enabled them to abuse cheapens the Lord’s great gifts of forgiveness, grace, and restoration, which were acquired at an inestimable cost, and mock His sacrificial love for us. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote extensively on “cheap grace,” which he said is “represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost!”

Many argue that the leaders of our Christian institutions are just as deserving of forgiveness, grace, and restoration as any member of God’s ekklesia, and you will get no argument from me. All who have repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are under the inexhaustible and permanent forgiveness of sins past, present, and future granted by His death, burial, and resurrection, once and for all, and never to be revoked. It’s an impossible concept to explain to a non-believer, and I’d be lying if I said I understood it even after living most of my life as a Christian. “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8), and anyone who claims knowledge of the Lord or His intentions outside of what He has chosen to reveal to us is either fearful of what they don’t know or remaking the Lord in their image. But that is a topic for another time.

Paul gives us the parameters for restoration, stating we should be gentle and bear the fallen one’s burdens as our own. Moreover, he admonishes us to approach the process not with haughtiness or arrogance borne out of a sense of superiority because we haven’t fallen in that manner, but with humility regarding our own weaknesses and susceptibility to temptation:

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. ~ Galatians 6:1-2

However, there is no mandate in Scripture that a fallen Christian leader must be restored to their previous position of power and influence over other Christians. Speaking to a convocation of seminary students, Gateway Seminary president Jeffrey Iorg stated:

The passage [Galatians 6:1-2] calls for restoring fallen brothers and sisters to Christian fellowship, not pastoral leadership. This is an important distinction…While repentant pastors should be welcomed into fellowship and supported as they establish new life patterns, there is no obligation to return them to any leadership role.

Dr. Iorg goes on to correct the misapplication of a Biblical account often cited when fallen leaders are restored to authority over others:

David was a political and military leader – not a pastor…The standards for a pastor of a local church are higher than anything we expect of political/military office holders – even those in the Bible.

He echoes the warning from James that Christian leadership is unique and judged differently. The impact of one pastor’s failures has consequences for the office itself, not just the individual. Therefore, he rejects the rapid restoration of pastors who commit clergy abuse:

This kind of pseudo-restoration demeans the pastoral office and communicates a powerful message about the church’s willingness to tolerate abuse of power in ministerial relationships.

Failure to acknowledge power as a temptation

One of the reasons I believe we are too quick to restore pastors to leadership is that when it comes to pastors and Christian leaders, we neglect the fundamental teachings of the Bible on temptation. We can’t feign ignorance of how temptation should inform our decisions because we apply those teachings in other church-related situations.

The Bible is clear about the origins of temptation and the appropriate response to it. Temptation is not of God, for God is neither tempted nor a tempter (James 1:13), but the tempter and the temptation are alluring (2 Corinthians 11:14), and we will succumb if we dwell on them because they take direct aim at the desires of our flesh (Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38; Romans 7:21; James 1:13-14). Therefore, the best response to temptation is to flee (Proverbs 4:14-15; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22), and God always provides a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13).

There is another teaching about temptation directed at Christians and their treatment of fellow believers. If we are aware of a Christian’s area of struggle, we are commanded not to put them in a situation where they can be tempted (Romans 14:13; Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:3). I have witnessed this in practice in many churches; we are careful about who we place in specific ministries based on our knowledge of their weaknesses. We wouldn’t place a former child sex offender who has been restored to the fellowship of believers in the children’s ministry, nor would we put someone tempted by money in charge of the church’s finances.

However, when it comes to Christian leaders, we seem to abandon prudence, maybe because their talent or charisma hypnotizes us. I also think we misdiagnose the illness when it comes to clergy abuse. Their sinful behavior may be manifested in sex, flirtation or seduction, anger, physical violence, or some other aberrant behavior, but the temptation that compels them to sin is power and control.

Clergy abuse is the misuse of power or influence to assert control over a person or persons under their authority for selfish gain. President Abraham Lincoln famously said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Why are we so quick to place someone who has failed this test of character back in charge? By doing so, we are creating a stumbling block for the pastor and showing total disregard for their past victims and current congregation.

Defining abuse, authority, and agency

There is one other fixed mindset that needs to be broken in the church and society as a whole, and that is how we define abuse, authority, and agency. We don’t seem to have a problem identifying incidents of abuse against children. Since practically everyone has authority over children, and they legally have no agency due to their lack of maturity and inability to understand the consequences of their actions, our response to child abuse is usually swift and sure.

Society tends to take a different view on abuse, authority, and agency once a person reaches adulthood. Setting aside for the moment that the timeline when one reaches adulthood is defined in legal terms and may not reflect the actual mental capacity of an individual, we tend to assume adults have complete agency and can deal with abusive situations by resisting or running from them. We also assume that abuse is primarily physical, or if it’s emotional, it must be inflicted aggressively or violently. Finally, we limit the scope of authority over adults to those with legal or contractual authority over us, like a guardian, employer, or the sole or primary provider in a domestic setting. It restricts authority to those who can give or take away food, shelter, clothing, health care, or the means to acquire these tangible goods. These definitions severely limit our perceptions of abuse, the people who commit abuse, and the ability of the abused to resist.

Therefore, when a pastor takes advantage of their exalted position to engage in sexual relations with an adult member of their congregation, we tend to call it an affair. However, the Bible is clear that pastors have authority over their congregations:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

This passage of Scripture declares that the congregation has been entrusted to the leader by the Lord, who asks them to submit to that leader’s authority because he is acting on the Lord’s behalf. Therefore, the leader is accountable to Him for how they conduct themselves in the stewardship of His church. The New Living Translation of Hebrews 13:17 puts it plainly; “Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God.”

When Paul bade farewell to the elders of the church at Ephesus, he laid out the duties before them, chief among them the shepherding of the flock:

Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Indeed, the God-granted authority of a church leader over his congregation and God’s command for the congregants to submit to that authority create a power differential as significant as any recognized by the secular world. Trust is fundamental to the relationship between the Lord and the pastor and the pastor and the congregation; that trust ensures that the pastor will lead with integrity and the congregants can be vulnerable and transparent as they submit to the wisdom and discernment of the leader, particularly in times of stress or emotional need.

The power dynamic between clergy and congregant means that inappropriate or intimate contact between them is an abuse of the clergy’s positional authority and their awareness of the vulnerability or dependence of the congregant. Society has become accustomed to calling these breaches of trust and ethics “affairs” or “moral mistakes,” but these terms are intended to relieve the person who abused their authority of primary responsibility and place the weight on the one abused because they imply an act of consent. Whether viewed through a legal, ethical, or moral lens, meaningful consent is impossible without equality between the two people involved.

The late Dr. Diana Garland of Baylor University’s Diana R. Garland School of Social Work characterized the lack of meaningful consent in the pastor/congregant relationship:

The reality of clergy sexual abuse of adults, usually women, is breaking on congregations and church denominations. It is a more difficult issue to understand than the abuse of children because there is the assumption that if both are adults and there is no physical coercion, then the relationship is consensual. In fact, however, when persons with power—social workers, counselors, pastors, seminary professors and administrators, pastoral and clinical supervisors, and religious employers—attempt to seduce into sexual relationships those over whom they have power, the relationship is not consensual.

Do not conform but transform

The secular world is ahead of the church in defining abuse, authority, and agency when a power differential exists between two adults. This is a sad state of affairs because the early church spoke unequivocally of the power dynamic between their leaders and the flock. They were clear about the divine authority granted to the leader, the trust and vulnerability of the flock submitted to them by divine command, and the mandate upon the leader to conduct himself in a manner accountable to the Lord. This violation of trust drives the victims and their families from the church and, far too often, from their faith, and it sullies the bride of Christ before a watching and cynical world. Church leaders like me need to speak up when we see power abused by other leaders to the detriment of the tender souls entrusted to them by Jesus Christ. Perhaps more importantly, as we allow the Scriptures to renew our minds and transform us on this topic, we must teach our congregations to look anew at their fixed mindsets as well.