Abuse in the Church

In my last post, I examined the way inner psychological wounds manifest themselves in the behaviour of male church leaders. This operates generally in a worship of power, and abusive dominance, especially towards females.

As I re-read it, however, I realised it could be taken the wrong way. I was trying to understand some of the causes of such abuse, but let me make it clear: to understand is not to condone, or excuse. We need to combine an understanding mindset, with robust policies, procedures, and penalties, towards transgressions, by leaders. 

As Paul said, those who teach, and lead, will be judged more severely. As leaders, we need to take responsibility for our words and actions. For myself, I have sometimes erupted in anger, and had to repent and apologise afterwards. It is important to model grace-filled acknowledgement of sin, as examples to others. Only such openness can cut the chain of offending.

This also means being accountable to others, including in the church we lead. There needs to be people, who are charged with the role of challenging and correcting the senior pastor. There needs therefore to be ways of disciplining, and even of removal from office.

For this, membership of a wider body will be essential, to exercise authority over the local church. Independent churches, while instances of the creativity of the Spirit, are also notoriously unaccountable. As soon as a church is established, if not before, it need to join some denomination, network of stream, however informal.

As for restoration, that depends on the nature of the offence. In some cases, the betrayal of trust will be so great, a pastor cannot return to lead that church again, and perhaps never lead any other church. One distinction which needs to be take into account is whether their abuse has been a regular pattern of activity, requiring careful planning over time, as in the case of Ravi Zacharias; or if it was a one-off surrender to sin. In both cases, it needs to be taken seriously, but the risk in future will be different.

This means we also have to take seriously accusations against leaders. There is, of course, a danger that false charges will be levelled. But, in my experience, this is rarely the case; and where it is, there may be other abuses of abuses of authority, which the accuser is reacting against, but feels powerless to do anything about, and so makes up fake allegations.

The first principle may not be to absolutely believe everything said, but certainly to treat it as credible, believable, possible. If there is one thing we have learned from recent celebrity scandals, it is that anyone, even the most saintly, can misuse his authority. Hence, there needs to be a publicly known system of reporting, that is both safe and secret, for victim-survivors.

And of course, where it is a legal matter, a crime, as in rape of child abuse, we must report it t the relevant authorities, and not try to deal with it internally. Sometimes church people think it will give the church a bad reputation, if it becomes public; but in my experience, it is the reverse: churches which report cases, gain a good reputation with the authorities, because they become known as groups which are safe places and which take the requisite action to deal with problems

Is there, however, something which produces these events? Is there something in the theology or churchmanship? I don’t think so. We know the paedophilia committed by Catholic priests. But although, celibacy plays a role in producing sexual prostration and emotional loneliness, we also witness abuse by Protestant married clergy.

It might be thought that contemplative spirituality could provide a safeguard, and personal awareness. But the revelations about Jean Vanier, also after his death, put paid to that. Among conservative reformed evangelicals, the EA report on Jonathan Edwards exposed physical and sexual abuse on a large scale. Here the denial of emotional awareness, in favour of a cerebral doctrinal form of faith, allied to an upper class, public school ethos, enabled the abuse to thrive.

Charismatic leaders, both personally charismatic and spiritually Pentecostal, can also misuse their anointing, to both dominate decision-making by claiming superior revelation, and sexually entice women into their seductive orbit. I know one church, which fell apart after their founder was exposed to have had several affairs.

Some might also suppose that this errant behaviour is the product of conservative, authoritatarian theology and spirituality. However, the phenomenon of the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS) in the 1990s disproves this. Influenced by the writings of Matthew Fox, they entered into New Age creation spirituality and a more liberal theology. Nevertheless, their leader, Chris Brain, successfully exploited women in his congregation, including a friend of mine.

The one common element in all these situations, is the unchallenged power of a man – and yes, I mean a male; are there any examples of abuse by women leaders in churches? There a phrase, much mocked on the Right, as a snowflake weediness, but is an accurate description of what we have – and that is ‘toxic masculinity’.

There is a deep wound in the masculine heart, and it expresses itself in great sin. We act out of our own deepest pain, to try and heal ourselves. Of course, it doesn’t work. It merely perpetuates the hurt and in turn hurts others, so that the problem travels down the years, characterising a hole movement. All this is unconscious, we are not aware of what we’re doing. This behaviour, sanctioned by religious teachings, seems to operate cross-culturally, throughout the world.

In the Fall, male dominance and female subservience are described as joint symptoms of this departure from God’s original order of partnership and equality between the sexes. Sadly, it has also penetrated the hierarchies of our ecclesial structures as well. Some women even seek out these abusive relationships, in a form of spiritual co-dependence, due to their own psychological wounds.

It needs a patient parallel work of simultaneous healing and challenge. That healing and challenge is important for men, but also for our sisters. To heal the betrayal they have experienced, but also challenge them too, to rise up, into their worth and dignity as people created in the image of God, and filled with his Spirit.

Inevitably, such a process must lead to much tension within the church, as structures change, and women are elevated to the position they should hold as equals in the new creation. The resistance of historically entrenched male power will have to overcome, and that will require brave voices, male as well as female to prophetically challenge these place-holders who defend the abusers. Because it is not just about individuals, who are guilty, but about systems and structures, which authorise and defend the abuse of power. This is the tsk before us.