No matter what we may say to challenge or correct this impression, they know what they know, and nothing may shake their conclusion. We need to take seriously the experience of those who have been mistreated by the church, which ought to have been representing the love of Christ, but ended up doing the work of satan; instead of caring for the sheep, ruling them harshly and brutally (Ezek. 34).
Perhaps belatedly, I have come to realise that this is a ‘thing’.
‘Church hurt’ is a recognised phenomenon, which we need to take seriously, and
offer healing for. And the number seem to be rising, at least among those
willing today to come forth and voice their pain. We need to have forums for
them to speak and heard. Some may never return to any form of church, but I
believe the very experience of being listened to may provide a measure of
healing for their souls. However, I do not want to portray myself as perfect in this matter. There have been times when I have not exercised my authority correctly as a pastor, and I too need to repent and change. Sin goes too deep to excuse lightly, in others or ourselves.
Here are a few of the different categories of Church Hurt, which I can think of; though I am sure there are others I haven’t considered:
Sexual Exploitation: This seems to be common. A leader will develop a close relationship with a church member, which breeches bounds of appropriateness. Perhaps a leader is looking for emotional support, which then goes too far. But I know of cases, where the pastor is a conscious predator, and manipulates a vulnerable person, to have sex; sometimes even claiming that God has told them this is necessary. In one case, when a girl became pregnant, the abuser told her it was then God’s will for her to have an abortion. King David is an example of how power led a leader to rape and abuse a woman (2 Sa. 11). But Jesus is clear that those who exploit people in their care will be severely judged (Mt. 18.6).
Power Domination: Through a powerful personality, commonly and misleadingly called ‘charismatic’ (not the Gifts of the Spirit, but often confused with them), a leader can control and dominate people, the collective body of the church, and sometimes other leaders. This may be to impose a direction on the church, which coincides with the leaders wishes, as if is now the will of God. Claims of direct revelation from God, while this does occur, can be used as a cloak for personal preferences. Government is then through force not persuasion. Other leaders may also perform in this way, in which case there may also be a church culture of abuse. Anger and temper flare-ups are sins we need to deal with, but they may become a regular pattern of controlling people. There is of course a correct respect and submission to leaders (He. 13.7), but this does excuse abuse. In contrast are the requirements of Biblical leaders (Tit. 1.5-9).
Over-Discipling: Here there can be interference in every detail of a Christian’s life, under the guise of shepherding or concern for holiness and sanctification. This may take an informal form, or can exhibit a controlling use of the Gift of Prophecy, to gain access to someone’s confidence. Sometimes it is part of a systematic procedure of supposed pastoral care, through one-to-one meetings, or small groups, where details of private life are shared, in such a way as to assert control over all decisions, even where these do not concern moral questions, but may involve job choices, or who to date. Again, support for our journey into holiness is important, especially in a culture where alternative values are catchised into us through all media; but not when it transitions to this control over the whole of life. The manner in which such pastoral guidance is given, however, needs to be respectful and gentle (1 Pe. 5.1-4).
Financial Control: Proper concern over church finances can become extended to insisting on knowledge of a person’s entire financial affairs, in order to ensure ‘proper’ tithing’. Or, some forms of ‘prosperity teaching’ leads people into debt, in order to reap monetary rewards. In many cases, the only person who gets rich seems to be pastor. People need to be free to decide how much they give to their church (there is an obligation to support the church where they receive teaching and pastoral care). The only reaping, or reward, which they should be promised, however, is that they are furthering the gospel, pleasing God, and that they will reap by always having enough to give, and continue in generosity (2 Co. 8 & 9). Certainly there is no justification for the shepherds fleecing the sheep in order to get rich (1 Pe. 5.2).
Moralistic Legalism: Although we are justified by grace, received through faith, there is still an expectation that faith should result in a changed life. But, legalism, judgmentalism have no place in church life. There is a role for correcting and challenging sin (Jas. 5.19), especially among church members who have deliberately submitted themselves to accountability within the fellowship (1 Co. 5.12). This is not the same, however, as an attitude of judgmentalism, which Jesus condemns (Mt. 7.1-2). At present, the particular sins which are often called out, are sexual sins, rather than others; so that gluttony, for example, does not rate the same condemnation as fornication. In practice, though, it is homosexuality, which is singled out as the worst sin, and which receives the severest censure, in practice. Although it is often said that all sins are equal in importance (Jas. 2.9-11), there is some kind of hierarchy in seriousness (Mt. 12.31; 1 Jn. 5.16-17). Furthermore, sexual sin may have more serious spiritual consequences in the life of the believer (1 Co. 6.12-20). Nevertheless, double standards should not prevail in church, whereby different sins and different categories of person are judged differently.
Church Discipline: One example of church discipline is of sexual sin (1 Co. 5). Now, while some churches do not practise any discipline, this is clearly part of Christ’s intention for the church (Mt. 18.15-18). Nevertheless, the aim of such discipline is eventual restoration (2 Co. 2.5-11). As for the punishment of shunning: this is at best contentious. Jesus’ treatment of church discipline does recommend treating unrepentant sinners like ‘tax-collectors and sinners’ (Mt. 18.17); but Jesus’ own approach to these social categories was to pursue them, with dinner dates, far from avoiding them. Paul’s injunction to avoid sinful people is aimed at protecting the believer, and the church, from harmful influences (Eph. 5.3-11; 2 Ti. 3.1; Tit. 3.10). In practice, however, church discipline and moralism are often used to control certain classes of people, to make them conform to the church expectations, whether Biblically founded or not. Accusations of witchcraft in some communities are ways to scapegoat individuals and families who do not fit in. In particular today, LGBTQ people frequently experience rejection by families and congregations, as if this sin is indeed the worst possible.
This list is not exhaustive. In addition, overlain is the additional abuse experienced by people of colour, and women, in church, which adds a whole other dimension, and intensifies the abuse I’ve listed here. To deal with this would entail an entire other blogpost. So I don’t want readers to thin I am ignoring this. People who know me are aware that I have been a committed anti-racist throughout my ministry.
It is important, however, not to idealise the church. Each church is composed of sinners, and its structures or procedures will never be perfect. Sin may affect a church, through individuals, the leaders, or the whole church culture. Furthermore, when I talked with a non-christian psychologist friend of mine about this, he commented that in all institutions, not only the church, where power is exercised, there is danger of abuse. However, such sociological realism does not mean ignoring sin and mistreatment by a church or its leaders. Nor does it mean ignoring the ill-treatment of each other by believers. Although serious, this really needs to be covered in another blogpost.
We can contrast abusive behaviours by pastors, with the example of Jesus, who as the Good Shepherd, is a model of pastoral-shepherding ministry (Jn. 10.11), and tends the vulnerable rather than exploiting them (Isa. 40.11). He ministers healing for broken hearts (Isa. 61.1-3; Lk. 4.18-19), not further damaging those already hurt by life (Isa. 42.3; Mt. 12.20). He comes in humility and gentleness, bringing rest and peace to others (Mt. 11.28-30; Jn. 6.35). He goes on to actually condemn the religious leaders of his own day, who used their authority to oppress their followers (Mt. 23).
Paul echoes this in his preconditions for church leaders (Tit. 3.1-3), and insists that he does
not abuse his position to gain advantages (1
Co. 9.1-23). Much of the contemporary emphasis on strong leadership derives
more from cultural models than Scripture: e.g. traditional leadership,
political-military or business models. Of course the same is true of modern
consensual or democratic leadership models, which copy more laissez faire
customs. Each is vulnerable to mistakes. But that is not the problem here.Similarly, while there is sometimes abuse of pastors, by the congregation, that is not the focus of this blogpost; nor do I want to give leaders any easy get-out clause here.
Of course, it is possible that people who have been hurt by their experience of church, may cultivate their own resentment and bitterness (He. 12.15). But to blame them for this, is to ignore the event(s) which may have led to their pain. This must be addressed first, before any forgiveness can be given. And certainly we should not demand that survivors have to forgive, out of Christian obedience, while the sin is not dealt with. Still less, can we offer healing prayer, because anyone acting as a leader, even if not guilty of church abuse, still stands in for, or presents that same institution and office which perpetrated the office, and the abuse will thereby be continued and strengthened.
Biblical language can be used in a patriarchal and oppressive structure, to make people conform and submit to abusive behaviours. This was not Jesus’ intention, but to model a radically subversive, non-violent resistance to Roman Imperial rule: as in turning the other cheek and walking an extra mile. It’s in this context, of colonial occupation, that his comments on enemy-loving must be understood (Mt. 5.38-45). Similarly, Jesus’ remarks about forgiveness, even among the covenant community (Mt. 8.21; Mk. 11.25) do not abrogate the responsibility of Israel’s shepherds to care for the flock.
Christ’s recommendation to deny ourself (Mt. 16.24) first requires us to truly know our self, as we are, before denying our self, in order to serve others; in other words, to resist the destruction of the self, which occurs under conditions of abuse. His great command to love our neighbour as we love ourselves (Mk. 12.31), likewise means we do first need to love and value ourselves. Pauls’ note that we should less our persecutors applies to just this, those who persecute us for our faith in him (Ro. 12.14), not random deliberate acts of cruelty.
It is sometimes said that we should stand up for the rights of others, not for our own; as if this amounts to some kind of self-centredness. We can see the contrary of this, in the protests of Greek-speaking widows caused a fuss, by complaining about their exclusion from the distribution of food (Ac. 6.1). Jesus himelf, while being destined to die on the cross for our sins, refused to be killed in any other form (Lk. 4.30), and actively protested, when he was mistreated during his trial (Jn. 18.22-23).
At times, it may seem as if the person objecting is causing trouble in the church, but it is the person perpetrating the injustice who is the troublemaker, and needs to be confronted (1 Kg. 18.7). The trouble, however, with requiring the ‘victim’ to go alone to the abuser directly, in apparent obedience to Jesus’ words (Mt. 18.15), is the power imbalance, and the very real danger of further physical harm. So, we need to ensure others share, and carry their burdens, to ensure proper procedures and safeguarding occur (Gal. 6.2). it is in this sense that Peter calls women the ‘weaker sex’ (1 Pe. 3.7); not physically, but in terms of their respective positions socially and politically – a hierarchy which the church is mean to subvert.
There needs to be accountability and punishment for offenders (see an earlier blogpost - http://jeremiadstevelatham.blogspot.com/2021/04/abuse-in-church.html ). Sometimes leaders do act out of their own inner pain, and needs (which I wrote about earlier - http://jeremiadstevelatham.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-emotional-wounds-of-leaders.html). But this is no excuse, and cannot protect them from consequences. James is clear that leaders will be judged more severely (Jas. 3.1), and Jude describes graphically the effects their behaviour has on the church and its members (Jd. 3-16).
Where can we go with that?
This piece has mainly explored the case for dealing with church hurt as a serious matter, against the usual trend to seemingly ignore or dismiss it. Therefore, I haven’t addressed the very real emotional reality of this for survivors. I apologise for that: if the paper seems somewhat unfeeling. For the church, or church networks and denominations, perhaps a process of listening, acknowledging the hurt, may be the first step towards such inner healing, provided it is done in a safe space, by people willing to attend to others’ pain, without judgment (Jas. 1.19-27).
I was wondering whether an open meeting for people to talk would be helpful; but perhaps it would too vulnerable for individuals to do so. But get in touch if you think this would be a useful exercise. Also at a more personal level, if anyone wants to contact me, with their stories of their experiences, I am willing to listen. I am not in any position of denomination influence, but if my attention and prayer can be of help, please let me know - Steve.f.latham@gmail.com .
But I am not an expert, just a local jobbing pastor. So I refer you to Diane Langberg, who really is an expert on the subject - https://www.dianelangberg.com/; and this video interview with her:
No comments:
Post a Comment