Last year I ran across a situation in which the pastor and founder of a large independent church resigned, after 28 years of leading it, when several men came forward and said he had inappropriately touched them. The pastor maintained his innocence; he said he was resigning because his credibility had been damaged. The elders supported his claim of innocence at the time of his resignation. About a month later the elders admitted they had not handled the charges against their pastor well – they had not shown sensitivity to those who came forward. Almost a year later they reversed their position about their former pastor’s innocence and said ‘new’ evidence showed he was guilty.
It’s very wrong that those men were inappropriately touched by a senior leader of the church; it makes it even worse that when they came forward they were called ‘liars’ by the senior pastor and the elders.
I suppose there’s no reason for me not to name the pastor and church: I’m referring to Bob Moorehead who was pastor of Overlake Church in Seattle. Here are some links about it:
- Wikipedia: Overlake Christian Church
- Church pastor resigns amid sex scandal
- World Magazine: A cautionary tale of sex-abuse charges against pastors that drove two churches to the brink
- The Stranger (scroll down to the May 20 entry)
What bothers me is, I know of no independent church which provides safety and protection for church members in the event that the worst happens and a leader does something inappropriate to them, that no-one else knows about. So it is their word against the leader’s. One of the roles of the elders is to protect the senior pastor and give him the benefit of the doubt; I understand that. But who protects the members? Why don’t churches have a safe objective mediator that a church member can go to in confidence and talk to, if the worst happens? Someone who will give the member a fair hearing and not brand him/her as a gossip, slanderer, liar, disruptive influence. All of which can easily happen if a member goes to the elders. They’re supposed to keep the pastor accountable; but their desire to protect the pastor and think the best of him hardly makes them objective and fair; there’s a conflict of interest there which acts to the detriment of the church member.
Why don’t churches learn from examples such as the one I mentioned and do something to make churches safer for members, in the event that the worst happens? I understand that everyone hopes for the best, but shouldn’t we also plan for the worst, just in case? I suppose church members facilitate this by accepting a power structure which could end up magnifying the hurt caused to them if a leader ever hurts them and they try to speak up about it.
This not only hurts members, but it makes it less likely that leaders who are behaving inappropriately in secret will be found out and removed from positions where they can continue the inappropriate behavior. Which is bad for the whole church.
Most people who can afford it buy insurance to protect themselves against the worst happening, even though they hope it never will. It probably doesn’t occur to them as they become increasingly drawn into independent churches, that there is no emotional insurance there; that if the worst happens, there may well be no safe place inside the church to be honest about it. That if they are ever sinned against by a leader, they likely will be sinned against more, and more publically, if they say anything about it.
I hope people wake up to how unsafe this environment is, and do something about it. If you know of any churches which have addressed this and have some sort of ‘safe mediator’ policy I’d love to hear about it. It would make me feel better.
Hi Helen, whilst your story is sad, and tragic, and is repeated regularly, and happens frequently, there are many churches that are not like this, and take accountability seriously.
Thanks Jason. I’d like to know more about how the accountability works in churches where it does work – but I’m not necessarily assuming you have time to explain that to me.
For example, I’d like to know – do churches like that name specific people that members can go to if they run into problems with a leader; and how does the church make sure the person members can go to is able to be objective and fair to both sides? I almost wonder if they need to bring in an outside professional who is trained to keep confidences and who isn’t overly involved in the situation him/herself, to make this work. But then that gets unwieldy.
Hi Helen, thanks for your thoughts and I echo Jason’s comment, well I would, lol, that altho tragic this is not the case in all churches or indeed any other institution in which these sad events take place.
But you are right it is tragic when accountability lines get blurred and people get burnt/hurt as a result.
I think you are right to raise this as an issue about systems rather than personalities, the fault often lies in the system and how these are handled as a result – people often don’t know how they should respond, particularly when the issue is emotional and has serious consequences.
You ask for specific examples and my experience of that is limited as i have only attended a handful of churches in my life. In my current church I know that the pastor is an employee of the church and therefore can be sacked by the trustees, of which i recently became one. There is an accountability line of people being able to approach trustees and for them to investigate allagations of inappropriate behaviour or if it is a case like the one you mention to turn it over to the appropriate authorities to investigate.
In part I think it comes down to trustees/elders or whatever accountability structure is in order to understand their role, to be trained in it and to have the likely character to be able to exercise that role, especially if the worst was to happen.
Your suggestion of some form of outside mediator may be appropriate in some instances but then that would depend on the accountability/emloyment/legal relationships that existed within the church structure.
My own view is that this is something which more and more churches will be coming up to speed with in the next decade or so – not least cos people coming into those churches are asking Qs about accountability and transparency because those are 2 key values of many postmodern people.
Hi Paul, thanks for your comments.
I think it’s difficult because – imo – the same relationships that make church a neat place to be make it hard to be objective. Most likely the trustees are good friends with the pastor. That must make it difficult if someone comes to them and claims the pastor did something highly inappropriate – what friend wants to hear that? And it’s likely the trustees have more relationship with the pastor than the church member, just because who do you choose as trustees? People who you’ve known for a while, who you’ve learned to trust. So I would think the natural inclination of trustees on hearing an accusation against their friend is to defend him/her. Which is what seems to have happened in the specific example I gave. But the consequence of doing that was that it maligned the character of the people who brought the accusations, implying they were liars.
If the trustees happened to dislike the pastor they might be all too ready to hear and agree with accusations made towards him/her. That would be great for a church member if he/she were telling the truth but of course that’s going too far in the direction of leaving a pastor unprotected against anyone who has some grudge against him. And who would want to go to a church where the leaders disliked each other? I can’t see that being a good environment anyway.
So, I think it’s good when trustees (or elders) and the pastor(s) are friends but how does one make sure that doesn’t compromise objectivity and prevent members getting a fair hearing? I really don’t want to make this about your church, but for the sake of discussion: am I right that in your church people just have to trust your objectivity and fairness, if they have a concern? They have to trust that you and others won’t hold it against them but – hopefully will appreciate their honesty. They have to trust that you will take what they say seriously and not let your hope that they are wrong prevent them investigating what you said.
If a system does rely that much on trust, isn’t that dangerous, especially given that Christians are quick to say we’re all fallible? Do churches presume too much on trust? That’s really what I’m asking. I wouldn’t bank with someone who just said “trust me – I’ll give your money back whenever you need it”. But when I walk into a church it seems to me that they are saying “trust me to treat you fairly”. Are you saying something more than “Trust me – I would vote to sack the pastor if necessary”? How can I know that’s true? The churches whose power structure concerns me are structured in a similar way – the trustees/elders can sack the pastor. The issue isn’t whether they have the right to on paper but whether they could hear an accusation against their friend and investigate it objectively.
Another way of looking at it is, how do you know you’d do the right thing, if the system relies on that happening? What if trustees need protecting against their own weaknesses? Is that protection in place?
Btw I’m glad you were made a trustee – it’s an honor that I’m glad your church gave to you. Please don’t think I have any reason to expect you’ll ever be in a situation to take action against your pastor.
Thanks Helen, i can understand where you are coming from. Having a been on a jury where 12 people are trying to decide the guilt of someone i can only think that the defendent was putting their trust in us having listened to the evidence of the process and reached the most likey verdict. In that context I was happy to speak out for the verdict i thought the evidence most strongly suggested, listened to other people’s arguements and was prepared to alter my view – it was a formal, grave, responsibility and not one to take lightly. If at the heart of the legal system we have this decision by peers who the courts ask to trust, who take the responsibility seriously than may be we can start to apply that process of trust further into other situations.
The whole fiscal economy of money in the end relies on trust – we pass round paper and coins and hope that the value the says on them is the value they are worth – and because everyone else hopes the same thing and can’t go and get that value out in gold.
When my wife goes away for the weekend i trust her to be going where she says she’s going and doing what she say’s she’s doing. I do so without even thinking about it.
So i think the Q at the heart of your thoughts is can you trust and since your trust has been hurt you have less disposition to want to trust again, altho no doubt trusting in many other situations in every day.
As people have found out that when you give your bank your money you might feel an atmosphere of trust that is backed up with terms and conditions but if that bank does a Bearings for instance than don’t expect much of those T&C’s to be honoured. In fact in the world of public sector governance in which i work its precisely that kinda major trust failure that leads to a review process of what could have been done better, lessons learnt and then new procedures/processes brought in.
Into my specific context i can say that i have been impressed with the culture of openess and the ability to ask Qs and get answers as just a person in the pews and how that is encouraged. How for matters like money for instance people are referred to trustees rather than pastoral staff.
The structure of the church has also been deliberately set up to have Jase as an employee of the church precisely to enable us to sack him if nec – it gives him a measure of protection/accountability and the people who attend the church a measure of comfort that there exists such a framework.
In terms of being a trustee i would say that for me the seriousness of the role is precisely being able to try and put my own interests aside – in specific contexts we have to declare an interest in decision making and not able to vote. When it comes to a situ with Jase i think we owe it to him and to the people in the church to be as transparent, fair, open as possible. All of the senior leaders and trustees have to sign a statement of ethos so everyone is clear on the ethical behaviour that is expected and their is employment law, procedures etc that the trustees would need to make sure are followed as part of their responsibility under law as well as maintaining fair due process.
Jase is a friend but he’s also chosen a role that requires accountability and has put himself under a framework that allows that to happen – i think as a trustee i have to put my own person interests aside and think what would be best for the church and for Jase – to do nothing, i do not think would be fair on anyone.
Of course it’s all hypothetical cos none of this has happened and i am sure it would be a painful, hard process if anything ever did happen – but i think that is part of the responsibility of being a trustee and i wouldn’t have accepted the role if i felt that i wouldn’t be able to discharge any part of it.
So i hope that helps?
Oh i guess i should just add that the trustees appoint trustees by vote and there is training as well to highlight all the roles/responsibilities that prospective trustees have to go thru…
Paul, thanks for such a detailed response!
If I get repetitive feel free to say “I think we will have to agree to disagree”.
I’m thinking that in the examples you gave, relationships either are not a factor or don’t pull people in the wrong direction regarding objectivity; whereas they definitely have the potential to do that in church.
Juries have no relationship with the person on trial and jurors are questioned first to try to ascertain whether they have significant hindrances to objectivity.
Your relationship with your wife facilitates your trust in her.
In church, the relationship the elders/trustees have with the pastor set up a situation where the elders/trustees will want to defend him/her as their friend and disbelieve someone who brings an accusation against him. This is an unbalanced situation from the outset and I’m asking – what is in place to balance it and make it fair?
I agree with you that trust is involved in those other areas of life but where there is so much potential for lack of objectivity and unfairness as I see when a group of friends invite strangers to join them, but the friends hold all the decision-making power, I would like to see something definite in place which protects the strangers. Maybe I missed it but I’m not seeing that thing in place in the structure you described. What you’re saying seems to be “we’re decent people; trust us to do the right thing and be fair and objective” – but the very things which make you decent people will make it emotionally difficult for you to be objective if someone ever says something you don’t want to hear about someone you respect very highly. Yet, no church can be a safe place for members if the stronger relationships between leaders materially bias leaders and produce what in effect is significant favoritism.
You seem confident that you as a group would react differently from the elders of the church I mentioned or the elders of Ted Haggard’s church, who have now admitted there were lots of signs of problems going back years, that they could have picked up on.
How can you be so sure? The structure of their churches is essentially similar to yours – in my experience churches choose their elders carefully and train them. I don’t see any reason to think that their elders were significantly weaker than your trustees. There is one thing which is probably different, but that’s not it. The one thing I think is very likely different is that there were relational dynamics in those churches which put the senior pastor on a pedestal and he probably allowed it to happen. This is a different problem I see in churches but perhaps it’s related to the problematic power structure one.
Again, this is NOT about your pastor Jason; I’m asking this for the purposes of discussing whether the trustee/elder and pastor structure really does provide emotional safety for members, in practice, in all situations. Or whether it doesn’t, but we don’t do anything about it because we hope that only the best situations will ever occur. If the latter than I think that’s inconsistent with basic Christian teaching about human nature. If humans are that weak then why don’t churches set up a structure which will more effectively minimize the risk of members being hurt when church leaders act like the Bible says they often do act?
Thanks Helen, i think my wider point is that we have lots of relationships that we take on trust all the time, it is only when we experience something where our trust gets damaged do we then start to doubt that particular set of arrangements.
I agree with you that the danger is present, as it is is with any group of people, of not wanting to hear, or carry out a role fully. I wouldn’t get paid as an auditor if people were not always 100% honest 🙂
The problem is that I can’t convince you because you have had a bad experience of this in the past and therefore carry the reaction to the system that the hurt causes, that you were treated unfairly once so why wouldn’t you be treated unfairly again by different people in a similar situation.
At the end of the day it comes down to personal integrity, my personal integrity says that I am a trustee precisely to provide accountability and support to the people in the church for the actions of the pastor and to support the pastor in the pastoral work of the church. To me then that is clear that it involves the possibility of dealing with such a situation and trying to deal with it that is fair to everyone. I have no illusions that if such an incident were to arise it would very difficult but i think personally that everyone involved in it would be needed to be treated with dignity and be able to know what action we were taking, how it would be investigated and have the results of such investigation explained and what we would now be doing – which may include changes in procedures etc as much as any other employment/conduct related outcomes.
I personally don’t see any need to defend jase as a knee jerk reaction – nor do i think it would be particulalry fun – but then again i think that is part of the office that trustee means – its about being entrusted with something more than just friendship/respect of one person, it’s about how as a church we can support and trust each other – and that for me at the end of the day is the bigger picture and the reason for having the role in the first place.
Paul wrote:
Paul, I guess where I’m differing from you is – you seem to be saying, this arrangement works fine – the only problem is that I don’t feel good about it because of bad experiences.
But the problem is not just in my feelings. It’s in the newspapers every time another Christian leader who supposedly was accountable to a board of trustees or elders fails.
My feelings didn’t cause the Seattle pastor to do what he did and his elder board to inappropriately defend him and vilify people who came forward and bravely told the truth. My feelings didn’t cause Ted Haggard to lie for three plus years and what he was doing and didn’t cause his elder board only now to start saying “We should have seen the signs”.
That’s why I don’t think the problem is my feelings – although I’m open to the possiblity that personal experience might cause me to be more upset at what I see happening at various churches than other people are.
FYI – I reposted this on Conversation at the Edge this morning.
That’s not quite what I am saying Helen. Something more what i am trying to say would be that arrangements exist and people try their best – there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. With all the best will in the world every and any system is going to fail and when it does lessons are learnt from it that makes it less likely to fail in that way again.
The Q which i think is more pertinient is can we learn to trust again, together? Can we take the fact that we are are flawed and still try and work together. What about the many examples we don’t hear about where the system works pretty much ok? It may be harder to learn to trust again but the other option seems to be to write off everyone else in advance based on a handful of cases?
I am sure there will be lessons learnt and hindsight being a wonderful thing people will start to see past events in a different light and say ah yes well that explains xyz. But then again, the fact that pastors have stepped down because they know they have a board that will scrutinise them maybe shows that in the examples you quoted the system worked and there was no cover up?
All i can say is that in the world i inhabit, in the role i have as a trustee i would seek to be fair to everyone and treat everyone with dignity and respect. I’m sure in that I’d make mistakes but I am sure as well that anyone else would and therefore its about learning from the process just as with anything else?
Paul wrote:
We agree on that 🙂
…and what I am saying, is, if those lessons are truly learned why are they not leading to changes in the structure which failed?
I’m not saying, write them off – I’m saying, why not put in a safety net?
Have you heard the saying “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”? If my trust has been betrayed and someone says “trust again” and I can’t see that anything has changed – then isn’t that saying telling me it would be insane to trust again and expect different results?
I don’t want to minimize the real character differences between people. If I changed churches then maybe what you’re saying is, these people are trustworthy and that is a change.
But I’m going to be looking for the safety net and if I don’t see it I won’t feel safe. I will think “show me how much you want me to be safe by putting the net there – then I will believe you”.
In the last couple of days my ex-pastor (who now has his own ministry) mentioned a new travel policy he’s going to implement, that he never travels alone. He could have said “trust me”. But instead he decided to go for the safety net. I think that was a wise decision – not because I think he’s likely to get into trouble otherwise but simply because I believe in safety nets.
Why does it have to be an either/or? Why not work on trust issues and also put safety nets in place?
heh we are agreeing which is great 🙂
A lot of the safety net is in the DNA of the history of, in this case, the church. So you’re right if things keep going consistently wrong in the same way then there is no safety net for that particular issue. That is both a tragedy and worst sheer bloody minded wilful stupidity – i’m not gonna be hanging round there nor suggesting anyone should if that is the prevailing ongoing attitude demonstrated repeatedly over time.
I do think a board of trustees, or other clear public form of accountability isa safety net [you seem to be thinking it’s not maybe?]. But in say ing that you are so right let’s work on trust issues and let’s fix the holes in the safety nets when they appear and more than that let’s try and learn from other holes we hear about and fix them in advance. Let’s try and be learning and loving churches.