On the Restoration of Ministers

We need to talk about reporting the inappropriate relationships of ministers, some of the most extreme cases, and our processes of responding.

This is a hard topic. But we need to talk about it.

Recently the tenure of two famous megachurch pastors has ended because of inappropriate relationships. Of course, that line itself doesn’t identify a whole lot. Unfortunately we hear these stories too much.

I don’t have much to say on either of those situation in particular. I don’t know any of the people in question and don’t have a platform to influence it or an axe to grind with anyone involved. I don’t know all of the details and I never will. I imagine there is a lot of understandable righteous anger out there, and a whole lot of sadness about the impact such situations have on the church and the gospel message. Some might have a shallow thought that because of these sins the church had another “bad press” day. Others might think these situations prove the church is corrupt that everything should be deconstructed.

I might be a little different, but I’m not thinking any of those things. I’m thinking about policies and systems. (Nerd alert!)

As someone who has led behind the curtains of church power a good bit, I’m thinking about what the church does with the shocking sins (and sometimes crimes) of some ministers. I’m mulling over about what is done to protect and advocate for the victims. And I’m considering what happens when a minister is repentant, and possibilities for future ministry.

I have served in some roles where I was involved relationally with friends who were being restored after an affair. I served in other official capacities on regional (district) boards of ministry development (some denominations call these “ordination councils”). I also served in denominational leadership where these cases were tested at the highest level of oversight, and I was the primary liaison with the ministers seeking restoration, or in some situations I secured the investigation team for the case.

Here are a few reflections and what I’ve learned from these experiences, with some stories (identifying information changed to keep things confidential):

Do your duty in prayerful diligence

I’m not suggesting any of these things are easy, but it’s the duty of those running the process, and for those in elected leadership or boards of oversight. There is a reason nobody does this stuff well. This kind of work is some of the hardest and least rewarding in church leadership. Even though you can find some stories of grace and hope in the process, there are no “winners” usually. And nobody will thank you for your work as most won’t ever know about it. At best those you’re serving will have mixed feelings about the process, be sure about that. They might even think you’re the enemy for a while, or forever. But that’s the duty of any of us in these roles. In committees and boards where these things are decided, we need to be urgently and prayerfully diligent. Sometimes we are in a relationship with the accused minister, or the victim, or just on a board that is dealing with it, and I’m here to say to you, like Mordacai to Esther, “Who knows but that you may have come to your position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14). Pray that God will give you wisdom to do the right thing, even if it can at times seem like the hardest thing.

We must provide safe ways to report inappropriate behavior by ministers.

This is a pervasive problem causing almost all inappropriate behavior in the past by ministers to be unreported. Abuse accusations have rocked many different organizations as large as the Catholic Church and as small as tiny campgrounds in rural areas serving primarily at-risk children. And of course ordained ministers have affairs as “consenting adults” in ways that never make the news (although the notion of consent in these cases can be tricky, and I speak of that below). We cannot simply say that someone “didn’t formally report it.” It is our job in leadership to provide avenues to report it and if elected leaders are told the accusation directly that constitutes a formal report unless the person is directed to a formal process at that point and they never follow up. Take responsibility, leaders. (One place to start is here.)

Most Christian organizations and churches do not have helpful ways to report such abuse without the victim being re-traumatized and their name being drug through the dirt. They take this risk with orgs unlikely to execute thorough investigations with effective accountability. Basically most Christians organizations work to protect their employees, especially if they are high level leaders, instead of protecting the flock. This is wrong. Change it.

Thorough, private, and accountable investigation is key.

There need to be policies of what to do when abuse or inappropriate relationships are reported, and those channels of communication need to be public, not a secret. Then, investigation of accusations need to be done by those without personal relationship with the accused or the victim. Usually that means securing outside sources of expertise, counseling, and legal help (more on this below too). These processes must be thorough but also private, and then they make recommendations back to the ruling body. In some cases the accusation might just lead to a request for resignation and other follow up with the one who reported the accusation, in others, termination and invitation to a restoration process may follow. Investigation should be separate step from restoration. This protects both the minister (sometimes the accusation is false) and the accuser (sometimes the board or restoration committee won’t do a thorough job investigating). So separate these steps effectively. While happening, a proper investigation respects the privacy and protects the reputation of both the accused and the potential victim, while also being accountable and not a committee designed to “sweep things under the rug.” This is a tricky balance. Some outside organizations agitate for everything to be public in these respects, and I believe the best strategy is three fold: 1) publicly communicate ways to report, 2) privately investigate and decide response, 3) publicly communicate at an appropriate level the consequences if the accusation is determined to be true. “Appropriate level” is best interpreted as this: report the consequences at the level of the person accused. If the minister is someone preaching every week to large crowds, then those large crowds deserve to know the accusation, the process, and the consequences. If the level of influence is smaller, the circle of communication is smaller.

Some sins of ministers may be criminal and must be treated as such.

I know this is cynical of me to say, but extensive experience has led me to believe that abuse is already taking place in any organization, where adults or young adults are working in close proximity with children without proper safety protocols. Pause and consider that for a moment. It may have happened this past week on your watch. This should motivate prevention, of course. If you are in leadership you can’t act like “I hope it’s not gonna happen here.” You have to think, “It’s going to happen here if we don’t do something to prevent it.” However, I’m mostly speaking here about the after the fact problems for Christian organizations that already didn’t prevent it, sometimes decades ago when you weren’t in charge.

It’s important to note that some sins of ministers may involve criminal behavior and should be reported to authorities for their own processes. Of course, just because a minister is prosecuted or convicted doesn’t mean the church’s role is over. I served on an ordination council where we had a minister caught with child pornography. He was entirely repentant, paid his debt to society in prison, returned to his marriage after counseling and repaired things for his family. He went through our entire restoration process which most often results in a minister receiving back their credentials and being a pastor again. But in this case that could not happen due to our policy of the sins involving minors. He thanked the board for seeing the process through because of how it restored his family, even though not restoring his ministry. I think it was a really beautiful case of forgiveness and wholeness restored, but not the restoration to serve as a pastor. Being a pastor is not a right anyone can have. Some things are disqualifying even if love and forgiveness take place.

Other inappropriate relationships by ministers is not criminal but is still abuse.

The investigation may discover that the relationship might not be criminal but there is still abuse. Just dismissing any relationship as “consenting” if the person the “affair” was with was not a minor is unrealistic. The reality is that ministers have power and influence that can be abused in manipulating a relationship. There may even be legal exposure for organizations that don’t take this into account today. This is largely what the entire #MeToo movement was all about. Some ministers are even predatory to manipulate counseling situations or other settings for inappropriate relationships. Some leaders have relationships that are not criminal but still abusive. I know of one minister that was never able to be restored, even though he confessed of the problem, because he was a repeat offender showing a consistent pattern of developing these inappropriate relationships when in spiritual authority over women. Don’t underestimate this dynamic.

Prioritize ongoing support of the victim and also the family of the minister.

If the minister is repentant then a process of restoration may be engaged. But most systems of restoration for ministers focus exclusively on the minister. That is problematic. Instead, attention should be given to how the victim and the family of the minister are doing and time and funds should be allocated for their counseling and follow up. The restoration of the minister is a priority, but not the only priority. Restoration processes are not easy to lead, and take hard work by all. Once you have a process, just work it step by step. You’re not in a hurry, but this is happening on your watch. Talk about it at meetings and put someone in charge of working the process. Then every meeting till it’s done put it on the agenda for a brief update to ensure accountability

Independent churches do all this much worse than denominations.

If you don’t have a denomination or translocal organization to submit to then everything I mentioned above is much harder to do. Even huge independent megachurches would struggle to make these things happen at the local level. Usually they would not have encountered the problem until it’s a problem, sometimes decades later. And of course most every megachurch is led by a powerful and persuasive man (let’s be honest, almost 100% men) who hand-selected every person with influence in the church leadership. The board may all feel they literally owe him their very lives. That’s recipe for disaster, where the board concocts a cover-up, or just slips into accidental avoidance that in effect will seem like a cover-up. But of course small independent churches would struggle to have the resources and knowledge to do these things as well. At least a large church has some funds and expertise to set up some policies and systems. A little independent church would have almost none of that.

I should be clear, denominations are not doing this all of this very well either, especially when they have policies and procedures they don’t even follow. Passivity of leadership to respond to accusations and protect the “good old boys club” are unfortunately too common in denominational circles as well. However, most denominations have enough experience in this (and have been burned enough) that they are certainly doing it better than independent churches, or other loose associations, especially in light of the fact that there is usually power outside the local church to change things and provide accountability, if it is properly used.

We once had a pastor who had an inappropriate relationship with a minor, and the case went up to the highest board in our denomination. I served as the liaison between the board and the minister, and also the restoration committee chair. The minister did not have charges brought against him for the matter in the state in question. However, he confessed to the relationships and was entirely repentant. Thankfully his marriage was saved, and he went through the entire process and did every step in humble submission. But in the end we had and still have a policy that ensures those with inappropriate behavior with minors may not serve again as an ordained minister. So no exception to our policy was given and it was enforced in part due to the precedent it would set to overrule it.

In my estimation this last example seems to show to me that, at least in my denomination, there is a line we will not cross even in a case with an entirely repentant and fully submitting minister, and that’s inappropriate behavior with minors.

In the end these are not fun issues to discuss. But it is important for those serving in leadership on boards or committees that deal with these matters to work processes well, or create the systems if they don’t have them yet. Prevention is half the cure in this of course, and that’s what we all want, but when it all hits the fan, you have to be sure you do things right in response, even if it hurts.