Creating a Safe Community … and Guarding It
By way of today’s vast media, many have seen headlines about the moral failings of church leaders, the misuse of power or authority, greed and financial scandal, toxic church cultures, and systemic patterns that fail to confront signs and even claims of abuse. Having lived through a few decades in “church leadership” …I have experienced the depth of disappointment and disillusionment when leaders fail to serve with integrity. I have experienced how news of a secret life can crush our aspirations. News of a leader using their position to violate another can deflate the trust of countless lives.
I have also known the challenges of carrying the weight of being in such a position. The role of church leaders is arguably far more significant and sensitive than many stop to realize. Unlike any business or political leader, church leaders are entrusted with representing the heart and truth of God. The trust which is extended to church leaders relates to people’s central beliefs and relational trust in the church as community. If a church is found to lack being a safe community, often by way of a leader’s weaknesses, countless lives often suffer a long process of restoring the trust needed to embrace both beliefs and community again. The weight of such trust in leaders can itself become a source of isolation from which there is a vulnerable search for escape.
So how can those entrusted with leading a church community create a reasonably safe culture…and then guard that safeness?
I should note that the Vineyard movement of churches, which I have been a part of the past 40 years, is engaging these questions as well…and in a process of maturing in really fundamental ways. As a movement, we have had a rich history of relationships, but have also faced the underlying roots of a more independent structure of authority between local churches and the overseeing movement. To better address problems, there is a need to both transcend the independence in which the larger movement has no ultimate authority (apart from perhaps use of the “Vineyard” name) …as well as a need to develop more clear guidelines for engaging all issues. I believe this is precisely the transition which Jay Pathak, the current National Director, has been leading so well. As such, I believe that this type of process is also a good warning for churches which may find themselves independent from any larger oversight.
While the Vineyard movement is in the process of developing very healthy guidelines, what follows is intended less as specific steps and more as principles that may speak to leaders and those exploring community alike. These are not novel nor intended to be. Rather these thoughts are meant to provide some valuable reflection on what a healthy communal life involves…with some added resources that follow.
1. A safe community begins with a commitment of the leaders to proactively establish and guard healthy boundaries… starting with defining what those involve. I believe that every church community will be served by a vision and definition for being “safe.” The breadth of concerns which people have with involvement in any relational context involves it being physically safe…but also safe in terms of having healthy sexual, emotional, and financial boundaries. Many people have been hurt within the social systems of their past… and many are at least unconsciously aware that the church identifies itself as being a “family” … implying we are bound with those we don’t initially know and didn’t initially chose. This can raise many unspoken fears. Will people use such connections to make premature emotional attachments… to seek inappropriate sexual advances… or to sell their pyramid scheme business? As such, I believe a heathy principle is this: “Anyone is welcome to participate in our public gatherings with the exception of anyone whose purpose is deemed to disrupt or distract from the purpose of our gathering… or violates the fundamental safety of others.” It will serve the community to know that such a boundary is understood.
As for church leadership, it is valuable to openly identify the potential for abusing the trust that is being extended. I believe that such potential abuse includes: 1) allowing our entrusted positions to use another person to inappropriately satisfy our own sexual, emotional, or financial desires, 2) allowing our own personal biases or loyalties to dismiss or downplay the abusive actions of other individuals, or 3) allowing our own personal biases or loyalties to unjustly accept the truth of a claim before it is properly assessed. However a church’s leadership may define it, I believe it is helpful to develop some stated recognition of the shared responsibility for the boundaries they are to guard.
2. Create a leadership culture which is able to share common vulnerabilities and concerns if needed. Such a culture is not that of “watchdogs” who are focused on finding problems…but rather those who embrace a basic humility which understands that everyone can struggle against lust, greed, contempt, and power in different ways…and gives permission for sharing concerns should they arise.
This should include some defined group who understands and embraces that responsibility in relationship to the senior leadership. This may be the Board of Elders or Trustees depending on a church’s governing structures. There may be reasons why some churches have trustees or advisory groups made up of leaders from outside the local church. However, such lives lack the part of discernment drawn from direct experience ...nor are they as accessible to the lives of the community. As such, it will prove most effective if that group are lives directly involved in the community. While it is not necessary to widely publicize this particular role of the group, I believe it is vital that all staff and ministry leaders know that such a group of lives are prepared to receive concerns if they should arise. When the senior pastor openly embraces that such a structure is needed, it creates a culture that values safety over self-protection.
3. No reasonable accusation should be left to the discernment of any one person. It is vital to understand that any potentially credible claim shared with a member of the responsible group, should be shared with at least one additional member of such a group… and at least one of the two should not be a member of the staff. This is simply a first absolute step… from which any significant claim… particularly involving a member of the staff, should be brought to the whole governing group… even if just to agree on any next steps of investigation. The point is that no one individual, nor even two who are both employees, should ever be left to their own discernment.
4. It's okay to initially doubt an accusation…but never treat your doubts as the truth…nor an accuser as an adversary. We cannot avoid having initial perspectives in response to claims of wrongdoing. We may have reasons to believe the accuser or the accused… including what aligns with our own experience with either of them…or similar experiences in our own lives. However, until a convergence of facts brings clarity beyond a reasonable doubt, we must embrace the desire for truth and understanding more than what we simply want to believe. We must treat every life who raises a potentially credible accusation as a potential victim… rather than a threat to what we want to be true…nor a means to fulfill biases we may have against the accused. When a church leader is accused of violating their role in representing God…what is needed from the surrounding church leaders is a grasp that they now must embrace their responsibility to represent God…and realize that what is needed is not that of bringing further potential violation to bear on the accuser…nor that of being heroic saviors by being too quick and harsh in our condemnation of the accused. It is a vital time not to play gods…but to serve God.
In receiving any accusation from one party, whether one marital partner regarding another…or one life regarding a church leader… I believe that we can genuinely extend empathy without preliminary judgment. By simply expressing care for what such an experience may bring if true, we can care without pronouncing a verdict. It can be as simple as expressing, “If this is true, I am so sorry for what you have experienced. When I say, ‘If this is true’…I am not qualifying this because I don’t believe it is…but simply because I believe that none of us want to have judgments made without being able to respond…so we are simply respecting that process.” That simple exchange allows preliminary empathy and respect…while remaining safe for all those involved.
5. Any claim of criminal abuse should be made to public law enforcement as well as a church’s communal authority. Some may feel reluctant to involve law enforcement or governmental agencies because they know that it could lead to not only legal consequences…but legal consequences which one may not feel confident are just or deserved. It is true that law enforcement or governmental agencies can act poorly and decide unfairly. However, they are by and large those who seek the safety and well-being of all… and we are more responsible by bringing their role to bear than presuming we should keep such matters in our own hands.
6. When there are even potentially credible claims of abuse by a representative of the church, use an outside investigation service to provide objectivity and perspective. One of the biggest failures which church communities have made is that of presuming that their own investigations would prove sufficient. In some concrete matters… perhaps a youth leader admits to smoking pot… or a leader admits to abusing alcohol and all the facts are clear…an investigation by the church’s own leadership may provide all the clarity needed. However…in cases of potential relational abuse… especially by a pastoral or ministry leader… investigations require the objectivity and experience of outside services. In recent years, at least two major services have emerged, Guidepost Solutions and GRACE, which offer a breadth of resources and experience. These services often involve conducting independent investigations, assessing organizational cultures and processes, and recommending changes to improve safeguarding practices. By using these services, church leadership is able to provide their community with trust in the objectivity of such an investigation as well as focus their own time and energy as pastoral leader into caring for the community through such a season.
Jay Pathak, the National Director of the Vineyard movement, has so wisely been leading the Vineyard, which was naturally more independent in nature, to recognize the value of using outside group who can add value through their experience. He notes that what is needed is a good checklist. Drawing from the insights of the book “Checklist Manifest,” he notes how a standard process for conflicts and related investigations can save churches from so many mistakes because they provide a good checklist of steps that will provide clarity and consistency.
7. Not all issues are the same….so value appropriate distinctions. We live in a culture which uses terms like “abuse” widely. While it may be a fitting term in some broad way, we should recognize how important it is to maintain some meaningful distinctions. Someone saying they were hurt when a pastor walked by them without acknowledging them is different from a pastor pursuing an inappropriate sexual relationship…. fundamentally different. This becomes vital when any reference to someone’s struggle is shared more widely, as distinctions can get lost to generality. So value distinctions…because they really matter. If communicating about anyone’s failures, be specific enough to allow distinctions when able.
8. It’s better to have a good process than to presume a perfect one. The truth is that all investigating is by nature a process that will never be perfect because it involves some human limitations…including an initially limited perspective and simply the availability of time involved…no matter how high a priority. However…such investigating… if it is followed through…as more comes to light… it will reach the needed conclusions. The very nature of investigating interpersonal dynamics is that of investing in gaining more perspective …which requires staying open minded until enough facts bring clarity. This means we may inherently have initial perceptions based on what we initially know… but must be open to finding that we could be misguided. If such a central process of seeking facts is done in good faith and falls short in some aspects, such as timeliness or communication through process, and the system genuinely learns from it… it may be fitting to affirm the process of growing wiser and more mature as a result. A process that seeks facts to serve the truth above all…is far better than presuming that the system is perfect…in which case those leading it will lack humility and those surrounding the process will lack grace and simply become critics. It is better to report what is being done…than to present any conclusions before the facts have truly become clear.
We should always appreciate those who act in good faith. Should a community ever face a leaders’ lack of integrity…those committed to the community are encouraged to support those leaders entrusted with managing the process on investigating and caring for all involved…all while leading the community forward. While such times are difficult for all… unless there are obvious attempts to cover up failures… the whole of the church community should embrace it’s responsibility to help stay centered in the mission of Christ. Should such a time ever come, it will test the character of every member. Members must be challenged to rise above the temptation for vain drama and unfair criticisms… and to embrace patience, grace, and a shared sobriety that embraces Christ even more deeply.
9. Good corporate policy is never a substitute for personal awareness. Our personal responsibility cannot be a substitute for a system that allows inappropriate control and lack of accountability…but neither can a healthy system be a substitute for our personal responsibility. Our greatest personal responsibility is exercising our personal awareness. Are we developing an unsafe anger toward someone? Are we growing in resentment towards circumstances in our lives which we sense we may rationalize inappropriate behavior? Is there anyone in whom we are experiencing a combination personal attraction and affirmation with whom pursuing greater intimacy would be inappropriate? (The combination of personal attraction and affirmation are a particularly natural source of vulnerability for many of us.) If we are personally aware of any such dynamics, we should share such with another member of the pastoral team or eldership with whom we are accountable.
10. Keep centered in the One who has called each of us. If we find that our trust in a church leader or comrade leaves us feeling a bit adrift, it is vital to grasp that Christ is the one who speaks into the very problem of presenting outwardly what is not true inwardly. Jesus calls out hypocrisy and abuse… more profoundly than any other. (Matthew 15:7-9; Matthew 23:25-33) He speaks of the desires that will use others rather than serve others… the self-serving desires like power and lust and greed. (Matthew 20:25–28). As such, this is not a time to walk away from Jesus…but to be drawn even more deeply to him.
We must always remember… it is Christ who called us.
The Apostle Paul warned the early followers of Christ not to become focused on their favorite leaders. He wrote: Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not!.... 24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:12-13, 24 (NLT))
We may all need to remember the old saying: “The best of men are men at best.” And we can find courage to accept that reality, when we focus on the reality that “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
May he call you afresh to himself…and to a shepherd’s heart’s for all who gather.
Some related resources…
What About Hypocrisy and Abuse? (Series: The Deconstruction Zone: Navigating Doubts and Difficulties) by Brad Bailey – Sermon Notes and video
The Christian Response to Moral Failure in Church Leaders by Jonathan Daugherty - https://www.bebroken.org/post/the-christian-response-to-moral-failure-in-church-leaders
Survival Skills for Managing Moral Failures Among Your Leaders written by Paul Utnage, an executive pastor with a lot of experience managing broken trust. - https://www.xpastor.org/strategy/predators/survival-skills-for-managing-moral-failures-among-your-leaders/
What To Do The First 24 Hours After a Leader’s Moral Failure by Phil Cooke - https://www.philcooke.com/what-to-do-the-first-24-hours-after-a-leaders-moral-failure/
When a Christian Leader Fails by Darryl Dash - https://www.impactus.org/author/darryl-dash/