Ministry

The Danger of Unauthorized Use of Pastoral Authority

Kirk E. Miller

The following is from Harold L. Senkbeil, “Leading Your Sheep,” in Pastoral Leadership: For the Care of Souls, Lexham Ministry Guides (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 54–56.

“The Bible, however, makes a clear distinction between authorized power and unauthorized power. The only legitimate way to do ministry is by way of the authority of Jesus: doing what he’s given you to do. … Many unfortunate dysfunctions arise when power is confused with authority. When pastors operate not out of their divinely commissioned authority but rather out of their private opinions and desires, conflict usually occurs. …

This works for a while; it may even work for quite a while, depending on the strength of the pastor’s personality. But you can see that it’s a strategy fraught with danger. It breeds resentment and discontent within a congregation for sure, and often these situations get ugly. People may suffer silently for a while, but eventually their resentment spills over into open resistance and rebellion. Now you’ve got a power struggle and contest of wills on your hands, as the pastor keeps trying to outsmart the opposition and form allegiances among his fans against his enemies. It’s a powder keg situation politically speaking. And you know for sure you’re in for trouble when the church is viewed increasingly from a political point of view.

So when you do ministry by power, you’ve got a potential brouhaha on your hands organizationally speaking. Worst of all, where pastor and people lock horns in a political power struggle, a church is collectively delivered into the hands of the great politician, the great power broker: Satan.”

On Spiritual Abuse (with Michael Kruger)

Kirk E. Miller

What is spiritual abuse, and how should we respond to it in our churches? In this episode of Logos Live, I talk with Mike Kruger, author of Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church.

Check it out!

4 key insights from the conversation

1. Spiritual abuse often won’t be obvious to onlookers

[S]piritual abuse isn’t always obvious. It doesn’t appear with twirling mustaches and overt villainy. … Sin is universal, and as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said, ‘The line separating good and evil passes … right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.’ A problem with assuming spiritual abuse will always appear obvious is that we blind ourselves to its many less-than-obvious occurrences. As Jesus himself said, wolves won’t appear as wolves, but as those dressed in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). And often our own self-interest and confirmation bias make it difficult to acknowledge that a beloved leader would act so harmfully.

2. Abusers often manipulate by appealing to sound principles

Good principles can be weaponized: calls for unity can stifle dissent; appeals to authority can be used to demand trust rather than earn it; submission can be coerced instead of cultivated. The result is a spiritually oppressive environment, often masked by theological correctness, appeals to trust leadership, and a sense of legitimacy.

3. Spiritual abuse is deeply damaging

[Consider] the deep damage spiritual abuse can cause, taking things that are so vital and good (e.g., Scripture, one’s relationship with God, the church) and twisting them into a source of agonizing pain and confusion. Symptoms can include the following: physical symptoms (e.g., PTSD-like stress), emotional and relational trauma, social ostracization from their church, [and] doubts about God, faith, and the church.

4. We must prioritize people over reputations and institutions

Many victims never come forward—and those who do often regret it. Time and again, … the ecclesiastical process (e.g., investigations) proved more traumatizing than the abuse itself. Victims are often disbelieved, maligned, attacked, or pressured to remain silent. Churches often protect their leaders or institutions rather than those abused for the sake of “carrying on with the mission.” [Churches must] put people above institutions (see Isa 1:12–17). Protecting the church’s reputation cannot come at the expense of the wounded.

Must Pastors Be Good Managers? Paul Says So (1 Timothy 3:4–5)

Kirk E. Miller

“He must manage his own household well … for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:4–5)

Sometimes we pit being pastoral against being organized and professional. But, according to Paul, part of being pastoral is managing well.

The word Paul uses for “manage” here (προΐστημι) is elsewhere used in the sense of ruling or leading.1 Thus, some translate it to “be in charge of, preside over,”2 “to superintend,”3 or to govern, as one governs a city.4

What is the significance of this requirement that overseers (pastors, elders) must manage their own household well? As Luke Timothy Johnson answers, “With this qualification, we reach the specifically administrative capacities of the potential supervisor. The participle ‘ruling well’ comes from the verb prohistēmi, which means to ‘govern or administer…'”5 In other words, it relates to the administrative competencies of a potential overseer.

Paul specifically mentions ruling one’s “house” well though. But as Philip H. Towner reminds us, given the nature of

“the ancient household concept (oikos), the stipulation here initially exceeds issues of parenting and husbanding to include management of slaves, property, business interests and even maintenance of important relationships with benefactors/patrons or clients. … The dominance of the oikos in shaping patterns of leading, management, authority and responsibility within the cultural framework made it the natural model for defining the overseer’s position. The adverb ‘well’ (3:12, 13; 5:17) attached to the verb of management establishes the high standard of proficiency Paul expects in candidates for church leadership.”6

Thus, we shouldn’t pit these against each other—pastoring and managing. In fact, to the contrary: we must hold them together. Managing well, being organized, and leading in an orderly way is a way to shepherd and care well for people.

In contrast, recklessness, carelessness, disorganization, and miscommunication often hurt people and result in the opposite of caring well for people. Paul even goes as far as to say such poor management is disqualifying.

Notes

  1. See BDAG. ↩︎
  2. Andreas J. Köstenberger, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 130. ↩︎
  3. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 585. ↩︎
  4. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 53. ↩︎
  5. He goes on to cite contemporaneous uses of this Greek word for support. Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 35A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 216. ↩︎
  6. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 254-255. ↩︎

Is Confrontation Always What’s Needed? A Potential Pitfall of Nouthetic Counseling

Kirk E. Miller

Nouthetic counseling emphasizes the need to help people primarily by confronting their sin and offering what is perceived as Biblical correction. As the Logos Factbook defines it, Nouthetic counseling is “[a] form of Christian counseling emphasizing biblical teaching and confrontation of sin to address personal problems.”

Now, I’m not trying to broad brush all practices of Biblical—or Nouthetic counseling—as necessarily being guilty of this error. But I do worry that this emphasis on confronting sin as the remedy leads many to too quickly see confronting sin as the needed medicine in almost every pastoral encounter.

When the only tool one has is a hammer—when this is all one’s may trained in or attuned to look for—everything can look like a nail. One goes on the hunt for nails—or worse, creates them when one can’t easily find one.

Furthermore, when one perceives their primary job as sin-confronting, this can encourage one to be quick to make assessments (assumptions) in order to swiftly identify that sin that needs confronting. When one thinks their primary job is to confront, they’re more apt to become slow to listen and quick to speak (cf. James 1:19), since, of course, confronting requires speaking. And if it’s actually loving to confront (as indeed it sometimes is), we can give ourselves license to ungentle, blunt speech.

But contrast this one-size-fits-all approach to pastoral care with Paul’s wise words in 1 Thess 5:14: “[W]e urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.” Paul instructs different approaches to different people facing and experiencing different situations. Notably, consider his words about the fainthearted and imagine the effect that assuming confrontation is the one-size-fits-all, blunt-confrontation solution might have on this person.

And when we disciple others in this approach, we unwittingly train them to respond to others like Job’s friends (“There must be some sin at root here that’s to blame”)—whom God rebuked, we should remember.

Do You Reach Out When Church Members Leave?

Kirk E. Miller

Church member, when someone resigns their membership and leaves your church, do you take the time to reach out to them?

If someone leaves your church due to a life transition, such as moving away for work or school, I hope you connect with them, say goodbye, and pray for them as they go. But I also have in view those who leave for other, often unannounced, reasons. What about those who leave? Do you also reach out to them to care for them as they go?

What if you made it a point to never let a fellow member leave without reaching out to them?

If we take church membership seriously—as a covenant to the church and to one another—then our commitment to fellow members certainly includes caring for and looking out for each other while we are members of the same church. Being a part of a church involves promises and obligations to every member.

But it would also seem that part of honoring that covenant means caring about members as they leave and caring enough about the circumstances that led to their exit. Or do you simply cut ties, as if their departure doesn’t matter?

Consider what it communicates when someone leaves a church only to have zero—or very few—show even the most minimal amount of care so as to reach out. Departing from a church is often a difficult decision, at times occurring under already painful circumstances. For no one to reach out likely adds to that pain, making such people feel forgotten, neglected, like they apparently must not have mattered much to those who were once their fellow members, of no consequence to the very church they once called “family.”

Perhaps you’re thinking, “But that’s uncomfortable.” When, though, was church membership ever about your own personal comfort? Christlike community (see Phil 2:4b) involves caring enough about others to endure any personal discomfort for the good and care of others. It requires de-centering ourselves: our comfort and interests are not the priority (Phil 2:4a).

2:4a Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 2:4b Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.—Philippians 2:4