Why We’re Destroying the Church By Trying to Defend It

At the beginning of May, the editorial team of Metanoia shared an open letter to journalist David Farrier whose work over the last month has exposed widespread abuse and narcissism within one of Aoteaora’s largest megachurches, ARISE. It comes at a moment in culture where many global neo-pentecostal, megachurch movements face new scrutiny for their contribution to burnout, abuse, and unaccountable leadership. This piece continues our series in which we seek to hear from different perspectives on the various issues raised by these recent events.

Over recent months hundreds of stories have emerged into the public domain in Aotearoa New Zealand relating to the dark side of megachurch culture. We have heard accounts of systemic coercion, sexual harassment, abuse of power, and a general (and often callous) disregard for the wellbeing of people supposedly within the church’s care. I have been involved in a number of both public and private conversations about these issues as they seem central to the way in which I understand both the Christian gospel and the role of the church. I must admit, however, that I did not imagine that so few in the institutional church, especially in leadership, would be willing to engage in the discussion. That has left me curious about the cause of this silence.

“We do not expect perfect churches; no-one is expecting or demanding that. What people are asking, however, is that the church would be honest about the serious damage that some beliefs, attitudes, and practices have clearly caused for far too many people.”

It has become clear that as these stories continue to be told, sometimes in rather harrowing detail, many Christians and Christian ministers have clearly felt uncomfortable speaking up publicly about any of it. There are several (sometimes overlapping) reasons for this of course. Perhaps it is the view that these stories are untrue, overblown, an attack from the enemy (the Devil, the media, or both), or that they’re stories of bitter and offended people who have an axe to grind. Or perhaps it is simply the desire to remain positive, to not participate in criticism but to get on quietly doing the work of Christian ministry without rocking the boat or engaging in “negativity.”

There is one further reason that I’d like to focus in on here, and that is for those who would rather not name or bring attention to abuse when it is revealed in the church because of a concern to defend the church and its witness. Although it is not always explicitly articulated, the argument of many Christians and Christian leaders may sound something like the following:

“The reputation of the church is directly correlated with the ability of the church to bear witness to Christ and thus the message of salvation. If this is the case, then to highlight the problematic behaviour of some of those in the church, and in particular of abusive church leaders, could damage the reputation of the church in the eyes of those who are in need of salvation. This may be considered to be of even more importance in a secular age in which people are already suspicious of the church. So in order to protect the “witness” of the church, it must be defended. We must resist airing the dirty laundry and instead work behind the scenes to paper over the cracks, endeavouring to keep the reputation of the church alive and positive in the minds and hearts of those to whom the church is trying to reach.” 

I think that captures some of the sentiment I see and hear. But there are at least three significant problems with this.

Firstly, there is an issue of integrity and a question of what it is we desire the reputation and witness of the church to be. We do not expect perfect churches; no-one is expecting or demanding that. What people are asking, however, is that the church would be honest about the serious damage that some beliefs, attitudes, and practices have clearly caused for far too many people. If the witness of the church relies on the church obscuring its own behaviour, then there is very little that can be trusted about what the church has to say or offer in the world. When we seek to protect the church’s reputation by covering over abuse, we ironically end up corrupting its reputation by demonstrating that we care more about our institutions than we do the people who have been hurt and damaged by them. The thing we’re trying to protect and defend is the very thing we damage.

Secondly, we must ask ourselves, “who is the church?” and the answer is far more broad-reaching than any or all of the institutions who name themselves as churches. In the New Testament, the word ‘ecclesia’ is used in a range of ways. Sometimes it is used in relation to the local community of believers gathered in a household, sometimes it is used for those of Christian faith in a given city or region, and sometimes it used to refer to all who are connected to Christ wherever and whenever they may be. And the numerous metaphors and symbols for the church in New Testament writings are almost always about relationship and connectedness. The church is the “body of Christ”; a body that is not an organisation or an institution, but is made up of living people and in whom all are equal. This means that the “church” includes the thousands of people who have been abused, harassed, pushed beyond their limits, burnt out, traumatised and victimised. To say that their experience should be downplayed in order to “defend the church” defies definitions. These people are the church, and if we’re interested in defending the church, this would be a good place to start. The sad irony of recent times is that many Christian victims of institutional church abuse have found more defenders outside of the church than within it.

Thirdly, we must remember who lies at the heart of Christian faith. Jesus was also a victim of the abuse of power. He was a victim of leaders who used the power of institutional religion to crush dissent, stifle difference, exclude the marginalised, and burden the weary and poor with loads they could not bear. Jesus was crucified by people “defending” their religious institutions. So if we are to bear witness to this Christ, then one way to do so is to place victims of religious abuse at the centre of our stories. For what is the reputation the church desires? To what kind of God do we bear witness? 

Is it that we would be known as those who defend our institutions and the powerful at the expense of those who have suffered? To be known as those who hide sexual harassment and abuse, justify coercive and harmful leadership, and ignore or even ostracise those who feel the pain of these actions? I hope this is not the case, for whenever we choose the institution and its reputation over the people who have been hurt, we choose the kind of ‘witness’ we offer the world. I hope that the reputation the church desires is to be a community who will look after those who suffer, who will believe victims instead of defending the powerful, who will side with the poor, the vulnerable, the exhausted, the mourning and the marginalised. I hope that when people ask the church what God cares about, this is the kind of answer they would hear.

For as a wise Jewish prophet once said, “whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.”

~

Michael is a church minister, theologian and host of the In the Shift podcast.