Within the evangelical world there have been numerous leaders or pastors crashing due to sexual, spiritual, financial, or emotional abuse of others, often members of their own church or ministry. While the issue of sexual abuse in the evangelical world is not new (my wife, a clinical counselor, encountered many cases of it back in the 1990’s), the number of high-profile pastors and leaders who has crashed (or ended up in unbelievable denial) is certainly a new phenomenon, partly created by independent journalists and social media presences that will not allow the issues remain private and partly because even without the call-out culture one cannot remain private in a linked world that is becoming increasingly intolerant of sexual abuse and of toxic workplaces. But even more significant than the high-profile nature of many of those who crash is that many of them are either “charismatic” or what I call semi-charismatic (exhibiting a leadership style similar to the charismatic leaders but without direct claims to specific “charismatic” gifts, such as “speaking in tongues”). Why might this be so? Let me lay out some observations I have made that point to points of vulnerability. This will be brief, a sketch rather than a thorough examination, but it should give us some food for thought.

First, there is a lack of formation. 

Many of these pastors and leaders either had no formal training, having “risen through the ranks” from committed young member to, say, part of the team leading the youth group or the worship ministry to youth pastor or some other pastoral role or perhaps branching out into a parachurch ministry of their own. Their training was through copying a mentor or mentors and perhaps reading the Bible and some books, especially those on practical theology and spiritual gifts. There is little theological depth and virtually no historical perspective. They do not know how to critique the theology of their mentors and certainly have had little in the area of ethics or character formation. They may even boast of their lack of formal education claiming that the Bible and the Spirit are all they need, for they are “God’s man (or woman)” or “God’s anointed.” 

Many of the rest have gone to traditional seminaries that gave them a lot of Bible and biblical theology (which included some systematic theology) with limited church history and practical theology, but with little or nothing in the area of ethics, spiritual formation (such as prayer), and human formation. Contrast that with a seminary program in which the seminarians live together in a dorm, have prayer times together two or more times per day, have daily worship, and are overseen by a formator who is interested in their character development and human interactions. In such communal seminaries they likely have a spiritual director who in confidence helps them process their relationship with God. 

In the first group the budding leader is likely to reproduce the weaknesses of their mentor, perhaps weaknesses that the mentor has no idea he (or she) has, and that same budding leader may be criticized for any admission of spiritual struggles. In the second group the head may be filled, but human and spiritual formation are not the usual result of the typical papers and exams which are the seminary’s window into the seminarian. Furthermore, especially with many schools now going online, there may be no one in the institution who really knows them. That was not the type of seminary that Charles Borromeo envisioned in first starting such institutions.

Second, there is a focus on the wrong gifts of the Spirit

The Pentecostal movement introduced a focus on the 1 Cor 12 gifts of the Spirit which was brought into the wider Protestant and Catholic world through the neo-Pentecostal movements. (There are, of course, other charismatic movements, such as the contemplative Rufer Bewegung that I experienced in Germany in the 1970’s that would be immune to these critiques.) These, of course, are the ministry gifts needed for the already-formed-and-functioning Church to explode out of a waiting posture in Jerusalem where it was a Jewish sect into the wider world of the Roman Empire and beyond. Significantly the “go” signal in the form of empowerment by the Spirit was given when people from across the Roman Empire and its environs were gathered to Jerusalem. The emphasis in Acts 2 is on all those gathered hearing the good news in their own languages. Thus “speaking in tongues” means speaking in (to the speaker) foreign language(s), which is the normal meaning of the term in Greek and how the term is understood in Patristic writings. That is why in the New Testment “speaking in tongues” is forbidden in the gathered community unless there is a translator present (1 Cor 14 – and there does not seem to be the expectation that this would normally be the case; it would also be awkward to speak with interruptions for translation when one could simply speak in the local language). In other words, Paul goes to great lengths to point out that (1) all do not speak in tongues (= foreign languages), (2) love is the spiritual gift that one wishes and which trumps any of the ministry gifts, and (3) speaking in tongues in particular is not a mark of spiritual maturity.

Of course, it was assumed in the early appearances of the modern phenomenon of speaking in tongues in Topeka Kansas and Azuza Street that the people were speaking in actual foreign languages. In fact, they often named the (sometimes extinct) language in which they were speaking. But it became clear both when linguists listened to the phenomenon and when the phenomenon did not enable missionaries to communicate in places to which they believed God had sent them that this was not language but ecstatic speech, either as a group phenomenon or as a private “prayer language.” Now such a phenomenon of ecstatic language is found in Scripture in 1 Samuel. In 1 Sam 10:5-6 Samuel prophesies that the newly anointed Saul with eventually meet a “band of prophets” coming from a Philistine occupied city playing all sorts of instruments and prophesying. Before that, in 1 Sam 9:9, we have already been informed that what was called a prophet (nabi’) in most of the Hebrew Scriptures was at the time of Samuel called a seer (ro’eh). Here in 1 Sam 10:5-6, and the subsequent narrative when Samuel’s prediction is fulfilled, we are introduced to what in those days was called a prophet, namely a person upon whom the Spirit came, often when accompanied by music and processing or dancing, who spoke in ecstatic speech. In the case of Saul, he falls to the ground as he prophesies. Also in the case of Saul, there is a later occasion when this happens to him without music and as a type of shaming from God. The verb for prophesying that is used for both the band of prophets and for Saul is, interestingly enough, used in a reflexive form that is not used for later prophesying. Thus, we have here a phenomenon very similar to the phenomena of neo-Pentecostal “speaking in tongues,” whether individual or collective (with music). It is said to be caused by the Spirit, although in 1 Kings 18:26-29 the same phenomenon (including the same form of the verb to prophesy) is said to be typical of the Ba’al prophets, so one must be careful about which spirit is influencing one.

Aside from setting the record straight on “speaking in tongues,” the point above was that the emphasis on what one might call the missional gifts of the Spirit, which are not universal and do not demonstrate spiritual maturity, is problematic. It may make one think that one is more spiritually advanced than one is rather than that one is simply using a ministry “tool” that the Spirit may give to anyone with greater or lesser frequency according to how often he assigns them a task to do that requires the “tool.”

The far more important gifts of the Spirit, what Jesus is talking about on and off in John 13-17 and granting in John 20, are those of Isa 11:2-3: “And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.” (In the Septuagint the first “fear of the Lord” is eusebeia or piety, a virtue). We see these gifts granted to Jesus in the coming of the Spirit upon him in his baptism equipping him for sacral kingship, although only some aspects of these are named, particularly wisdom. With these he is enabled to do combat with the devil in the wilderness. These, then, are what are often referred to in the epistolary literature as important for Christians (e.g. Eph 1:17 and 1 Pet 4:14 with “might” being understood as “fortitude” or “patient endurance” as it was in the Patristic tradition). They are experienced by others as the “fruit of the Spirit” of Gal 5:22-24, the virtues flowing from the Spirit within. When it comes to leaders (presbyters or bishops), whether it be in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1, it is such moral qualities that are stressed, not functional ministry gifts. In other words, these gifts of the Spirit make one like Jesus with the virtues that he possessed; maturity in that virtue is what one wants in a leader. 

This flowed into the Patristic tradition, as we see in St Greogry the Great, Homilies, 2,7,7, among many other uses of the virtue tradition, and was systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas, again, as the first among many others. These are the basis of the virtues that one might pray for daily, which virtues (or lack thereof) are the basis for a good self-examination at the end of the day. For such a synthesis in contemporary context see https://openlightmedia.com (e.g. their School Starter Kit). Failure to focus on these gifts of the Spirit and the virtues that they produce leaves a person vulnerable.

Third, there is a desire for power and influence

Along with virtues there are vices. The seeking of the charismatic spiritual gifts can easily degenerate from using a tool to get the Lord’s work done to seeking power, perhaps to convince oneself of the presence of God in one’s life (the opposite of the virtue of faith) or perhaps to gain status in a group or gain influence over others. This, of course, is opposite of the virtue of humility. Along with power there is the seeking of honor, invitations to speak at “important” conferences or come to “important” meetings, special titles such as “the prophet x” or the “healing evangelist” or the like. Some of these start off as merely descriptive but inflate the ego with which they become identified. All of this is seductive, as Jesus says of the Pharisaic scribes who “seek the best seats in the synagogues” and the like (Matt 23:6-7). In other words, pride has crept in. We can also see this in a person talking about their exploits, the people “they” have healed or the numbers who were converted in their church or in a special event in a stadium. Jesus and the others in the New Testament usually tell those healed or otherwise helped to tell no one. And with such giving in to passions for power and honor two others are close, the desire for money or goods (that can be an attempt to satisfy the need for security or an attempt to impress others) or greed (and envy of those who have more) and the desire for sexual love beyond the bounds of marriage in which love should be seeking the good of other rather than self-gratification. Sometimes this drive includes other pleasures as well. Of course, sexual intimacy in such extra-marital contexts is often not about sex, for it can be a desire to control and dominate others or to gain a “trophy.”  So sexual adventures can be pride or power exercises as well as or rather than being the sex drive gone amuck. Whatever the vice, Scripture has nothing good to say about sex outside of marriage (and even within marriage it may become domination rather than love). 

Now often a sexual transgression is where a person is said to “fall.” It may then be ignored or the weaker partner may be blamed for “seducing” the great pastor. But once it becomes undeniable it usually requires at least an apology. This is not the case with the other vices, for wealth may be described as “the blessing of God” and a “sign of divine favor.” Healing fame may be attributed to holiness with people hungry to hear the stories, basking in the reflected glory. Pride in or in following such a leader may be thought of as an appropriate perk of “the Lord’s anointed.” That makes the followers of such a leader codependent supporters of the leader. And all are blind to the vices they have fallen into, for they have never been formed or schooled in the language of virtue and the danger of vice, let alone the psychology that underlies parts of the discussion above. 

In other words, what I am arguing is that proper formation that includes spiritual direction and instruction in virtue that is experienced in the context of community is necessary for healthy, humble, self-aware church (or religious organization) leadership. The lack of such formation and the emphasis on the 1 Cor 12 gifts of the Spirit that have nothing to do with character but rather are tools for outward focused ministry leaves such leaders vulnerable. And in a church and secular culture that views power, pleasure, honor, and wealth as signs of success or, in the church, God’s favor, rather than dangers, such leaders are set up to fall into the more vicious forms of these dangers, unprotected by ongoing spiritual direction and regular self-examination of conscience. That Protestant culture (as well as secular culture) is very individualistic leaves the leader isolated. Thus they crash and are left to stich their life and ministry back together, often without thorough self-examination in the context of the great spiritual tradition and sometimes without counseling help either. 

There is more that one could say about the authority structures that are lacking and why this can also happen (but usually not as spectacularly) in Mainline Protestant and Catholic contexts (see, for instance, Pope Benedict XVI’s essay “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse” in his posthumous book What Is Christianity? The Last Writings), but I will leave some of that for another blog post on the call-out culture and the problem of individualism and authority.