A Church with Integrity

Men are not sexual robots.

Another week rolls around, and another scandal has erupted in the church. This one involves IHOP (International House of Prayer) founder Mike Bickle. I don’t want to assume guilt before all the facts have come out. In the age of social media, it’s easy to jump to conclusions based on the narrative before us in a given moment. I nevertheless perceive in myself a cynical predilection to expect the worst. Scandals of this type are just too common.

Dunking on the church is a great way to get clicks. My problem is that I love the church. I believe the church is the most important institution in the world. I’m one of those terrible, old fashioned Christians who wants everyone to come to faith in Christ. Every time a Christian leader falls, however, the faith of many falls with him—and let’s face it, we’re normally talking about a “him.” Women in positions of Christian leadership have been involved in scandals, but by and large such scandals occur among men who have risen to positions of power and influence in the church. I’m old enough to remember the scandals involving Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard. Both were covered in national news, but that was small potatoes compared to X, Facebook, and Instagram.

The sex-abuse problems in the Roman Catholic Church are widespread and severe, to put it mildly. They appear to have been facilitated by a church hierarchy too often hoping to avoid accountability and protect insiders. Nevertheless the problems don’t stop with the Roman Catholic priesthood. Consider the scandals involving Bill Hybels, Ravi Zacharias, Carl Lentz, and John Howard Yoder. Mark Driscoll’s offenses were not sexual in nature, but they were serious nonetheless. To learn of the moral failings of Jean Vanier was a gut punch for me. I so admired this man who had changed the lives of people with disabilities around the world. I remain grateful for L’Arch, but what would have been a beautiful legacy has been stained by a depressing narrative of sexual abuse and the misuse of power.

We can still learn from fallen leaders. Whatever failures he had, Vanier offered important insights into the Christian life, especially with regard to people with disabilities. Zacharias, Hybels, and others still said true things, even if some of their teachings are made less credible by their behavior. If all the other kids jumped off the genetic fallacy cliff, would you do it, too? Just to be clear, if we’re going to relegate the works of these thinkers to outer darkness, we’d better clear out the works of Paul Tillich and Karl Barth while we’re at it. All Christian insights come from flawed, sinful people. I have my own sins. You have yours.

Yet we should expect our leaders to function with integrity. Believe it or not, men are not sexual robots, and we do have agency and culpability with regard to our actions. We should expect better from our leaders than sexual harassment. We should expect them to remain faithful in their marriages. We should expect them to shun pornography. And yes, integrity involves more than the avoidance of sexual sin. It is not too much to ask that our leaders handle finances with honesty and transparency. We should expect them to uphold structures of accountability impartially, neither protecting their friends nor persecuting their enemies. It is, moreover, reasonable to ask our leaders to treat those around them, particularly their subordinates, with respect.

Moral failure shouldn’t necessarily mean the end of ministry, depending upon the failure. There are offenses so severe they disqualify the offender from future leadership in the church. Yet in many cases, there can be repentance, confession, and restoration. Christian leaders are human, subject to frailty and temptation. The key is genuine repentance. Efforts to cover up the offenses of a leader compound that leader’s sin and show a desire to avoid repentance, rather than pursue it.

I suggest, then, a few principles we might consider to promote integrity among Christian leaders:

• Impersonal, standardized practices of accountability are crucial. The rules must be clearly stated and apply to everyone, regardless of visibility or position. The processes must be transparent. We should provide standardized methods of reporting.

• We must acknowledge that Christian leaders, gifted as they may be, are merely human and at times in need of correction. “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” is a recipe for disaster.

• We should select leaders who demonstrate not just effectiveness in accomplishing institutional goals (such as church growth), but characteristics such as humility, kindness, and respect. Do we see the fruit of the Spirit in these people? Are they authentic ambassadors of Christ?

• We must call to account leaders who begin to demonstrate arrogance in their actions and attitudes. Remember: pride is one of the cardinal sins. When a leader begins to believe that a different set of rules applies to him or her, trouble lurks just around the corner

• An abundance of sycophants is a red flag. Leaders of integrity seek out truth tellers. There must be a Nathan or two in the life of the leader who will will say the hard things that others won’t.

There’s no foolproof way to prevent our leaders from falling into sin. At times it will happen, and we’ll have to make difficult decisions about how to move forward. Accountability structures are important, but equally important are the characteristics we look for in leaders we deem “effective” for the church. We like leaders who are dynamic, assertive, and charismatic. Even more important, however, are the characteristics of humility, gentleness, and patience. In other words, we need leaders who demonstrate Christlike integrity formed by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.