False Doctrine
Some undoubtedly remain silent because they suffer from errant indoctrination and imbalanced interpretations about “touching the Lord’s anointed,” speaking against a leader, gossiping, “sowing discord, division, and strife among the brethren,” being “an accuser of the brethren,” following “Matthew 18 protocol,” and maintaining “a culture of honor.” Here, Biblical principles have been distorted and weaponized by the enemy and abusive leaders to intimidate victims and would-be advocates into silence, bound by fear of grieving and displeasing the Lord, or even bringing curses upon themselves. Some leaders have even spoken curses over those who don’t blindly submit to their version of authority, directly violating the teaching of Jesus and potentially qualifying as a form of witchcraft.
Others have been trained through the proliferation of hypergrace theology to misapply God’s mercy, grace, and restoration in unBiblical and unwise ways. They’ve been wrongfully taught to conflate remorse with repentance, and forgiveness with restoration of trust (even immediate restoration to leadership). Here, God-given wisdom and discernment – needed to assess genuine repentance and establish proper processes for restoration of trust and position (when Biblical, wise, and safe) – are often misdiagnosed as unforgiving and uncharitable. This has resulted in not only disqualified leaders and wolves being wrongly restored to authority (or never even removed), but has further traumatized and endangered victims in other kinds of abusive situations where church counsel was sought.
For those in these situations, perhaps it’s a sincere fear of the Lord or desire to love well that keeps them mute (or causes them to err in speaking) – even if rooted in misguided understandings of these things. “They are shepherds who lack understanding…” in these areas. (Is 56:11) Though they may have knowledge of the situation, their voice is captive by or distorted through strongholds of doctrinal error, which will typically require supernatural weapons and divine intervention to break through.
Certainly, we do need a proper fear of the Lord and desire to love well when called to confront or expose. These should compel us to speak the truth in love and help us guard against the temptation and tendency to fall prey to pride, sin in anger, and go beyond the heart and mind of Christ into corrupt communication. Scripture gives several examples of those God raised up to bring judgment on His people, who ultimately ended up being judged as well because they took His chastisement far beyond what He intended. Hopefully remaining aware of the ditches on both sides of the road will help us pursue the balance of having the courage to speak uncompromised truth, but in humility, gentleness, and love.
Self preservation
For others it’s not the fear and love of the Lord, but the fear of man.
Since the abusers have often turned out to be the “gatekeepers”, the big-name, well known ministers in these circles (at least in the cases receiving the most attention), calling for their accountability and repentance can come at a very high and even dangerous price. Many whistleblowers and advocates have faced not only retaliation from big ministries, employing tactics that have earned them the titles of “Christian mafia” and “Christian illuminati”, but also backlash from their devoted followers as well. With so much at risk, those who are people pleasers, who are concerned for their reputation, job or financial security, or even safety at times, and those trying to amass favor and following within “celebrity Christianity,” in order to ascend the platform of success in that system, will often opt to “save their lives” rather than lay them down or lose them for what’s right (Mt 16:24-26). Like Ariel, in the Little Mermaid, they give up their voice in exchange for something they think is greater gain. Isaiah says these ineffective watch dogs are “greedy…; they have all turned to their own way, each one to his own gain.” (v.11)
Culture of Cover Up
Still others, as many of us have realized with increasing alarm, likely cannot speak out against sin they’re also guilty of and have been successfully hiding. As Blaise Foret recently astutely assessed– they have no authority to confront sin they’re also committing. Even if they’ve not been “predators,” they may still have a vested interest in remaining uninvolved, lest the floodlight of unwanted scrutiny turn in their direction, bringing their own moral failures to light. Case in point, some have confessed that it was Dr. Michael Brown stepping into the IHOPKC debacle as a mediator, then seeming to suddenly slink away, that caused some to question what he was hiding and emboldened others to finally come forward about him.
Isaiah also points to this issue of co-corruption among leaders as part of the “mute dog” problem. (Is 56:11-12)
Some rightly realize they’re disqualified from dealing with the plank in another’s eye while trying to conceal a similar dangerous protrusion in their own. Yet they somehow seem to fail to recognize that their plank has also disqualified them from the leadership they’ve been trying to illegitimately retain through subterfuge.
I’ve often cried out to the Lord about the “Saul” spirit He’s revealed is present in the leadership of many churches. The exposures of these last years have shed significant light on this, as it’s been made clear that some should never have been elevated to leadership in the first place, and others (like Saul), perhaps started well – truly called and anointed by God – but after committing disqualifying sins, have refused to adequately repent or relinquish their positions for many years.
Even more disconcerting, it’s seemed as though some have covenanted together to preserve illegitimate authority for one another – as if in some sort of “brotherhood” bound to keep each other’s secrets at all costs. The damage to believers has been exponential where it’s been discovered that leaders had sufficient evidence to determine another leader shouldn’t be trusted, yet didn’t “tell it to the church” (Mt 18:17) after unsuccessfully attempting to address it privately.
As much as the Matthew 18 protocol has been wrongly wielded against victims – by insisting even they must start by privately confronting their abuser, and by failing to acknowledge other exceptions where power dynamics exist – it could be rightly wielded against leaders for failing to carry the process through to completion when there’s not repentance – by informing the church, rebuking in the sight of all, and marking and avoiding those who persist in sin (Mt 18:17, I Tim 5:19-22, Rom 16:17-18).
Again, at times this seems to be the result of misguided ideas about mercy, grace, and “a culture of honor.” Wander Alger has referred to it as “unsanctified mercy.” We might also say it’s “unsanctioned” mercy and grace (proceeding from hypergrace error). When I read Mike Winger’s recent remarks about a “culture of cover up” (on X), I began to realize that the “culture of cover up” and “a culture of honor” (as described in the book by that title) seem like they might actually be one and the same. As I’ve started to scan that book for evidence of these faulty foundations, I believe a case could be made.
Some wrongly reason that exposure would cause more harm than concealing. This defense was given earlier this year by a pastor who failed to publicly call out another well known minister who was manipulating and deceiving many, for fear the exposure would discredit their entire movement. Several leaders quietly distanced themselves from this minister they had platformed and promoted, but didn’t make known that they were doing so or explain why. This lack of public exposure left unsuspecting believers still vulnerable, and some suffered significant consequences as a result. These leaders were ultimately far more discredited when people realized they had prioritized protecting their movement (and the con artist) rather than protecting believers. They failed to realize that by concealing, they were complicit. They unwittingly, “shared in his sins”, and had “blood on their hands.”
At other times the decision to conceal rather than reveal may be due to fear that their own exposure could follow (if the “brotherhood” are bound by silence through blackmail – where testifying to the truth about one could result in their own sins being exposed as well). In one of the recent cases, the accused was reportedly threatening others who might try to hold him accountable with the fact that he had dirt on them that could be revealed too.
The threat of retribution as a motivating force in cover-ups also extends to cases where would-be whistleblowers, witnesses, or advocates have been compelled to sign NDA’s (Non-Disclosure Agreements). Thankfully, the fight is presently underway to make this illegal in some states. In the Texas Senate hearing for “Trey’s Law” (SB 835) to make NDA’s illegal in cases of sexual abuse, Elizabeth Phillips (advocate and sister of Trey Carlock) made the poignant point that,
“NDAs are for trade secrets, not trauma secrets.”
Thankfully, this legislation passed the Senate in a 31-0 vote last Thursday (May 15, 25). Please pray it will now pass the Texas House and make it to Governor Abbott’s desk to be signed into law before June 2 (when the current legislative session ends). And let’s continue to pray it becomes law not only in Texas, but across the nation!
(continued in final part 3 here)
