Hijos
del Altísimo (Children of the Most High) - http://www.altisimo.net -
"Will you ensnare the lives of my people in order to preserve your own?
You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.
Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms; I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds. I will tear off your veils and save my people from your hands, and they will no longer fall prey to your power. Then you will know that I am the LORD.
Because you disheartened the righteous with your lies, when I had brought them no grief, and because you encouraged the wicked not to turn from their evil ways and so save their lives, therefore you will no longer see false visions or practice divination. I will save my people from your hands. And then you will know that I am the LORD."
(Ezekiel 13:18-23)
The Bible describes the church frequently in
terms of a family: We are "children of God" (Rom.8:16),
part of the "household of God" (Eph.2:19), and each
other's brothers and sisters (Mat.23:8). In fact, most of
primitive church life happened in houses (=families).
So we can conclude that the spiritual and psychological
principles which apply to the family, are also applicable to
local churches. Counsellor Jeff Van Vonderen has successfully
applied many principles of family counselling to the situation of
local churches. The results (published in several books) led him
to identify the phenomenon of "spiritual abuse". This
form of abuse is equally dangerous as other forms. It might even
be more dangerous, since it affects directly the victim's
relationship to God. So not only the victim's earthly well-being,
but also his or her eternal life is at stake.
Spiritual abuse can be defined as the abuse of God's name, or of
a religious leadership position, in order to achieve one's own
selfish goals. People are put under pressure, or shamed, in the
name of God, to attend church services, donate more, or support
specific projects, only to provide their leaders with a certain
feeling of satisfaction.
Van Vonderen says that spiritual abuse is the same, on a
spiritual level, as incest on the physical level: Parents who
should help, train, nourish and protect their children, use their
position in order to satisfy their own desires, and do not care
about the children's needs. So the place which should offer the
maximum security to a child, offers him or her the least
security.
In a similar way, church leaders should help, equip, serve,
nourish and protect the members of their church. But in a
dysfunctional religious system, leaders do not care about their
members' needs. Instead, they attempt to satisfy their desire of
power, importance, personal affection or spiritual success, at
the expenses of members. The place which should offer the maximum
security for a Christian, offers him or her the least security.
(See Jeff Van Vonderen, "Tired of Trying to Measure
Up")
If someone objects that the comparison between incest and spiritual abuse is exaggerated, just consider two (of many) statements in an internet forum about spiritual abuse:
"Abused people stay in abusive churches for the same reason abused people stay in abusive homes--think of the abused wife who keeps making excuses for the husband who beats her, or the abused kids who lie to explain their bruises and injuries. It's all they know, it's their whole world and as bad as it is, it gives them a sense of security because people are comfortable with what they know. They know what to expect and they can handle what they know by making excuses and pretending. But they can't handle the unknown."
"I'm here as a victim of both rape and spiritual abuse and I can agree with your assessment of how the two situations are very similar. I guess it would be more accurate or fair to say I was the victim of ongoing sexual abuse in a dating relationship, which is even more similar to spiritual abuse, as incest would be. ... I'm currently estranged from my whole family through a tangle of incidents that result directly from their response to that abuse though they happened over years. ... Yeah - it's a fair comparison."
Note: English speaking readers may have difficulties to identify with some aspects of this chapter, especially the role of the Catholic church. You have to take into account that the Catholic church acts very differently, according to the circumstances: In countries where they are a minority, Catholics show themselves tolerant and advocate religious freedom (since this obviously favors them). But where they have the political power, they use it in order to eradicate diverging faiths wherever they can. Therefore, the Catholic church in Peru and the Catholic church in the US are quite two different pairs of shoes!
Jesus taught and demonstrated an almost revolutionary kind of leadership: Servant leadership. (See Luke 22:25-26). But not all curches follow this example. And it is my impression that Peruvian churches in particular are prone to authoritarianism, since the surrounding culture favours it.
In order to trace the history of authoritarianism in Peruvian
churches, we have to clarify first the relation between the
church and the conquest. Was the conquest condemned as a crime,
or was it, on the contrary, a logical consequence of Catholic
teaching?
When we examine History, we find that the second answer is true.
The Catholic clergy supported, and even incentivated, the
conquest. Voices of protest, such as Bartolome de las Casas, were
a tiny minority.
Even more: The Catholic church taught, since 300 years before the
conquest, that the church (and the pope) had both the spiritual
and the temporal (political) power over the world. This was
decreed at the IV Council of Lateran, in 1215, and was confirmed
again by Boniface VIII in 1302. The following is an extract of
the decree of the Council of Lateran:
"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that exalts itself against the holy orthodox and Catholic faith, condemning all heretics, by whatever name they may be known ... Such as are condemned are to be delivered over to the existing secular powers to receive due punishment. If laymen, their goods must be confiscated. If priests, they shall be degraded from their respective orders, and their property applied to the church in which they officated. Secular powers of all ranks and degrees are to be warned, induced, and, if necessary, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, to swear that they will exert themselves to the utmost in the defense of the faith, and extirpate all heretics denounced by the church, who shall be found in their territories. And whenever any person shall assume government, whether it be spiritual or temporal, he shall be bound to abide by this decree.
If any temporal lord, after having been admonished and required by the church, shall neglect to clear his territory of heretical depravity, the Metropolitan and Bishop of the Province, shall unite in excommunicating him. Should he remain contumacious a whole year, the fact shall be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, who will declare his vassals released from their allegiance from that time, and will bestow his territory on Catholics, to be occupied by them, on condition of exterminating the heretics and preserving the said territory in the faith."
It was based on this teaching, the official teaching of the
Roman Catholic church, that the conquerors felt completely
legitimated to destroy the Inca empire, to kill their kings and
princes, and to take their land and possessions. It was based on
this teaching, too, that the pope felt authorized to divide all
of South America between Spain and Portugal. Spain was not an
"aberrant" country with its unquenchable thirst of
conquest; on the contrary, it was the country which carried out
the papal instructions in the most consequent way.
We have to add that according to the Roman Catholic church, their
councils are infallible; this means that a decision of a council
is never revoked, and therefore the mentioned decree remains in
force until this very day! If it is currently not put in
practise, then this is not due to a change of attitude in the
Catholic church, but only due to the fact that this church's
political power has diminished in the modern world.
Spain was also the country which produced the most cruel institution of the Catholic church: the Inquisition. It was exercised in Peru until the 19th century.
After the Independence, it was slowly made possible that representants of other churches could enter Peru. But generally they were persecuted by the Catholic church. We will mention some examples of such persecutions:
Francisco Penzotti was a Methodist missionary in Lima, at the
end of the 19th century. Catholic priests put pressure on the
government in order to close his meeting place and expel him from
the country. In July of 1890 he was imprisoned under the
accusation of violating the Constitution, which prohibited public
exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion. His trial
lasted until January of the following year, when we was finally
absolved on the grounds that his meetings had not been in public.
In 1913, the indigenous Adventist preacher Manuel Zuñiga Camacho
began to build schools and a clinic in the area of Puno. The
Catholic priests threatened to imprison everyone who worked at
the building. In March of the same year, they raised up 200
Indians in order to attack the Adventists. They entered the
buildings by violence, destroyed the teaching materials and the
medicines. The bishop accused Zuñiga Camacho of corrupting the
Indians. In his defense, Zuñiga Camacho pointed out how the
Adventist Indians had been freed from alcoholism and had been
changed to a responsible lifestyle. The bishop ordered that he
and his collaborators be arrested, beaten, and imprisoned.
Later, in 1930, president Leguia decreed the closure of all
schools, both public and private, which did not teach the
Catholic faith. In consequence, 80 Adventist schools which
educated more than 2000 Indians had to be closed.
Is the current situation better? -We hear no longer of bloody persecutions, and the Constitution declares religious freedom. However, there is still a long way to go until non-Catholic citizens will enjoy the same rights as their Catholic neighbors.
The city and region of Ayacucho has been sadly famous for the terrorist activities of the "Shining Path". A preferred target of the terrorists, apart from civil authorities, were Evangelical churches, and many pastors died in terrorist attacks. However, according to the testimony of pastors who worked in that area, more Evangelical churches were forced to close because of the opposition of Catholic clergy, than because of the terrorists.
Even at the moment of writing, Evangelical churches have to pay taxes on their buildings and grounds, even on the basements, as if they were commercial buildings (with the exception of the auditory itself in some regions), while Catholic churches are completely exempt from taxes.
Every year, thousands and probably millions of pupils of
public schools are forced to participate in the Catholic rites of
First Communion and Confirmation. Children of Evangelical
families do no longer attend the meetings of their church because
"in School we are preparing for First Communion and they
will take an exam on it".
If a child makes his Christian faith known, different from
Catholic religion, he is often ridiculed and insulted by his own
teachers (and I am not speaking about teachers of religion, but
teachers of Language, Maths, etc.)
There were even cases where private, non-Catholic schools were
forced to contribute to Catholic ceremonies.
So where is religious freedom, when little children, the most
vulnerable members of society, are forced to fit into the
Catholic system, wherever they are in the educational system?
Teaching in schools distorts the very Word of God. Pupils of a
private Catholic school which has the reputation of being one of
the best schools in the city, shared with me the following
teachings they had received: "The Bible says that everyone
who does not honor the saints as we do, will go to hell." -
"Jesus was a sinner, that's why he had to be baptized. Only
Mary was free from sin." - "Why say Evangelicals that
sorcery is bad? if Jesus himself was a sorcerer."
Peruvian children learn a very distorted version of the Ten
Commandments:
- The First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods
before me" (Exodus 20:3), is taught this way: "You
shall love God above all things." By formulating it this
way, the Catholic child does not see any sin in having other
(pagan) gods, as long as he just loves them a little less than
God.
- The Second Commandment, "You shall not make for yourself
an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth
beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or
worship them..." (Exodus 20:4-5), is not ever taught at all.
It would be too obvious that the Catholic church breaks this
commandment daily.
- Instead of the Fourth Commandment, which says: "Remember
the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and
do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD
your God ..." (Exodus 20:8-10) - it is taught: "You
shall honor the fiests", obviously in order to justify the
many pagan fiests which have been incoroporated into the customs
of the catholic church.
Are Evangelical churches less authoritarian? - After my
experiences (see chapter 4), I
no longer believe it. Too many times I heard statements like:
"You have to obey me because I am the pastor." -
"Don't touch God's anointed one." - "The pastor
has to know everything about your personal life." -
"Who are you to question your pastor?"
Of course there are more healthy churches who make an effort to
practise leadership according to Jesus' example. But we must
understand that there are also sources of wounds within the
church, and therefore it is necessary to talk about this subject.
When the German branch of the mission YWAM realized that authoritarianism was appearing in their own ranks, they began to work about the subject and elaborated some hints about healthy leadership. They mention 21 characteristics which indicate a wrong use of authority:
1. Insisting in sharing all material goods.
2. Denying all authority to women.
3. Requiring absolute obedience toward spiritual leaders, even in personal decisions regarding residence, working place, marriage, full-time ministry, etc.
4. Frequent change of co-workers
5. The leader justifies himself always, especially under pressure
6. The church or group considers themselves an "exclusive" group which is better than the other churches.
7. The leader has the desire of domination over other people.
8. Conformity among all members of the group is required.
9. Those who leave the group are made feel guilty.
10. Leaders consider co-workers as their "property".
11. An atmosphere of distrust; regulations of behavior, control and vigilance by the leaders are emphasized. Members who want to leave because they disagree, are denied the possibility of leaving in peace.
12. A defensive attitude of the leadership towards any question or criticism.
13. Overburdening the co-workers.
14. Moral uncleanness of the leaders.
15. Counselling is used for giving orders, instead of presenting Biblical principles.
16. Decisions are imposed from above, instead of involving the members in the process of decision-making.
17. An excessive emphasis on human responsibility, instead of God's grace.
18. The leader attempts to assume the role of the Holy Spirit in correcting members and convincing them of sin.
19. Members are denied the right of seeking advice from people outside the group.
20. Leaders refuse to acknowledge thier mistakes and weaknesses.
21. The leader requires absolute obedience "because he is sent from God".
(The full document was published as an appendix to the German edition of "The Father Heart of God", by Floyd McClung. This appendix is missing in other editions.)
Frequently, Biblical passages are used apart from their context, in order to support an authoritarian doctrine. Jorge Erdely examines some of these doctrines:
- Authoritarian leaders can call you a "rebel" if you separate from them. - In Scripture, God calls "rebels" exclusively those who on purpose disobey God's word. (Hos.11:7, Numbers 20:24, Rom.10:21). Very often, pastors who call their members "rebels", are themselves rebelling against Biblical principles.
- The myth of not questioning "God's anointed one". (Psalm 105:15) - The context of Psalm 105 is referring to the whole of God's people as "his anointed ones", not to a particular leader. And what means "touching them"? This verse is a warning against the surrounding nations, not to rob or kill the people of Israel. This has nothing to do with a prohibition of questioning, correcting, or separing from, a religious leader. The Bible teaches that if our brother sins or teaches error, we have to exhort him (Mat.18:15, Eph.4:25).
- "Never oppose a minister, even if he is wrong" (1 Sam.24:4-5)
1) David was not about to simply oppose Saul, but to kill him. We have obviously no right to physically harm a leader who is wrong, nor to destroy his personal possessions.
2) David did not obey Saul (he did not return with him), but this was no rebellion. God was with David although he did not submit to Saul's rebellious authority.
3) There were many other people who had separed themselves from Saul's corrupt authority, and God never said they were wrong.- "God cannot bless a person who leaves his congregation." - The Bible teaches that there are valid reasons for leaving a congregation.
David was blessed when he left the leadership of Saul.
John the Baptist was blessed when he separed from the corrupt ministry of the pharisees.
The Apostles were blessed when they left the religion they had practised for years.
- Historically:
The Methodists left communion with the Anglican Church, and God accompanied them.
The Puritans left the Anglican church and escaped to America. They had a tremendous revival.
Hudson Taylor decided to abandon the missionary society which supported him, because he considered them as irresponsible.
Adoniram Judson left the Congregationalist church for another movement which he considered more Biblical.
David Brainerd was expelled from Yale University because of doctrinal differences.
Charles G. Finney left the Presbiterian denomination in order to join another congregation.
Jonathan Edwards was expelled from his own church where he was the pastor, because of his strong preaching about holiness.- "Those who leave a congregation are guilty of dividing the Body of Christ." - Which organization has the right to call temselves "The Body of Christ"? ... The Body of Christ is an individable unity. Every true believer is vitally united to Christ, no matter the congregation he attends.
- "Do not judge" (Mat.7:1-5) - To start with, if the leaders themselves believed this, they could never make any statement about the behavior of their members. - The truth is that the Bible does not forbid judging (John 7:24, 1 Cor.2:15, 5:3, 6:5). In Matthew 7:1-5, judging is not forbidden for everyone, only for the hypocrite.
(Summarized from the book "Pastores que abusan" (Pastors who abuse), by Jorge Erdely, Editorial MBR, México 1994)
So what is the authority of a religious leader, and where are
its limits? In my opinion, we can see the "sphere of
authority" of a religious leader in the following two areas:
- The internal affairs of the church or organization he is in
charge of.
- The areas where the Bible gives clear instructions. ("Do
not go beyond what is written", 1 Cor.4:6 - the context
speaks about "judging".)
Particularly, a spiritual leader does not have the right of
controlling or deciding in matters of personal calling regarding
residence, work, marriage, or spiritual ministry. Every believer
has the promise of hearing the Lord's voice, and should be
encouraged to seek personally God's will (John 10:27).
Some denominations attempt to diminish authoritarianism by reducing the pastor's power through a more "democratic" system. But this does not avoid false accusations, intrigues, and usurpation of power. Someone has said: "Democracy is dictatorship of the majority." - In a denomination which has the reputation of being one of the most democratic ones, I was quite astonished when I got to knew that the leaders of an institution belonging to this denomination, far away in the Peruvian highlands, could not realize the least official documentation nor bank transfer in benefit of the institution, without the signature of their national leadership in Lima.
Returning to the historical roots, we find the foundations of spiritual abuse in the person and teachings of Ignatius de Loyola. He was a contemporary of the conquerors, and had much influence in them and in the clergymen who came after them in order to "christianize" Peru. His dominant principle was blind obedience to the Roman see:
"We should be like a dead body, which is by itself unable of movement; or like the stick in the hand of a blind man."
Insisting in blind obedience is the foundation of all authoritarian systems. But Loyola goes even further. In his main work, the "Spiritual Exercises", he writes:
"We should always, in order to be certain in all things, believe that the white I can see is black, if the hierarchical church determines it so."
In other words, the Catholic church has the "right"
of forcing their followers to believe in a lie. This opens the
door fur unlimited manipulations. The faithful Catholic who
submits to this system, loses his right and his ability to
observe and think by himself. The consequences are visible, among
others, in the weaknesses of the Peruvian school system, which
were described by a student: "They teach us to memorize, but
not to think."
This is of course the complete contradiction to Isaiah 5:20:
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put
darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for
sweet and sweet for bitter!"
How much of this twisted ethics have the Evangelical churches
inherited? - In their official teaching, derived from the
Reformation, there is no room for such manipulations. The
Reformation puts the authority of the written Word of God above
all human authority. Therefore, the Evangelical churches have -
at least in theory - the best potential for being a refuge
against every kind of abuse.
But I have met also Evangelical leaders who think they can lie,
deceive, or commit financial irregularities, when it is "for
the benefit of God's work". There are also Evangelical
followers of the principle that "the ends justify the
means". But this is no Biblical principle! See 1
Thess.2:3-5, 2 Cor.2:17.
Every Catholic priest, by the institution of Confession, has
the possibility of appropriating other people's personal secrets,
and of using this knowledge in order to manipulate them and
exercise influence. Can we imagine the power in the hands of the
confessor of a political leader? In an abusive system, it is
impossible to bring before justice, or to make accountable,
someone who knows your personal secrets; and religious leaders
know this.
In a similar way, monastic orders have generally a rule which
obliges every member to report secretly to their superiors every
mistake (true or suspected) he observes in his fellow members. In
this way, mutual trust is destroyed, the superiors adquire
absolute control over members, and the opportunity is created for
every kind of slander and conspiracy.
When I heard of these things, I could not help remembering the
system of informers, and the abuse of "counselling", in
the church where I served for some time as a missionary. It was
the same system, only adapted to the setting of an Evangelical
church.
In reality these are no "Catholic" or
"Evangelical" methods; they are just satanic and should
not have room in any church which is called
"Christian".
The "triangular
relationships", of which we talked in the context of the
family, act also in churches. Many church members, when they have
a problem with another member, do not talk to this other member,
but to the pastor, expecting that he would solve the problem.
Many pastors accept playing this game; some out of ignorance, but
others purposely because it gives them the opportunity of
controlling the interpersonal relationships between members of
their church. As a consequence, members "learn" to
depend on their pastor instead of God, and to avoid direct
confrontation according to Matthew 18.
It is exactly this unhealthy kind of relationships which offers
to an abusive pastor the opportunity of building a system of
informers in communist style. Since he gets to know every
conflict and problem of his members, he can use this knowledge to
silence everyone who opposes him.
Much of this power is rooted in the lie that our weaknesses
disapprove us before God. I believe that once this lie is exposed
and broken, abusive leaders will lose much of their power.
Jesus called the weak and the burdened ones, not the strong ones
(Matthew 11:28).
The Apostle Paul was not ashamed of acknowledging his weakness (2
Cor.7:5-6, 12:10).
He also says that God called the foolish, the weak ond the lowly
(1 Cor.1:26-28).
What disapproves us before God are not our weaknesses, but our
wrong decisions.
The following is a list of common weaknesses one could find in
us. It is important to realize that these weaknesses (and similar
others) ARE NO SIN and do not disapprove nor disqualify us in any
way:
- having less physical strength than others
- being poor
- being less intelligent, or having received less education
- suffering from an illness or its consequences, or from a
deformity or handicap
- not being able to speak or to express oneself well (see the
examples of Moses and Jeremiah!)
- having less natural ability in treating with people
- being very extraverted and expressive, or very introverted and
silent
- not having those gifts and talents which are "in", or
those which are considered most prestigious in church
- having had a difficult past (this latter applies to the whole
of Peru; it is important to realize that this does not mean that
Peru is worth less than other nations).
If you feel ashamed for one of the mentioned weaknesses, take
into account that this shame does not come from God.
"To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul; in you I trust, O my
God. Do not let me be put to shame, nor let my enemies triumph
over me." (Psalm 25:1-2)
Even if someone has sinned, God keeps always the door open to repentance and restoration (1 John 1:9). So, even past sin is no reason for shaming someone or supposing that this person is disapproved by God (except if there is no repentance). Moses and David were murderers, but they were greatly used by God because they repented.
If you are a religious leader, I ask you to consider seriously before God, if you have ever used someone's weakness against him or her: to debase him or her as a person, to weaken his or her position, to manipulate him or her, or to refute his or her arguments. If you did this, repent before God and do everything possible to amend the situation of the person who was harmed in this way.
Baptism of little children, as practised by the Catholic church, is by itself an abuse of power: The newborn child is incorporated into the church without being asked, and without having the opportunity of saying no. Later, this child is taught that he or she is, and always was, Catholic, and that "changing religion" is a mortal sin. Most Catholics are still prisoners of this lie. But the truth is that Catholicism was imposed upon the Peruvian people by force, and is up to this day being imposed by force upon every baby by baptism.
Most Evangelical churches emphasize a personal decision of
belonging to Christ (and therefore, to a Christian church). The
Lord does not want "forced members" in his people, only
volunteers.
But in their practice, many churches are quite incongruent in
this point, in respect to children. In Sunday School, children of
Christian parents are frequently treated as if all of them were
themselves Christians too. They are taught to "behave as
Christians", and parents let them know that the family does
certain things (like going to church, praying, reading the Bible)
"because we are Evangelicals". They are taught songs
with lyrics like this: "If you are truly saved, say
Amen" - and every child is expected to say "Amen",
insinuating that every child in the class is "truly
saved". This way, many Evangelical churches incorporate
their children in an "automatic" way, very similar to
the Catholic church.
Some years later, as teenagers or young adults, many of them
begin to question what they had been taught, and will discover
that these teachings do not correspond in any way with the
reality of their lives - since they never had a true relationship
with the Lord. So they withdraw from church and "fall into
sin", and parents and church leaders ask themselves:
"Why are we losing so many of our youths?" The truth is
that we are not losing them now, but they were never saved.
In order to be "truly saved", one needs something more
than just following the customs and teachings of a church. It is
necessary to come personally to the Lord and give him one's life.
Our teaching must confront people - including children - with the
need of this decision, but without imposing it upon them nor
manipulating them. "Christian" teaching which does not
confront with this decision, is nothing more that "Christian
socialization", but has nothing to do with Biblical teaching
and evangelism. Therefore we have many children in churches who
are taught "Christian behavior", but not the true
Gospel.
In theory, the Catholic priest and the monk are the extreme
examples of sexual abstinence. But in practice, it seems that the
contrary happens.
Juan A. Mackay quotes the Peruvian historian Sebastian Lorente:
"When an Indian was
reproached for living in concubinage, he asked quite surprised if
this was a sin, and when they answered yes, he said: I believed
it was no sin, since the priest lives in concubinage, the judge
lives in concubinage, and the governor lives in
concubinage."
"A well-known novel, "Aves sin Nido" (Birds without a nest), describes how things were, and how they still are to a great extent, in this respect. - Two youths fall in love with each other. Short before their wedding they discover, terrified, that both of them are children of the same bishop. ... When the noble couple who adopted Marcela, the unhappy heroine of the story, passes through Arequipa, Mrs. Lucia says to her husband: 'I was astonished by two things in this town: the large number of friars in the streets, and (with a sigh from the depth of her heart) and the surprising number of orphans in the House of Foundlings. ... May God forgive me the bad thought, but this idea has suggested to me the most sad thoughts, since I could not help remembering Marcela's secret.""
(Juan A.Mackay, "The Other Spanish Christ")
"A very notable Spanish priest who had worked many years in Chile in different parishes, made to the author of this book, in 1929, the following statement: ... Out of about six hundred priests I got to know in different South American countries, I estimate that less than five percent observe sexual purity..
(Op. cit.)
A priest is a mediator between God and men. In the Old
Testament, priests presented the people's sacrifices before God,
interceded for the people before God, and transmitted God's laws
to the people.
It is worth noting that even in the Old Testament, this was not
God's original plan for his people. At Mount Sinai, God said to
them through Moses: "You will be for me a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exodus
19:6). The whole people of God was to have direct access to God
and to be priests - for whom? For the surrounding heathen
nations.
But in the following chapter we see the people rejecting this
direct access to God: "When the people saw the
thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain
in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and
said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But
do not have God speak to us or we will die."
(Exodus 20:18-19). Like people nowadays, they had a
superstitious fear of the possibility of approaching God
directly. They preferred keeping their distance, sending Moses
alone forward, and (this is the other side of the coin) not
taking so seriously the commandments they received by means of
Moses.
So the sacerdotal system was established, where priests
ministered before God in the Temple, on behalf of the people.
When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn apart
(Matthew 27:51). This was God's visible sign that we can again
have direct access to his presence. (See also Hebrews 4:14-16 and
10:19-22).
The New Testament emphasizes again the priesthood of all
of God's people: "You also, like living stones,
are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood
... But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people belonging to God ..." (1
Peter 2:5.9) - The same is confirmed in Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and
20:6. These five verses are the only New Testament
passages where the word "priest" or
"priesthood" is used in reference to members of the
Christian church. This shows clearly that it is not Biblical
speaking of a "priesthood" within the
Christian church, different from the totality of their members.
Every true Christian has the same direct access to God, and
therefore the authority of "ministering" to other
people.
However, during history, there emerged again a class of
"priests" who attributed to themselves the priviledge
of mediating between other Christians and God. This is very
obvious in the Catholic church: A Roman Catholic cannot confess
his sins directly to God; he must confess to the priest. He
cannot read and understand the Bible by himself; the priest must
interpret it. All the sacraments are administered exclusively by
the priest. Again there was a "curtain" raised up which
hinders the believer's direct access to God.
Are Evangelical churches different? Very little, as it seems.
The same doctrine inherited from Roman Catholicism is preached
also in most Evangelical churches in Peru: "The pastor
ministers to the believer in God's place", "You receive
God's Word by means of the pastor", "Submission to the
pastor is your covering and protection", etc. In almost all
aspects of his relationship with God, the average believer
depends on his pastor.
As a consequence, very few Evangelical believers read the Bible
by themselves, and even fewer practice what they read. And where
a church does not have a pastor fulfilling the
"priestly" role, spiritual life decays very quickly,
since the believers do not know how to maintain their personal
relationship with God.
We can observe this sacerdotalism and ritualism especially in
the Sacraments, or what Evangelical churches have put in their
place. Take as an example the Lord's Supper. In the New
Testament, this was the continuation of the Jewish Passover. The
Passover was a family celebration, and it was in the first place
a real supper, a real meal. In every home, there gathered as many
people as could eat a lamb together, and the father led the
spiritual part of the ceremony. (See Exodus 12:21-27). The
Christian church still celebrated the Lord's Supper in their
homes, and as a real meal. Acts 2:46 states: "Every
day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They
broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere
hearts." - Although they had
large meetings in the Temple (which applies only to Jerusalem),
the "breaking of bread" was celebrated in family, in
the homes. And it must be assumed that there also, the father was
leading the celebration, corresponding to Jewish tradition. The
New Testament does not know any restrictions about who may
administer the Lord's Supper.
How differently do present churches celebrate the Lord's Supper!
Instead of gathering for a meal, they gather for a sterile
ritual. In most churches, neither is bread broken nor a cup
shared, but everyone receives his own piece of bread and plastic
cup, from the hands of a "priest". Everyone must keep
certain strict rules about the position of their body, the exact
moment of participating, etc. External formalities have made us
loose completely the "gladness and sincerity of hearts"
of the first believers. And where are the churches today where
family fathers celebrate the Lord's Supper in their homes? In
most churches, they are not even allowed to do so; this would be
against the priviledges of the "priest".
Althought doctrine is different, the formal aspects of the Lord's
Supper in Evangelical churches resemble more the Catholic Mass
than the example of the New Testament.
Sacerdotalism in Evangelical churches can also be observed in
the "ministry times" offered as a part of many church
services. Basically it is a good idea, offering an opportunity of
praying for the needs and problems of believers. But this idea is
being perverted when the expectation is created that people will
now receive a "special blessing" because a
"special person", the pastor, is praying for them.
(It is true that elders have a particular responsibility of
praying for the sick (James 5:14). But the same passage says
also: "Confess your sins to each other
and pray for each other,
so that you may be healed" (James 5:16).This means that
every believer can and should participate in this kind of
ministration.)
Personally I was called in several opportunities to pray for
people who had come forward in "ministry times" during
a chruch service. When I asked them for the reason why they had
come forward (some pastors do not even ask this question!), half
of them did not even know why they had come. They were there with
the same superstitious expectation which characterizes Roman
Catholics waiting for "the blessing" from their bishop
or priest.
There were also people who came forward, Sunday after Sunday, to
receive prayer for the same problems; but they never began to
assume the responsibility for their own lives. If the pastor's
prayer was the key to success, why seeking God for themselves?
Let us consider now what David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen say about one characteristic of abusive churches, which they call "Misplaced Loyalty":
"The following characteristic of abusive systems is that a sense of misplaced loyalty is encouraged and demanded. We are not talking here about loyalty towards Christ, but loyalty towards a certain organization, church, or leader.
A frequent way how this is achieved is by means of a system where unloyalty or disagreement with leaders is interpreted as being identical with disobedience towards God. Questioning a leader, they say, equals questioning God! After all, the leader is the authority, and the authority is always right. This way, people misplace their loyalty in a leader, a church or organization."
(David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen, "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse")
Here we see that there is one single step from a sacerdotalist system to an abusive system. It is only the last consequence: If the pastor or leader is a "priest" who represents God, then questioning the leader equals questioning God. So the believer will not develop a personal relationship with God: all his attempts to approach God must be "canalized" and controlled by the leader. This is reflected in a frequent commentary by outsiders who visited Evangelical churches: "There they take the pastor as their god."
Johnson and Van Vonderen go on explaining how these leaders affirm their power:
"There are three factors contributing to this misplaced loyalty. First, the leadership projects a mentality of 'only we are right', and this penetrates the whole system. Members must remain within the system if they want to be 'safe', or if they want to 'be all right with God', or if they do not want to be considered as mistaken or 'backslidden'.
The second factor is the use of 'frightening tactics'. For example:
'God will withdraw his Spirit from you and your family.'
'God will destroy your business.'
'Without our protection, satan will take your children.'
'You and your family will come under a curse.'
The third method is the threat of humillation. This is achieved by publicly shaming certain people, exposing them, or threatening with expulsion.?"
(Op.cit.)
Where these things happen in a church, the "sheep" are hurt. Therefore it is important to detect the symptoms of sacerdotalism, and to return to a more Biblical model.
On the other hand, the people which do not know any other kind
of leadership, will always look for a "strong" leader.
This gives way to a dangerous dynamics between followers and
leaders, which we can observe in many areas of society, and
especially in the church.
At the beginning, leader and followers seem to "agree"
that the leader dominates the people, and the people depend on
the leader. People are looking for someone to tell them what they
should do, and the leader is happy when he can give orders and
people obey him.
But dependent people seldom develop initiative. The leader can
easily find people who follow him while he "pulls" them
forward, but he will hardly find people who support his work by
their own initiative. As a result, there will be more and more
things the leader has to do himself. Or if he does not do them
himself, at least he has to be constantly controlling the people
who do them. The leader must become a multi-tasker, capable of
doing everything.
This is exactly what most people expect from their leader. He
must became an "idol", in order to justify the
admiration of his followers. (And this justifies the fact that
the followers do nothing.)
But this puts a tremendous pressure on the shoulders of the
leader: He is expected to be perfect, an example in everything,
and never to be wrong. If the leader would show some weakness or
make a mistake, he would immediately fall from his pedestal; he
would loose his authority and his followers' respect. This is at
least what most people think.
No human being is capable of acting in a perfect way all the
time! So many leaders begin to dissimulate before their
followers. Although they are tired or frustrated, they always
have to show a happy smile. When they make a mistake, they have
to cover it up, justify themselves, or blame someone else. If
they are church leaders, probably they have imposed very
demanding moral standards upon their followers, and in some
moment they discover that not even they themselves are able to
fulfill them all the time. However, they have to maintain the
appearance of the "super leader". And probably they
will increase pressure upon their followers, attempting to pull
them out of their irresponsibility.
But people become more and more dissatisfied. They realize that
things are not going well. They feel "used" because of
the pressure upon them. They begin to discover their leader's
weaknesses. So they withdraw, disappointed, and look for a new
"super leader" who will satisfy their expectations.
People are not acting consciently this way. It seems to be a pattern inherited from the past, which is difficult to escape from. But I am convinced that people who obtain emotional and spiritual healing will be able to accept and support leaders who are not perfect in everything, instead of converting their leaders in little gods.
And what can a leader do in order to escape the trap of the "Super Leader Complex"?
I would like to answer with the words of Dale Kauffman (founder of "King's Kids"), who said at a conference:
"As leaders, we should be open in respect to what we are, and what we still need to learn. So we free ourselves and others from much pressure. If we pretend being very sure of what we do when in reality we are not, we put other people under pressure; we put heavy loads upon their shoulders without moving them with a single finger (Matthew 23:4). This comes from fear of men. We must admit that we all, including ourselves, are fighting against sin.
When we are transparent, some people (generally those who are not transparent themselves, but proud) will disregard us and will not accept us as leaders.But it is God who will maintain us in the position where he has called us, and he will act in the lives of those who criticize us. (Sometimes it is even preferrable that they withdraw from us.) - Even to children and teenagers, it is far better saying to them: 'Let us learn together', instead of: 'Learn from me'."
God has given us our conscience as a compass in the midst of
the temptations and deceptions of life. But this compass is not
infallible. (See 1 Cor.4:4).
Basically, we can find two kinds of problems related to
conscience:
- The "seared" conscience. (1 Tim.4:2). This
conscience has lost its sensitivity; it does no longer react to
immoral acts. This happens often with people who have silenced
the warnings of their conscience so many times that they cannot
hear them any longer. So they live in the illusion that
everything is fine.
- The weak conscience. (1 Cor.8:7-12) This is a
conscience which overreacts. The person feels guilty although he
or she did nothing wrong. This can be the result of an overly
rigid and legalist education, and it happens also to abuse
victims. (See chapter 3.)
Both problems, the seared conscience and the weak conscience, can
even appear together in the same person, regarding different
aspects of their lives. For example, someone may feel guilty when
his or her weight increases (which is no sin at all), but may lie
to his or her friends without feeling guilty. In both cases, the
conscience is not well balanced and has to be readjusted.
During the last years, we have often heard (especially in the
political realm, the expression of "buying
consciences". The meaning is that certain people are willing
to act completely against their conscience, if in change they
receive a certain personal advantage (money, power, a promotion,
etc.). The person who "buys consciences" is obviously
abusing his or her power. But on the other hand, corruption can
spread only in a surrounding where there is a sufficient number
of people who let themselves be "bought". In Peru, this
kind of people abound.
Why is that? - May I repeat it once more: because Peru has not
yet overcome its colonial past, and because power abuse leaves
its marks in the conscience of the victim. Once the victim has
lost his or her personal integrity and independence, he or she
loses the capacity of acting freely according to his or her
conscience. This person becomes a puppet in the hands of the
abuser, and later in the hands of other people.
Why do I mention this in a chapter about the church? - Because
the strengthening of consciences is an important responsibility
of the church; but dysfunctional churches are the main destroyers
of consciences.
The conscience is cleansed by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9:14),
this is, by the forgiveness we receive by his sacrifice. When the
church teaches correctly about the benefits of Christ's
sacrifice, their members can live in the assurance of a clean
conscience.
The conscience is strengthened by learning to react correctly
according to God's Word, and to be influenced only by God, not by
men. A conscience strengthened by the knowledge of God and trust
in him, is the best defence against abuse. Churches strengthen
consciences by teaching God's Word correctly, and by encouraging
their members to fear God and not men.
Sadly, in some churches happens the contrary. It was probably
the greatest disappointment in my Christian life when I
discovered that even Christian leaders were able to "sell
their conscience" to other Christian leaders. (I will not
repeat the examples since they are already related in my personal
story.)
By returning to the time of the Conquest, we can understand this
point better. The Conquerors relied on a "divine
legitimation": Were they not supported by the pope, God's
representative on earth? And their victory over a people much
larger than they themselves seemed to prove them right.
So, submitting to the Conquerors was "good", and
resisting them or protesting against their abuses was
"bad". The church, with very few exceptions, preached
the same. The conscience of the conquered ones became dependent
on these powerful lords. So they submitted to all external
religiosity of the conquerors. - But at the same time, they saw
so much injustice and immorality commited by the Spaniards, that
they could not accept Christianity from their hearts. They were
not free to choose what is good.
This leading astray of consciences begins, very subtly, where the
pastor's teaching (a human interpretation) is equaled to God's
Word. So a man, or an organization, puts himself in the place of
God.
This is very obvious in the Roman Catholic church, and in some
cults like "Jehova's Witnesses". But also in some
Evangelical churches members are told (in a more subtle way) that
"the pastor is God's Anointed One", and therefore his
word cannot be questioned.
The next step consists in putting pressure and shame upon those
who dare to use their own judgment in order to examine their
leader's words and actions if they are based on the Bible. So an
atmosphere of fear is created: members do no longer act according
to their conscience, but out of fear of the leaders.
It is this what Ezekiel means when he says: "Because you
disheartened the righteous with your lies, when I had brought
them no grief, and because you encouraged the wicked not to turn
from their evil ways and so save their lives..." (Ez.13:22)
A particular case is the fact that Catholic believers are
taught that only entering a church which is not Catholic, is a
mortal sin. This is another example of creating a "misplaced
loyalty", and is particularly tragic because members feel
guilty before God exactly when they would have the best
opportunity of knowing God's Word in a surrounding where it can
be freely examinated.
Additionally, Catholics who convert to Biblical Christianism, are
closely observed in order to find something in their lives which
goes wrong. At the least problem in their lives or families,
people point at them saying: "This is happening to you
because you changed your religion." Many people believe this
lie and take it as a "proof" that they are really
guilty before God.
If they understood God's Word and God's goodness, they would
realize that in reality their problem does not prove anything.
But like in Paul's time, there are "false brothers who have
infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ
Jesus, and to make us slaves" (Gal. 2:4). And this slavery
of consciences can lead people so far as to feel guilty of their
own salvation.
It seems that much of the pastoring in Peruvian churches has
become adapted to the psychological disposition of people, which
we can call "Cage mentality". - In the beginning it
might be appropriate to adapt; but the goal of pastoral ministry
should always be leading people to freedom in Christ.
As a pastor, one can be overwhelmed by the "easiness"
people fall into sin, especially sexual sin. So the pastor makes
a greater effort to "protect" his "sheep".
(After all, the pastor's reputation and self-esteem is also being
damaged if his members commit sin...) So the surrounding world is
perceived as dangerous and threatening, and the church as a
"safe cage". So the pastor begins to "put his
members into a cage" by means of many rules of conduct which
are nowhere found in the Bible.
For example: "If you notice you are falling in love, you
have to inform your pastor immediately." - "We do not
allow youths to visit each other in their homes." -
"Every holiday must be full of activities in church, so the
young people do not go to other places where they might be
tempted." - Equally regarding alcohol: "Do not even
approach a bar from far." - "Never visit a friend if
you know that alcohol might be served in his home."
In a certain opportunity, the pharisees reproached Jesus:
"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?
They don't wash their hands before they eat!" - Jesus
answered: "And why do you break the commandment of God for
the sake of your tradition?" Then he quotes from Isaiah: "These
people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught
by men."(Matthew 15:1-9)
Do you notice something? The pharisees had this same cage
mentality. In order to even prevent people from getting near to
breaking God's law, they surrounded God's commandments with a
much larger "fence" of human commandments. For example,
they commanded to wash hands before every meal, because there was
a possibility that one had touched some unclean object during the
day. They also commanded (which is being observed until this day)
that a recipient which was being used for milk or milk products,
cannot be used for meat; on the grounds of Exodus 34:26 ("Do
not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.")
We may smile at these excesses; but are we not reproducing a
similar atmosphere in our churches? And the result is not greater
resistance against sin; on the contrary. People accustomed to
this kind of "pastoral protection" loose every sense of
own responsibility. There is always someone who decides for them,
who discerns for them between good and evil, and who prepares the
way for them. They need no longer to think, to examine and to
decide. And this is exactly what makes them more vulnerable to
temptation, as soon as they are in a situation outside the
"pastoral protection". - At the same time, the pastor
gets nervous: "It seems I am not protecting my flock
sufficiently!" .. and he thinks about how to improve his
protection mechanism.
Jesus' approach is completely different. He never tried to put
his disciples into a cage. In change, he pointed directly to
their hearts.
His teaching begins with the Sermon on the Mount, where he
confronts us with commandments so radical that every sincere
person must admit: "I am not able to fulfill this."
These are commandments which cannot be fulfilled by appearance
only. They have to do with the attitude of the heart.
This is what Jesus expects from us: to admit that our heart is
wicked, that we are unable to fulfill his commandments, and that
we depend completely on God's help. We cannot pull ourselves out
of the swamp of sin by our own hair. We depend completely on
Jesus for being saved, and for living a life which pleases him.
And the pastor depends completely on Jesus for the protection of
his flock.
Only Jesus can put in a man's heart the conviction of his own
sin. Only Jesus can give him a heart which loves God's
commandments and abhors sin. Only Jesus can give him the strength
of saying "No" to temptation. "Pastoral
protection", as described above, cannot do this; on the
contrary: it distracts the believer's eye from the Lord who could
strengthen him, and focuses his attention on people, and what
people might think of him. This is what Scripture calls "the
fear of men".
"Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.
Many seek an audience with a ruler, but it is from the LORD that man gets justice. "
(Prov.29:25-26)
The Bible teaches that God looks at our hearts. He had to
exhort Samuel not to be distracted by the external appearance of
Jesse's sons (1 Sam. 16:8). Jesus reproached the pharisees: "You
are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside,
but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything
unclean." (Matthew 23:27)
But many churches teach to care more for the external appearance
and the denomination's tradition, than the real state of the
heart. After a few years of existance, a church has already its
tradition: its sacred order of celebrating church services, its
particular way of talking, of dressing, and many other details.
And soon they learn also to disregard other churches whose
tradition is slightly different.
Christians are arguing, and churches are being split up, about
matters such as the style of music which should be used for
praising God; the way how the auditory should be decorated; or
the question if women should use lipstick or not. Church members
feel under an obligation of dressing in a particular manner, as
if this would influence in their reverence towards God.
Johnson and Van Vonderen write about this focus on the external:
" This concentration on the trivial, the details of little or no spiritual significance, serves in reality to distract from the real matters. This is another characteristic of a system of spiritual abuse. The insignificant is made relevant, while the relevant is made insignificant.
(op. cit.)
This focus on the external manifests itself
also in the Christian variation of the rule: "Dissimulate
your emotions". In some churches, "humility" means
to hang one's head all the time. Other churches have the motto:
"More than conquerors"; so you have to look
victoriously all the time, even if you have just been defeated.
In one or the other way, church members are not allowed simply to
be as they really are.
Some Christians call this behavior "testimony".
"As a testimony" they pretend being happy when their
lives are full of problems and conflicts. "As a
testimony" they do not confront the injustice they are
victims of. "As a testimony" they submit to an abusive
husband or father.
But what kind of testimony is this? Is it a "testimony"
living a lie and pretending what is not real? Is it a
"testimony" finding excuses for other people's sins? Is
it a "testimony" cleaning the vessel on the outside,
while on the inside it is full of injustice?
Sometimes, the pastors themselves give this
example. Some of them believe they will lose their authority if
they show themselves tired or sad in front of their church
members. Others believe they can go nowhere without being dressed
in a suit and tie. And other give a lot of importance to their
titles of "pastor" or "reverend". Ironically,
exactly that pastor in the city who paid more attention to his
external appearance than any other, was the one who lived in
adultery and attempted to usurp the church's properties.
But this kind of teaching attracts many followers in Peru.
Leaders like being taught about how to maintain their appearance
and their "image".
A person immersed in problems is like someone
who lost his way in the middle of a swamp. Someone standing on a
nearby hill can better see the way out. This is the counsellor's
perspective: He is at a distance, and has therefore a wider
perspective.
But this situation includes also a potential for abuse: A person
looking for counselling makes him- or herself dependent, to a
certain extent, on the counsellor. A counsellor can abuse this
situation by forcing the person to do what he wants. He can
forget that he is only a brother helping another brother to find
his way with God, and put himself in God's position.
A frequent form of manipulation in counselling consists in making
statements about the secret motives and intentions of the
counselee, and forcing him to accept these interpretations as
truth: "In reality, you are doing this in order to ..."
- "The true root of your problem is that ..." -
"There must be a hidden sin in your life." - As a
result, the counselee feels guilty about something he does not
even know he did it; but he will do everything the counsellor
tells him, in order to diminish this guilt. After all, the
counsellor "knows everything about me", so he must be
right.
There are even counselling courses which directly suggest using
this method, by giving generalized "recipes" like
these: "Depression signals always that there is an
unconfessed sin." - "Nightmares have their origin
always in occupation with the occult." - Such
generalizations do not take into account the complexity of life;
and they are anyway not Biblical.
The truth is that nobody can know man's heart, apart from God
(Jeremiah 17:9-10). Only God can reveal the secret intentions of
the heart (1 Cor.4:5). And he says that we should examine
ourselves, not that the counsellor should examine us (1
Cor.11:28, 2 Cor.13:5). This means that God wants to deal
personally with everyone regarding the secret matters of the
heart. (See also 1 Thess.2:4).
God can use a counsellor's opinion in order to confirm something
he is revealing to us; but never to impose upon us an
interpretation of hidden motives he never told us about. -
"Test everything; hold on to the good." (1 Thess.5:21).
I must test the word of the counsellor: If there is any hidden
motive, God will not tell it only to the counsellor, but he will
show it also to myself. It is the Holy Spirit who convinces of
sin (John 16:8).
The goal of counselling is not dependency, but leading the
counselee to assume his own responsibility before God. The
counsellor must above all encourage the counselee to seek by
himself God's answer to his situation. He can help by showing a
Biblical perspective of the situation, but should not decide in
the counselee's place. The counselee is strengthened in his faith
when he experiences that God answers him personally, and when he
assumes the responsibility of making a decision and choosing
God's way by his own will.
I was talking with a young woman who had
graduated from university some years before. I asked her how she
thought getting involved in Christian ministry, and what was
God's calling for her. She answered: "When I was still a
teenager, I received several prophecies by my leaders, that I was
called to full-time ministry and that I should attend our Bible
School. But I gave more importance to my professional studies,
and went on until finishing them. Maybe I already lost my
opportunity?" - "You mentioned prophecies by your
leaders - but what did God say to you personally? What do you
think you can do for him?" - Obviously, she was surprised by
the question. But then I realized she had quite a clear concept
of her gifts and talents, and of God's purpose: "God has
given me the ability of relating to every kind of people. ...
Above all, I would like to help people with problems, people in
crisis; both believers and unbelievers."
Here she was, with a wonderful preparation for a magnificient
task where she would be able to glorify God; but her church had
obviously not given her the opportunity to develop her specific
talents. "God's calling", for her leaders, was limited
to attending the Bible School of their denomination and then
reproducing exactly the model of their central church in one of
their daughter churches. If she was not ready to be transformed
into a "copy" of her leaders, she had to ask herself if
she "had lost her opportunity".
Of course I am not against full-time ministry
(I am a full-time minister myself). There is a great need for
trained and committed ministers, and it is good to encourage
young people to consider this option. It is a way how God's
calling can manifest itself; but it is not the only way. Other
people are called to glorify God by means of their profession, or
by means of their influence in society. In fact, every
Christian has his specific calling from God; there is no
Christian "without a calling".
I also believe that God can sometimes give a leader a word of
confirmation about the calling of one of his followers. But it is
very dangerous to emit this word before having
encouraged the member to seek God's direction by him- or herself.
The leader can observe, give his opinion about, and confirm,
God's guidance in a member's life; but he is not the one who gives
direction.
The case is very different where a member has already sought
God's guidance, has reached a conclusion, and then receives a
word from his or her leader which confirms this conclusion. This
is something beautiful, when God confirms his direction "by
means of two or three witnesses" (2 Cor.13:1).
How beautiful is the picture drawn by the
apostle Paul of the "Body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians
12!
God has created everyone of us as an original, with unique gifts
and talents, and a unique calling. And we need each other to
complement each other, because my brother can do with his talents
what I cannot do. But how sad when a leader tries to force all
members into the same mould!
The tendency of producing "copies"
shows itself also in the zeal of copying foreign
"recipes". Leaders say: "What works in the U.S.A.
(or in Corea, or Europe, or wherever), must work here too."
So they copy exactly the way how foreign churches organize their
campaigns, their growth strategies, even their way of
constructing church buildings. In some churches founded by
foreign missionaries, members are even imitating the foreign
accent of the misionaries!
(Interestingly, the Evangelical denomination which is currently
founding the largest number of churches, is the one with the
smallest percentage of foreign missionaries and the least
economical support from foreign countries.)
Foreign missionaries bring often not only
spiritual help, but also material support. This is sometimes
necessary, but it causes problems in the relationships between
Peruvian churches and foreign missionaries. As a pastor put it:
"Many Peruvians, when we see a foreign missionary, we see
only a dollar sign."
Many churches have been accustomed since their foundation that
"the money comes from abroad". This money helped them
to raise buildings and ministries which would otherwise not
exist. But it taught them also that "receiving is more
blessed than giving", turning around the Lord's words. So
there are now churches whose members do not feel any
responsibility for supporting economically God's work and needy
brothers and sisters. I heard about a church who has a rather
large building, constructed with foreign money. The missionaries
returned to their country, and the church went on meeting in that
building which deteriorated over the years. For thirty years they
did not repair anything in the building, because they waited all
the time for another missionary to pay for it!
Some Christians even made it their business to attract money from
charities for their clients for whom they elaborate written
projects, charging a commission.
What has this to do with the subject of abuse?
In the first place, we saw that one consequence of abuse is a
mentality of dependence and a lack of will for independence. This
same mentality is perpetuated in churches and institutions which
depend on foreign money. They remain dependent because this is
more comfortable for them, and they do not learn to realize their
own possibilities. Therefore they do not develop their own
capacities of organization and leadership.
This situation provides opportunities for a wide range of
manipulative manoeuvres. There are people approaching
missionaries with their (true or fake) needs, in order to secure
their "piece of the cake". On the other hand, there are
missionaries who have discovered that the money in their hands is
a very efficient means of manipulating the churches. In these
entangled relationships, it is often not easy to determine who
manipulates whom. A far too large number of pastors and leaders
had to leave their ministry because of embezzlement. Some
missionaries, confronted with this situation, preferred
administering all funds themselves. This, in turn, prevented
churches from becoming independent and mature. All this leads to
dysfunctional relationships where the involved people do not
assume their real responsibilities, and in change interfere in
other people's responsibilities.
It is not easy to suggest a way out. An African leader who
observed similar situations in his country, said once to a
missionary: "For your people it would be best to send all
your money to Africa, since your money corrupts your countries
and leads you away from God. But for us Africans it would be best
if all this money sank to the ground of the sea, since it
corrupts us too."
Glenn Schwartz, a Missions director, makes the following suggestions for overcoming dependency:
"In mission- established churches ... there is not first the requisite psychological transfer of ownership. In other words, ownership must precede stewardship. Second, true spiritual fulfillment is not present, so giving (or tithing) will be out of a sense of duty, not from the joy of the Lord. ...
1. One of the first steps is to shift the emphasis in biblical teaching from the "law of tithing" to the "joy of giving." Consider the building of the tabernacle in the time of Moses (Exodus 35-36). ... In 2 Corinthians 8 the Apostle Paul reminded the Corinthian Christians that the Macedonians gave joyfully out of their extreme poverty. He said they begged for the privilege to give. In these Biblical illustrations people were not being forced to tithe, but were practicing the joy of giving.
2. A publicly agreed upon treasurer, preferably more than one person, should reveal all sources of income, as well as how the money is spent. Suspicion about how much money is coming in--and where it is going--could well be the most important reason why local giving is often low. ... Church leaders who regularly return from overseas with undisclosed sums can not expect their people to invest generously in local church projects. However, resisting the temptation of getting outside funding is becoming more difficult, given the increasing desire among churches in North America and Europe to "get the most for their money" by investing in local evangelists rather than "expensive Western" missionaries. Those sincere Westerners may never know how their "generosity" is inhibiting local church giving over the long term.
3. As mentioned above the integrity of those handling the church's income is of utmost importance. If there is the slightest hint of impropriety (and there are, unfortunately, many examples), people will be reluctant to give. One church in East Africa provided special training to prepare church treasurers for the enormous sums of money with which they were entrusted by the Lord.
4. When there have been decades of subsidy, one of the most effective solutions is for local people to declare that they don't want or need any more outside funding. This has happened in several cases. This approach is much preferred to Westerners deciding "it is time to indigenize" and then arbitrarily cutting off the funds. Unfortunately, in both cases there is potential for hurt feelings, particularly in the latter. Again, one can see the importance of the spiritual dimension. It is also good to remember that while either decision may cause hurt, to allow the problem to go unresolved, may be even more hurtful in the long run.
... Suppose for a moment that the entire financial subsidy - grants, church-run businesses, and foreign subsidy - were stopped, and the system crashed to the ground. (This could happen if there were an economic earthquake in Western societies.) In this case the only recourse might be for local believers to decide what they wanted to rebuild with their own labor and funds, however limited those might be. What they chose to rebuild would be truly locally owned and legitimately indigenous. What was not rebuilt was probably not a felt need of the church or community anyway. This scenario sounds harsh, but it is one path to true local ownership and self-reliance."
Glenn Schwartz, "Cutting the Apron Strings", in "Mission Frontiers" Jan.-Feb, 1997
There are people who know much more details
about this subject in order to write a book about it. Therefore,
I will limit myself to some general commentaries.
Some Evangelical churches keep themselves on principle at a
distance from politics, because "politics is dirty" and
"power corrupts". With the second statement I agree
(almost); too many Christians have fallen into the temptation of
abusing the power they received. However, I ask: Are there not at
least some few Christians of integrity, capable of resisting the
temptations, as did Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament? - To
the first statement, Alberto Mottesi replied once: "If
politics is dirty, we have to cleanse it." This would be the
responsibility of Evangelical politicians.
Are they doing it? Very little, according to what is known. The
Evangelical community says: "Finally there is someone in the
Congress who speaks in favour of us" - and content
themselves with this fact. Yes, it is good and necessary that
someone defends the interests of Evangelicals. But is this
already cleansing politics? If an Evangelical politician achieves
a better treatment for Evangelical churches, this might be a step
towards more justice and less discrimination. But it might also
be simply a step towards replacing one kind of discrimination (in
favour of the Catholic church) by another kind of discrimination
(in favour of Evangelical churches).
"Cleansing politics" would mean much more: Enacting
laws which reflect Biblical principles in everything they apply
to. Promoting a righteous use of power, and fighting for making
the authorities accountable before the law, instead of putting
themselves over the law. And (it should not be necessary
mentioning it) living personally in integrity, without
participating in corruption nor seeking personal benefits from
the power received.
It has been justly observed that the missionaries who brought the
Gospel to Peru did not teach the believers how to participate in
politics and society, based on Christian principles. But this is
no excuse for not beginning to learn it now.
We can apply the same to contacts between Evangelical leaders and
political authorities. Sometimes God allows that a pastor
"finds grace" before a mayor or a member of Congress,
and they establish a relationship. What does the Evangelical
leader do with this relationship?
Will he use it in order to get "favours", such as lower
rents, public funds for church projects, etc.? - Or will he get
influenced by the politician in order to promote the politician's
party in his church? - Or will the pastor use this relationship
in order to influence the politician towards acting more justly
and transparently; will he confront him with God's Word and
counsel him according to Biblical principles? I believe this is
what God expects from a pastor in such a case.
In the Old Testament, it seems that the prophet Nathan had such a
"special relationship" to king David. He also confirmed
and encouraged him several times in his government. However, when
God revealed to him the king's sin, Nathan confronted him without
vacilating. He might have lost this "special
relationship", or might even have suffered persecution and
death by the king. But God expects this from his people: that we
are not seeking "favours", but be prophets.
After having said all this, I have to prevent a misunderstanding: I am not attacking Christianism. On the contrary: Only the real Jesus Christ, the legitimate King of heaven and earth, can free us from power abuse and its consequences. Jesus established a just authority. Abuse of this authority (within or outside the church) is from the devil. We cannot blame Christianism for these abuses. Exactly therefore we must expose the deceptions and abuses commited in the name of Christianism, in order to vinidicate Christ's good name. It is in the proper interest of all churches, being cleansed from abuse commited within them.
Hijos
del Altísimo (Children of the Most High) - http://www.altisimo.net -
Dysfunctional families ... - - - - - Wrong
answers to pain and hurts 
Copyright Notice: All materials contained on
the pages of "Hijos del Altísimo", where not
otherwise stated, are copyright by Hans Ruegg. You may
copy and distribute this material under the following
conditions: We offer our materials for free to everybody who wishes to use them, but we are also thankful for every voluntary support in benefit of "Hijos del Altísimo". |
