Pastoral Accountability

Within the Charismatic Free Church wing, there is an epidemic of lack of accountability in leadership. It is estimated that since 1970, tens of thousands of new religious movements have started. Many are churches, and those that are not affiliated with denominations or larger groups have no stabilizing influence. It is no wonder that in the UK alone, there are well over 1,200 recognized cults, many of which began as churches with an orthodox theology.

Most denominations, like any secular institutions, have recognized accountability systems in place. Just as school Heads are accountable to Governors, in many churches the Pastor is accountable to a board of trustees. In the Anglican community, the Vicar is accountable to the Diocesan Bishop and so on.

Such systems are vital to prevent a situation in which a leader becomes a law unto himself. 

And yet they most often require that leadership makes itself answerable to someone or something outside the community it as actually leading. Within the Charismatic Free Church, this person might be regarded as a modern day Apostle. The drawback of such accountability, of course, is that any outsider is unlikely to have an in-depth knowledge or understanding of the group and its dynamics. There is also a danger of a pyramidal hierarchy developing. To whom is the man at the top accountable?

Scripture's instruction appears to be that a Leader, first and foremost, is accountable to those he leads.

"Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave" Matthew 20:26-27

The word for slave here is 'doulos':

Helps Word Studies:

1401 doúlos (a masculine noun of uncertain derivation) – properly, someone who belongs to another; a bond-slave, without any ownership rights of their own.

Properly understood then, a leader belongs to his flock and gives up 'ownership rights' of his own.

This is not to suggest that a church ought to function by placing restrictions and legislated obedience on its Pastor. 

On the contrary, the passage in Matthew suggests strongly that such 'placing under' is done willingly and voluntarily. It is what true leadership entails. It is a matter of the heart.

And that voluntary submission to the congregation ought to encompass both doctrine and behaviour.

Just as a good 'lay' teacher would ask the Pastor, having preached, whether or not anything needed adjustment, a Pastor with the same humble attitude would welcome honest feedback and appraisal from his flock. 

Once a community begins to fear offering honest feedback, or the possibility of reprisals for offending, a Pastor has disqualified himself from leadership.

Once a board of trustees concerns itself only with matters of the fabric of the building or the mechanics of running the church and not with an appraisal of the Pastor's teaching or practices, allowing serious faults to go unchecked, the Pastor has become unfit to lead. It is his responsibility to ensure that such a dangerous dynamic does not occur.

Once a Pastor preaches that he should not be corrected, because God is the one who corrects him, he is no longer a true Pastor, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

It is common for Pastors to set up boards which consist of loyal 'yes-men', who will declare their absolute trust in the Leader as the 'Man of God', and whom God will correct if need be. Such a board often considers that holding him to account amounts to a lack of trust. This sentiment, while sounding very noble, allows a Pastor to absolve himself from accountability and potentially places his community in danger. According to Matthew 20:27, a Pastor who does not confront such an attitude, disqualifies himself from true leadership.

The Apostle Paul, according to Scripture, was a man who was taken up into Paradise and saw things that can barely be uttered. And yet, Paul insisted on submitting his revelations to other men of standing in the church, lest he 'run in vain':

"I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain." Gal 2:2

A Pastor who is unwilling to do likewise is not fit to lead and such an attitude should serve as a Red Flag to those in his church community. 

If you are in a church, you are well advised to ask questions such as these:

1) To whom is my Pastor accountable for what he preaches and teaches? 

2) To whom is my Pastor accountable in his actions?

3) From whom will he accept correction if it is needed?

4) Does my Pastor seek out honest opinion  and appraisal?

5) Does he make adjustments when matters concerning his preaching or practice are addressed?

6) Does he label sincere concern as criticism and preach against it?

7) Does he withhold information from me, on the grounds that it is for my welfare?

8) Does he advise me not to seek out all sides of a matter, but to simply trust his own account?

9) Does he discourage me from talking to ex-members?

10) Does he foster a dynamic which protects himself, surrounding himself with a close-knit group of dependent 'yes-men'.

11) What is my Pastor's response when entreated to change behaviour not befitting his role?
12) Does my Pastor allow me to develop into a thinking, independent adult, respecting my differing views - or does he coerce and manipulate my continued obedience and submission to his perspectives.

Such questions, rather than being antagonistic, are not only reasonable but imperative if a religious community is to remain a safe place.

No genuine servant-hearted Pastor would resent them, especially coming from members who have consistently demonstrated wholehearted loyalty.