Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

-1 Timothy 4:11-16, ESV

Recently, we addressed the topic of church conflict and how that relates to the role of the pastor.  First, we saw that stirring up division in the church demonstrates a lack of love for the church and therefore a lack of love for Jesus Christ.  Next, we looked at ways to approach conflict in the church, including circumstances in which church leaders are either straying from sound doctrine or committing sins that make them no longer qualified biblically to hold their office. Then, we discussed how important it is for all leaders to set the example, which led us to the biblical example of how a pastor should fulfill his role that we discussed last time. We must extend much grace to our pastors as they strive to live up to that example, but at times they deviate so far from that example that they must be confronted for the good of the church.

How Far is Too Far?

How can we tell the difference between a qualified pastor stumbling while striving to to uphold the duties of the office and one who is in danger of disqualifying himself? We should start by looking for the same signs of spiritual growth we would look for in any believer:

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

-2 Peter 1:5-8, ESV

These qualities are supposed to be increasing, meaning we must not look for perfection but growth. With that in mind, last time we discussed Richard Baxter’s description of pastoral responsibilities in The Reformed Pastor. Just as Peter’s list starts with faith, Baxter starts by saying that pastors must possess the same faith they are preaching. Then, their lives need to match their preaching. Furthermore, while they may focus on preaching, they cannot neglect private ministry and the shepherding of the entire flock God has entrusted to them. They also need to approach their pastoral calling with immense humility, self-sacrifice, love for their people, reliance on God, and unity with other pastors. Along these lines, here are a few questions worth asking to help determine if a pastor is merely struggling in these areas or stumbling to a point where rebuke becomes necessary:

• Does his preaching rely on the power of Scripture itself rather than clever rhetoric, theatrics, personal anecdotes, and abundant humor?

• Does his life match his preaching? Does he approach his role with humility and reliance on the Holy Spirit rather than his own talents and abilities? Does he see the church as his or Christ’s?

• How is he leading his family? Is his wife flourishing or frustrated? Are his children growing in faith or discouraged?

• How is he in private? Are the other elders, deacons, church staff members, and volunteers flourishing under his leadership or stifled by it? Does he see himself as the final authority or the first among equals?

• Does he neglect the private ministry responsibilities of the pastor? How much of his time does he spend in counseling, private instruction, and ministry to individuals and families?

• How does he accept reproof and confrontation? Is he open to feedback or does he react negatively and critically to the ones giving it?

If some of these questions cannot be answered positively, reproof should be considered. As discussed last time, we need to extend much grace to our pastors, but when their failings in these areas threatens the well-being of the church, we are obligated to confront them following the model of church discipline in Matthew 18. Baxter notes:

“Too many who have undertaken the work of the ministry do so obstinately proceed in self-seeking, negligence, pride, and other sins, that it is become our necessary duty to admonish them.  If we saw that such would reform without reproof, we would gladly forbear the publishing of their faults.  But when reproofs themselves prove so ineffectual that they are more offended at the reproof than at the sin…it is time to sharpen the remedy….To bear with the vices of the ministry is promote the ruin of the Church; for what speedier way is there for the depraving and undoing of the people, than the depravity of their guides?”

-Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2020 (orig. 1656): 3-4.

Under what failings of life and doctrine is this necessary?  This question is extremely important since wrongly opposing pastors is the sin of stirring up division.  But as Baxter noted it becomes necessary to confront them when these shortcomings threaten the health of the church.  This certainly includes anything that would be considered scandalous such as sexual immorality, greed, dishonesty, and disregard for both Scripture and the church’s governing authorities.  Toxic leadership is also appropriate to confront since Scripture clearly prohibits it.  Peter tells pastors: “shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).  As discussed in my leadership paper, the biblical model is servant leadership that cares for the members rather than exploiting or dominating them. 

Additionally, there are two conditions in which a pastor should be confronted regarding doctrine.  The first is when the pastor is straying from what is clearly taught in Scripture.  This undermines the Gospel and thus undermines the Church.  The second is when pastors are pushing changes to the church’s stance on secondary doctrines in a way that is damaging the church.  Pastors can and do change their convictions on secondary doctrines, and when that happens it is appropriate for them to lead the church through that transition.  However, that transition must be done with patience and care for the whole congregation, otherwise it will be very damaging to the unity and joy of the church.  If that happens, pastors should be lovingly and respectfully confronted.  If they persist and damage is occurring, they are demonstrating leadership inconsistent with 1 Peter 5.   In the end, it is only in serious errors of life and doctrine where it is appropriate—and sometimes necessary—to confront and even potentially excommunicate pastors. But this is still very generic, so let’s look at two very public examples of when pastors strayed to the point of disqualifying themselves. While these situations are extreme, they are useful because they highlight what may be lurking more subtly in other churches.

Two Mars Hills

The first is the downfall of Mark Driscoll and his Mars Hill megachurch.  In college and early in my career, I enjoyed listening to his sermons, appreciating his accurate exegesis and edgy yet humorous delivery as well as the way he called people to godliness—especially men.  He was a welcome change from both mainline theological liberalism and shallow evangelicalism.  So I was shocked when he was forced to step down for being a toxic and abusive leader who plagiarized and misused church funds.  Since much of Mars Hill had been built on his personality, his departure ultimately caused this once-model megachurch to implode.  Jonathan Leeman laid out lessons from Driscoll’s fall: the dangers of valuing numbers and giftedness over faithfulness and character and the importance of church government in these situations to prevent misuse of pastoral authority.  In other words, those close to him would have answered negatively to several of the questions we mentioned earlier. And despite frequently quoting Puritans, Driscoll was clearly not following Puritan Richard Baxter’s pastoral model.

We will examine this more later, but first there is another Mars Hill worth mentioning.  This was the Mars Hill pastored by Rob Bell.  While Mark Driscoll taught sound doctrine, Rob Bell did not.  His books Love Wins and Velvet Elvisdemonstrated deviation from primary doctrines of the faith, such as the existence of hell and the virgin birth of Christ.  As a result, he was shunned by the broader church and is no longer a pastor.  Together, these two Mars Hills demonstrate extreme pastoral deviations that must be confronted: bad doctrine for Rob Bell and bad conduct for Mark Driscoll.  Both are equally damaging to the church and therefore must be taken very seriously.  However, they are often not treated with equal seriousness.  Mike Frost pointed out how Rob Bell was quickly shunned by the broader church for questioning core doctrines while those same people were hesitant to shun Mark Driscoll when his abusive leadership was brought to light.  He chalks this up to theological tribalism, but a more likely reason is that the church often deals more strictly with bad doctrine than bad conduct.  But both were damaging to the church and both pastors disqualified themselves.  Rob Bell disqualified himself by denying doctrines clearly taught in Scripture, thus proving unable to teach (1 Timothy 3:3, 2 Timothy 2:24) or to hold fast to sound doctrine (Titus 1:9).  Mark Driscoll disqualified himself by failing to be above reproach, respectable, peaceable, and a humble shepherd of the flock God entrusted to him (1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4).  Thus, they both failed to set the example as commanded in Scripture (1 Timothy 4:12). Eric Geiger states it very clearly: they did not watch over their life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16)—Driscoll failed to watch his life closely and Bell failed to watch his doctrine closely.  The fact that many quickly called out Rob Bell while being much more hesitant to call out Mark Driscoll shows that we all need an increased emphasis on character while not losing our emphasis on sound doctrine.

Maintaining Accountability

One of the key takeaways from both Mars Hills is the need for accountability while still recognizing the authority required for pastors to do their jobs. This must start with what authority they have and why. Pastors (like all leaders) can have no authority except what God has explicitly given them in Scripture, and that authority must be for the purpose of obeying God in carrying out their duties. Part of shepherding the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4) must include protecting the flock from wolves, which means pastoral authority includes “tough love” up to and including excommunication when necessary within the bounds of Matthew 18. Therefore, Baxter saw church discipline as an important responsibility of all pastors and urged his fellow pastors to not neglect it.[1] Per Matthew 18, church discipline is the responsibility of the entire church and cannot be done solely by pastors, but pastors are accountable to God to be faithful in administering it. The problem comes when pastors abuse their authority in this or any other area for their own good rather than the good of the church. Therefore, churches need to be able to hold pastors accountable to the standards of life and doctrine we have been discussing while being careful not to deny them the authority God has given them to fulfill the job to which God has called them.

Before we cover methods of accountability, it is important to reiterate the attitude with which we must approach accountability. We cannot be armchair Christians quick to be critical of our pastors under the guise of holding them accountable.  As discussed previously, we are bound to the church discipline process and cannot entertain charges against them unless they are substantiated by sufficient evidence.  Even then, we are never absolved of our responsibility to honor and submit to them, so we must not sharply rebuke them but appeal to them as to a father (1 Timothy 5:1).  Whether private or public, it must still be done out of love and a desire to both protect the church and see the offending parties repent and be restored. Approaching accountability with any other attitude is sinful.  Too many pastors face the constant threat of being expelled from their pulpits for wrong reasons.  A pastor once talked of always being one vote away from termination.  In truth, his congregation was violating Hebrews 13:17, making his work a burden and not a joy.  This is nothing new, as Jonathan Edwards—arguably the greatest theologian in American history—was expelled from his church when his congregation disagreed with his effort to bring their practice of communion more in line with Scripture, despite the fact that he did it lovingly and patiently.[2]  In the end, our pastors will have to answer to God for how they shepherded the flock and watched over their own lives and doctrine, but we will also have to answer to God in how we cared for them and corrected them.  So if we are going to oppose them, it had better be out of biblical necessity and in a way that accords with Scripture.

What mechanisms should we have in place to do this?  The answer to this will depend on church polity (government).  There are three forms of church polity: presbyterian, episcopalian, and congregational.  In presbyterian polity, a plurality of equal elders leads the church.  Multiple churches fall under a presbytery, but the emphasis is on the authority of the local church.  Under episcopalian polity, the church is also led by elders, but elders from multiple churches fall under a bishop who holds primary authority.  Finally, there is the congregational model in which the congregation has ultimate authority over the pastor, often through an elected board.  With both presbyterian and episcopalian polity, church members also have the option of appealing to the presbytery or bishop, while members of any church in a denomination can appeal to their denomination as well.  All of these provide different ways to hold pastors accountable, so all churches should have governing documents such as a constitution and bylaws to spell this out.  Everyone in the church—including pastors—must submit to those documents. 

This will look different in every church, so all I can do is provide some examples for how accountability has been maintained in churches I have attended over the years.  I grew up in a congregational church, so accountability was maintained through the board and congregation.  My church in college was essentially under a presbyterian model and part of a close-knit group of churches.  Many of the pastors knew each other well and kept each other accountable.  I attended another elder-led church that was completely independent of other churches but did have relationships with pastors of other churches who even had the authority to fire our pastors if they strayed.  My current church is under presbyterian polity and part of a denomination, so accountability is maintained through a plurality of elders and the presbytery.  All of these are methods of holding pastors accountable while still honoring and submitting to them as Scripture commands.  If such processes are in place and followed by people who love the church, a repeat of either Mars Hill incident can be avoided the vast majority of the time.

Another Cautionary Tale

It is important to remember that it is not only pastors who need to be held accountable.  All of the Christian life is to be lived within the context of the local church, so all believers need to be accountable to the local church.  This was illustrated by another scandal involving a high-profile Christian.  In 2020, I like many Christians mourned the loss of Ravi Zacharias.  As a philosopher and apologist, he had traveled the world expertly defending the Christian faith.  I frequently quoted him and even got to hear him speak live at a joint event between evangelicals and Mormons at the Mormon Tabernacle in 2014.  He had a massive impact on many people.  For example, Alisa Childers described him as the lifeboat God sent when she was in a faith crisis. 

But later that year the truth came out: he had a long history of gross sexual misconduct.  In processing this, John Piper likened him to the worst traitors in the New Testament, including Judas Iscariot.  David Moore observed three lessons from him.  First, as with both Mars Hills, this scandal highlighted the erroneous emphasis of giftedness over character.  Second, his aggressive travel schedule left no room for accountability to a local church or anyone else, which he abused to the harm of many women.  Third, it showed that we are all human and should therefore not be esteemed too highly. None of us can be above accountability, but both Mark Driscoll and Ravi Zacharias acted as if they were.  So before we seek to remove the speck from our pastors’ eyes by ensuring they are held accountable, we must remove the log from our own eyes by ensuring that we are accountable to a faithful local church. 

Finally, I must stress an important reminder whenever people like Mark Driscoll and Ravi Zacharias fall spectacularly—a point that was made by both John Piper and Alisa Childers: trust in Christ and not His instruments.  Many people came to Christ through their ministry, but they were merely instruments that God used, so their failure says nothing about the validity of the Gospel.  They failed, but Jesus Christ will never fail. Our hope is in Him and not any earthly teacher.  It is not the creativity of Rob Bell, the forcefulness of Mark Driscoll, or the eloquence of Ravi Zacharias that gives the Gospel its power. Instead, the Gospel itself has the power of salvation.  Never forget that.

Conclusion

In the end, the large and high-profile downfalls of Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell show us when it is necessary to confront pastors who are not watching over their lives and doctrine.  Along with the scandal of Ravi Zacharias, these cautionary tales underscore the importance of accountability for both members and pastors.  Through biblical church polity and an underlying motive of love for the church and for our pastors, we can confront them when necessary while still obeying Scripture’s clear commands to honor and submit to them.  In this way, we can strengthen the church in love and humility without causing division.  By constantly asking the questions mentioned earlier, we can discern when our pastors are potentially straying from sound doctrine and character such that we must confront them, therefore helping them strive to live up to Baxter’s pastoral model. Remember, people will know we are Christ’s disciples by our love for one another—in all circumstances.

Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

-1 Peter 5:5-11, ESV

NOTES

[1] Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2020 (orig. 1656): 80-89.

[2] Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 1987: 352-364.