Few churches ever decide to protect an abuser. What happens instead is quieter: a respected leader is accused, and a dozen small reflexes in a dozen decent people all lean the same way, toward keeping the arrangement intact. The question here is personal. If someone in your church said a trusted leader had sexually abused them, what in you, and what in the way your church works, would protect the system before it protected the person? You will look for your own habits of deference, test them against Scripture, map how your church would actually respond, and choose one real step toward accountability.
You can work through it alone in one or two sittings, or with a small group over one long meeting or two shorter ones. Have a Bible open to Esther 1, and keep paper or a notes app where you can write things no one else will see. Several exercises ask for private answers. Nothing here requires you to tell anyone anything.
Assume that survivors of abuse will read this, including some in your own group who have never said so. If this material stirs up something from your own life, you can stop at any point. The section for leaders near the end lists places to get help.
Start with your first reflex
Before reading any Scripture or any argument, take two minutes and answer this privately. Picture a leader in your church whom you respect: someone who has preached well, prayed with you, or shown up for your family. Now imagine hearing that a teenager in the church has accused that person of sexual misconduct.
Write down the first three thoughts that come to mind. Be honest. Do not write what you think you should think.
Then mark each thought with one of three letters. Put a P next to any thought about the person who spoke up (Is she safe? Who is with her now?). Put an L next to any thought about the leader (He would never. What will this do to him?). Put an H next to any thought about the house (What happens to the church? Who else will find out?).
Keep this page. You will come back to it at the end. The letters do not tell you whether you are a good or bad person. They show where your loyalty goes first when you are caught off guard, and that is what this guide works on.
Read a royal court the way a systems thinker would
Dr. Monique Gadson has counseled at a church in Atlanta for sixteen years and founded Transforming Visions, which coaches, counsels and consults, much of it with churches. In her conversation with Lisa Fields, she said that while studying Esther, she noticed how the king’s advisers handled a problem. She also said plainly that she reads the scene this way partly because of her training as a systems thinker. Read the passage yourself before you take on her reading.
Read Esther 1:1-22 slowly. It is narrative. It describes a Persian court; it does not tell anyone to behave like that court.
Notice the setting first. The king calls for the queen “when the heart of the king was merry with wine” (Esther 1:10). He wants to show her beauty to his guests. Then comes the refusal: “But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him” (Esther 1:12).
Now work through these observation questions with a pen:
- Underline every place where someone gives the king advice. What problem do the advisers say they are solving?
- Who do the advisers say is threatened by Vashti’s refusal? List everyone they mention.
- Is there any sentence in which someone questions the king’s request itself?
- What happens to Vashti, and what happens to the king’s standing?
Gadson’s observation about the third question was blunt: “not once did anybody say, Hey, you were drunk.” Instead, as she summarized the advisers’ counsel, it amounted to “let’s just get her out and let’s just bring somebody in that can preserve this system.”
Be careful about what this does and does not establish. Esther 1 does not teach a doctrine about church abuse cases. It shows a pattern you can test against your own experience: a community faced with an uncomfortable fact about its most powerful man solves the problem by removing the person who raised it. The advisers are not cruel for the sake of cruelty. They are protecting order. That is what makes the pattern so easy to repeat in good conscience.
Test the verse that puts leaders beyond question
Lisa Fields named a phrase many churches use to shut down criticism of a pastor: touch not the anointed. She traced part of the reverence for titles in Black churches to history. Churches were the place that gave people dignity a white supremacist society denied them, so titles like Bishop or Reverend carried real weight. She argued that this reverence can become unhealthy when it goes outside biblical authority. Her conclusion about a leader who violates people was direct: “Say it about the man or woman of God.”
Test that conclusion against three texts. Write a short answer to each task before moving on.
The phrase comes from Psalm 105:15: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” Read Psalm 105:8-15. Who is God protecting in this psalm, and from whom? Write one sentence on what the verse is about in its own setting.
Read 2 Samuel 11:1-12:7. David is the Lord’s anointed king. He takes another man’s wife and arranges the man’s death. God sends a prophet, and the confrontation comes to a point: “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man” (2 Samuel 12:7). If being anointed shielded a leader from confrontation, what would Nathan have been required to do instead?
Read Ezekiel 34:1-10, where God indicts the shepherds of Israel. Verse 4 reads: “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.” List every verb in that verse. Mark which ones describe something done and which describe something left undone. Which of the undone things could describe a church that heard a report and simply never acted?
What the system needs from ordinary people
Neither speaker treats the problem as belonging only to people at the top. They describe what everyone else contributes.
Gadson describes the habit of answering pain with spiritual language and moving on. In her account it keeps the alleged perpetrator in place and silences the victim: “Because then it almost becomes the preservation, if you will, of the system as opposed to listening to the voices of the individual.” Part of the reason, she says, is that “we don’t know how to sit with what is uncomfortable for long periods of time.” Some survivors stay away from church because they expect to be judged as less faithful if they cannot show up ready to praise. She called that “a revictimization of the victim.”
Fields named pressures that keep members quiet. If a popular leader falls, income may fall with him, and people start asking how they will feed their children. Others stay close to a leader for access or standing. And, she said, “some of us don’t challenge because we are a mess personally,” since exposing someone else feels like exposing yourself. She described “this culture of protection under the guise of grace and mercy,” and answered it: “Grace doesn’t negate you from accountability.”
Gadson keeps this from becoming hostility toward structure. She builds systems. Explaining why even a longtime Sunday school teacher needs a background check, she said: “We are trying to protect the children within the system.” She also expects resistance whenever a change threatens the current arrangement: “the tension is always going to be to keep that system as it is.”
Pause here and write privately. Of the pressures above (income, access or standing, a personal mess you would rather keep covered, discomfort with sitting in someone else’s pain), mark the one you recognize most in yourself. Then write one sentence about a time it shaped what you said or did not say, in church or anywhere else.
Walk through your own house
This is the main exercise. It works best with someone else, but you can do it alone. On a sheet of paper, write out step by step what would actually happen at your church in this situation: a teenager tells a youth volunteer that a leader touched her inappropriately.
- The first ear. Who would the teenager most likely tell? Does that person know what to do next, or would they improvise?
- The route. Where does the report go after that? Write names or roles. Gadson asked where a report can go so that other members of the system “won’t get the message and extinguish the message or silence the message.” Circle every step that runs through someone who reports to the accused, depends on him financially, or is close to him.
- The record. If two other people had mentioned discomfort with the same leader over five years, would anyone know? Gadson asks churches whether complaints are kept anywhere central, so a pattern can be seen when each incident looks small on its own.
- The law. At what point would someone call law enforcement or child protective services? Is that written down, or does it depend on who hears first?
If you cannot finish the map, that is your finding. A gap you can name is more useful than a policy you assume exists.
Now do the heart half privately. Look at your circled steps and ask: if I were in that position, what would make it hard for me to pass the report along? You do not have to show this answer to anyone.
The fair objection: what about false accusations?
Some accusations are false, and people falsely accused suffer real harm. Fields grants this directly: “every allegation isn’t true.” The question is what follows. If some reports are false, a church needs a way to learn which ones are true. Dismissing reports does not do that, and neither does quietly managing them. Neither one examines anything. The structures Gadson describes serve the accused as well as the accuser: a written route that the leader’s circle does not control, records that show whether a concern is isolated or part of a pattern, and, when a church does not know how to proceed, trained outside help rather than the leader’s friends. A process able to uncover the truth is also able to clear someone. The speakers do not spell out how to weigh conflicting testimony or what standard should lead to removal. Gadson’s repeated advice to bring in consultants admits that this work goes beyond what most pastors are trained to do. Look back at your map: would the route you drew protect an innocent leader as well as it protects a child?
Questions for a group
- Without naming anyone, what titles or roles in your church get the benefit of the doubt before they have earned it? What would change if those titles carried less weight in a moment like the one in the first exercise?
- Esther’s advisers protected order without ever questioning the king’s request. What behavior in church culture goes unquestioned because of who is doing it?
- Fields says some people stay quiet because challenging someone else would expose their own mess. Where do you see that dynamic, in churches or in families?
- Gadson distinguishes protecting the people within a system from protecting its current arrangement. How would you tell the difference in a specific decision, such as requiring background checks for longtime volunteers?
- What would a fair process at your church need so that taking a report seriously does not mean presuming guilt, and protecting the accused does not mean ignoring the report?
- Read 1 Corinthians 12:26: “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” Who counts as a member when your church decides what to protect?
Choose one step
Gadson’s counsel to churches that feel overwhelmed was simple: “if you can’t do everything that you want to do, do something, start somewhere.” She also warned that silence is not neutral: “if we are not ready with a response, then that lack of response is a response.”
Pick the one step below that addresses something you found in your map, and set a date within the next two weeks:
- Bring your completed reporting map to a pastor, elder or ministry leader and ask whether the circled steps can be fixed.
- Find out whether volunteers who work with children, youth or elders are screened, and whether longtime members are exempt.
- Learn your state’s reporting requirements for suspected child abuse, so you know what you would do without waiting for a church process.
- If you lead a ministry, adopt one practice Gadson mentions, such as asking permission before hugging, and explain why to the people you lead.
- Ask your church whether it has ever brought in a trained outside consultant on abuse prevention, and if not, whether it would.
If you are leading this
Never ask anyone to share answers from the first exercise, the private pause, or the heart half of the house walk. Invite observations about Scripture and church structure, which carry less personal risk. Make it plain that passing is always fine, and let silence sit.
Do not let the conversation turn into speculation about a specific leader. If someone raises a real, current concern, thank them, end that line of discussion in the group, and speak with them privately afterward about where it should go.
If someone discloses abuse to you, listen and believe that their pain is real. Do not investigate them or ask for details they have not offered. Do not suggest they reconcile with the person who hurt them. If a child is at risk or a crime may have occurred, report it to law enforcement or child protective services rather than leaving it to the church to handle internally. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-7233. If anyone is thinking about ending their life, they can call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Gadson points churches toward trained counselors and clinicians for work beyond what most pastors are trained to do. Have this information on hand before you begin.
Go back to your first page
Return to the three thoughts you wrote at the start and the letters beside them. Do not rewrite them. Underneath, write one sentence describing what you would want your first thought to be next time, and one thing you now understand about why it was not.
Jesus asks, “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4). Fields used that parable as a rebuke to churches willing to sacrifice the people on the margins because so many others are being served. Carry this question into the step you chose: when your church’s reputation and one hurt person seem to pull in different directions, which one have you been trained to go after?