#557: Church Cultures of "Accountability"

Responding to Andrew Wilson

My friend Andrew Wilson recently wrote an excellent essay on how pastors can be courageous without being overbearing, which raises questions about fraternal correction and “accountability” that we have considered here some in this newsletter. “How can churches hold their pastors accountable if they’re not?” he wonders. His answer: 

“Institutionally, churches can make feedback and accountability as easy as possible through a combination of church surveys, staff appraisals, clear job descriptions, anonymous staff-culture surveys, a competent and empowered board, and rigorous HR processes. (Not all these details will translate into every church setting, but this has been the pattern of good practice we’ve sought to adopt in ours.)

Individually, it’s all too easy to say church members should simply speak to the leader in question about their concerns. But in cases of heavy (or even abusive) leadership, this could be disastrous advice. In a controlling environment, even fellow pastors or staff members may be inclined to close ranks around the leader rather than challenge him. 

So as church members, we may need to speak to people in authority who are a degree removed from the situation; in our case, that might be one of our marketplace elders, the board of trustees, or denominational or network leaders who provide oversight and outside input to the church. If no such individuals or institutions exist, or church members have no way of knowing who these leaders are, that’s probably a red flag.” 

Andrew’s description of how institutions can secure accountability might be straight out of a corporate employee handbook, so full of it is with bureaucratic imagery and jargon. Indeed, the underlying imagery of “accountability” emerges in the financially-focused, credit-dominated world of early modern England. Perhaps it is just because I have been reading the pastoral epistles over the past few months, but it is jarring how little the vision embedded in it has in common with Paul’s description of the relationship between ministers and the church community in those letters. Paul doubtlessly lays down “clear job descriptions” at points—but the idea of “anonymous staff surveys” in a church context without meaningful “staff” is amusing to think on.