Pastoral reflections on how evangelical churches are addressing abuse today

In recent years, we have witnessed, with pain and dismay, the emergence of cases of spiritual, sexual and power abuse within Christian contexts. Some of these cases have occurred recently in my country, Spain; others have deeply shaken the evangelical world, for example in the United States and in other parts of the world.

In many of these cases, prominent leaders were involved—people who had exercised spiritual authority and yet used that position to cause harm.

These events compel us to pause, reflect and learn. We cannot look the other way. Whenever an instance of abuse is revealed, not only are there victims who have suffered deeply—whose dignity and care must be the top priority—but the credibility of the Church’s witness is also called into question.

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp.

The way we address abuse within our communities is a profoundly spiritual, pastoral, ethical and also missional issue

I write these lines in a pastoral tone, not out of a desire to condemn, but out of the conviction that the church of Jesus Christ is called to walk ever towards more light, more truth and more justice. The way we address abuse within our communities is not a secondary matter: it is a profoundly spiritual, pastoral, ethical and also missional issue. For the way the church treats the wounded reveals, to a large extent, which gospel it is truly embodying.

Today the evangelical world finds itself in the midst of a cultural transition regarding how to address these cases. Understanding that transition can help us better discern the path we must follow.

 

A cultural transition in the evangelical world

For decades, many evangelical churches and ministries have addressed cases of abuse through cultural and theological frameworks that we now know to have been inadequate. Not all contexts have reacted in the same way, but we can identify three distinct models that have coexisted over time and remain present today, sometimes even within the same denominational network or church group.

This is not merely a matter of three management styles. Behind each lies a distinct understanding of truth, authority, pastoral care, justice, and what it means to protect the witness of the gospel.

 

1. The old model: institutional silence

For a long time, a logic prevailed that we might summarise as follows: protect the ministry to protect the gospel.

The reasoning was seemingly simple: if the scandal becomes public, the gospel is damaged; if the leader falls, the ministry suffers; if the church is exposed, the enemy takes advantage; therefore, it is best to resolve the problem internally, with discretion, without giving it visibility and ensuring that the external impact is minimal.

Practices that we now recognise as deeply problematic: public silence, private handling of the facts, pressure not to report, calls for premature forgiveness, minimisation of the harm suffered by the victims

This logic led to practices that we now recognise as deeply problematic: public silence, private handling of the facts, pressure not to report, calls for premature forgiveness, minimisation of the harm suffered by the victims, and in some cases the simple transfer of the leader to another context where they could start afresh without taking real responsibility. I myself witnessed actions of this kind at the start of my ministry.

It should be noted that these decisions were often not born of a conscious desire to do wrong. They were marked by a mixture of fear of scandal, a pastoral culture of institutional protection, a lack of understanding of trauma, the absence of protocols, and a poor understanding of the relationship between grace and justice. But good intentions do not nullify bad outcomes.

Over time we have learnt a painful lesson: this model ended up protecting the system more than the victims. It did not preserve the witness of the Gospel, but weakened it. It did not prevent harm, but often prolonged it. Institutional silence rarely stops abuse; rather, it creates the conditions for its repetition, for impunity and for the revictimisation of those who had already been hurt.

 

2. The intermediate model: responsible internal management

In recent decades, many ministries have sought to move towards a more responsible model. This approach acknowledges that a serious failure has occurred, removes the leader from their position, initiates an internal investigation, listens more closely to those affected, and establishes certain basic protocols for action.

This model undoubtedly represents a step forward from absolute silence. It no longer necessarily denies the problem or covers it up in the same way. It accepts that abuse exists, that it must be addressed, and that the institution must take action.

Sometimes only a small group of leaders is informed; at other times, ambiguous statements are drafted, designed more to contain the reputational impact than to clarify the truth

However, it still has significant limitations. Often, organisations avoid making clear public statements, fully cooperating with legal proceedings, embracing genuine institutional transparency, or subjecting their management to external oversight. Sometimes only a small group of leaders is informed; at other times, ambiguous statements are drafted, designed more to contain the reputational impact than to clarify the truth. On occasion, measures are taken, yes, but the underlying logic remains defensive: damage control, reducing exposure, protecting the institutional brand.

That is why this model still breeds mistrust. Although it represents progress compared to the past, management remains primarily internal. And when the institution investigates, judges, communicates and decides almost exclusively on its own behalf, the risk of bias remains high, even where there is good will. It is not enough simply to do something; it is necessary to do the right thing, in the right way, and with the appropriate transparency.

 

3. The emerging model: transparency, accountability and visible justice

In recent years, a third model has been emerging that seeks to respond to these challenges in a more comprehensive, mature and evangelical manner.

Its principles are clear: victims first, truth before reputation, accountability before self-protection, collaboration with civil authorities, responsible public communication, clear prevention and protection protocols, accountability and sincere institutional review.

Light has never been the enemy of the gospel. Lies, duplicity and impunity, however, have

This model is based on a fundamental conviction: transparency does not destroy the gospel; it protects it. What destroys the Christian witness is not that the church acknowledges the sin that has occurred within it, but that it conceals it, trivialises it or handles it in a self-serving manner. Light has never been the enemy of the gospel. Lies, duplicity and impunity, however, have.

Furthermore, this third model is underpinned by arguments that, pastorally and morally, are difficult to refute.

Firstly, because it is the model that best honours the victims. A church cannot claim to love the wounded whilst protecting the one who inflicted the wound. It cannot preach the value of every person created in God’s image whilst at the same time relegating to the background the suffering of those who have been broken by spiritual, sexual or power abuse. Putting victims at the centre is not giving in to a cultural trend; it is obeying the heart of the biblical God, who hears the cry of the vulnerable and identifies with the oppressed.

Secondly, because it is the model most consistent with Christian truth. The gospel was not given to gloss over sin, but to bring it to light, confront it and pave the way for genuine repentance. Where there is no truth, there is no real restoration. Where there is no clear acknowledgement of evil, there is no deep healing. Christian confession was never designed to avoid public truth when that truth affects one’s neighbour and the community.

A culture of transparency is not a concession to the spirit of the age: it is, in many ways, a return to the moral radicalism of the gospel

Thirdly, because it is the only model that truly breaks the cycles of impunity. Abuse thrives in closed ecosystems, without external checks, without clear reporting mechanisms, without limits on power and without verifiable consequences. When a church adopts transparency, protocols, cooperation with the law and proper oversight, it not only responds better to a specific case: it also begins to transform the culture that made that abuse possible.

Fourth, because this model better protects the church itself. It may seem paradoxical, but well-managed transparency safeguards the Christian witness more than concealment. A church that acknowledges, corrects, reports and protects the vulnerable may go through pain, but it retains its integrity. In contrast, a church that remains silent may maintain appearances for a time, but loses moral authority when the truth comes to light. And the truth almost always comes to light.

Fifth, because this approach correctly distinguishes between mercy and permissiveness. The church can and must preach forgiveness, repentance and grace. But grace must never be used as a shield to avoid consequences, nor as spiritual pressure on victims, nor as an institutional shortcut to shut down processes. Christian mercy never contradicts justice; it presupposes and frames it.

Sixth, because it better responds to the holy character of the church. The church does not exist to preserve its image, but to reflect Christ. And Christ never protected the powerful at the expense of the weak. He was harsh on religious hypocrisy, tender towards the broken, and radically firm with those who caused the vulnerable to stumble. That is why a culture of transparency is not a concession to the spirit of the age: it is, in many ways, a return to the moral radicalism of the gospel.

In other words: this third model should not be seen as a communication strategy, but as an expression of Christian faithfulness. It is pastorally healthier, morally cleaner, institutionally more credible and biblically more consistent.

 

Identifying four common errors

In this process of collective learning, we could also approach this issue by identifying theological and pastoral errors that have contributed to the mishandling of these situations. Pointing out these errors is not intended to condemn, but to help us mature as a church. These are four common errors in the evangelical handling of abuse:

What destroys credibility is not acknowledging sin, but attempting to hide it

1. Confusing forgiveness with the absence of justice

One of the most frequent errors has been to interpret the gospel message of forgiveness as if it were to eliminate moral responsibility or the consequences of sin.

Scripture reveals a different reality. God’s forgiveness restores our relationship with Him, but it does not necessarily eliminate the public consequences of our actions. David was forgiven by God, but he also faced profound consequences for his sin. Zacchaeus experienced grace, but he made restitution for what he had stolen.

Grace restores; justice protects. A healthy church understands that both dimensions are necessary.

2. Thinking that scandal harms the church more than the abuse

Many leaders have feared that the public exposure of a case might damage the church’s reputation.

However, recent history proves the opposite. When an institution attempts to conceal or downplay abuse, the scandal that ensues is usually far greater and more devastating. What destroys credibility is not acknowledging sin, but attempting to hide it.

The church loses moral authority not when it speaks the truth, but when it remains silent in the face of injustice.

3. Protecting the ministry rather than protecting the victims

Another common mistake is to prioritise concern for institutional reputation over the care of those who have suffered harm.

But the gospel continually reminds us that God has a special heart for the vulnerable. Jesus was extraordinarily severe when he spoke of those who cause the little ones to stumble.

The right question is not: how do we protect the ministry? The right question is: how do we protect the people who have been hurt?

When the church puts the victims at the centre, it begins to move in the right direction.

4. Believing that internal pastoral management is sufficient

For a long time, it was thought that these cases could be resolved solely through pastoral support. But abuse is not merely a spiritual problem. It also has psychological, legal and, in many cases, criminal dimensions.

The Bible recognises the legitimate role of civil authorities in the administration of justice. That is why many churches today are realising that collaboration with the authorities and institutional transparency are part of a responsible response.

 

A new horizon for the churches

Although these times have been painful, I also believe we are experiencing a moment of purification and learning for the church.

The Lord continues to guide his people towards the light. More and more Christian communities are realising that the Gospel does not call us to protect structures, but to walk in truth, justice and compassion.

If we move in that direction, the witness of the gospel will not be weakened. On the contrary: it will shine more brightly

Personally, I believe that the path we must follow in Spain is that of the third model: a culture of transparency, accountability and protection of the vulnerable; that is why I am actively involved in the Psalm 15 Table. Making the transition from a culture of silence to a culture of transparency involves learning, acknowledging mistakes, listening to victims, cooperating with the justice system where necessary, and developing institutional practices that reflect the heart of Christ, whilst denouncing abusers and the institutions that protect them.

The church is not perfect, but it is called to be a safe place where the truth can be spoken, where sin can be confronted, and where wounded people find care and restoration.

If we move in that direction, the witness of the gospel will not be weakened. On the contrary: it will shine more brightly. Because the gospel always flourishes where truth and grace walk hand in hand.

Marcos Zapata, evangelical pastor in Lugo (Spain), president of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance.