We recently saw another sad case of a Christian leader removed from ministry because of a moral failing. This is deeply sad for all concerned. Many will be in shock, confusion, grief or disillusionment.

Some will be triggered about their own experiences of leadership failings and harm caused by leaders. I pray that they might find grace to help them in their time of need.

I do not wish to comment on the specifics of the case as I do not have all the facts and do not believe it would be helpful for anyone.

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp.

Instead, I want to make general comments about how we respond to any case of a leader being removed, or removing himself or herself, from leadership because of sin or moral failure.

I do so because I have noticed two unhelpful tendencies in how people respond to such stories:

• Some are quick to say, “there but for the grace of God go I.” The implication seems to be that such failings are inevitable and all of us are susceptible, so no one should judge. This often leads on to expressions of support for the fallen leader with hope for their restoration and warnings against self-righteous judgementalism. Some who respond this way describe the problem in purely individualistic terms – an individual failed and needs to be restored – without grappling with systemic problems. They seem to be all about grace with little truth.

• Others are equally quick to say, “I told you so.” They use specific cases of failure as proof-texts for a pre-existing belief that the leader’s tribe, denomination or theological perspective is fundamentally flawed. Or they see it as proof that the whole system of Christian (or evangelical) leadership is hypocritical and corrupt. Such people often side entirely with the victims of the fallen leader and say little about the leader’s restoration. They seem to be all about truth without any grace.

Neither of these extremes is helpful, but both contain elements of truth. In cases of leadership failure, we need to hold several tensions together. In what follows

I will identify six of these and make some high-level suggestions.

Acknowledge universal temptation and individual responsibility

It is correct that no Christian is beyond temptation and no leader is incapable of falling. As the apostle Paul says, anyone who thinks he stands must take heed in case he falls (1 Corinthians 10:12-13). Or in the words of James, “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2).

In our responses to leadership failings there is no room for self-righteousness or ‘holier than thou’ judgementalism.

It is always a time for self-examination and recommitment to maintain integrity and to seek help to do so.

We must watch out for the planks in our own eyes when we seek to help a brother with the speck in his (Matthew 7:1-5).

Nevertheless, it is not helpful to turn this proper humility into an excuse for not holding leaders who fail to account or seeking a better way to work towards integrity.

Every leader will fail to some degree, but not every sin will disqualify a leader.

For clarity, disqualifying sins are:

• any single action that deeply breaches trust or causes significant harm to another individual either through neglect or malice, including reckless disregard for the truth;

• any less serious sin of which the leader refuses to repent after being confronted with the testimony of two or three credible witnesses; or,

• a habitual pattern of behaviours that fall short of the character qualities described in the Pastoral Epistles, for example habitual impatience or anger, especially if there is no progress after help to change the pattern has been offered. Importantly, this criterion should only be applied if it is clearly a character flaw rather than difference of style due to personality or culture – it is not enough that some people did not like the individual’s way of speaking or doing things.

In the same passage where James says we all stumble, he says that, “we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). It is important that leaders be held to account. The Lord Himself is against shepherds who feed themselves on His flock (Ezekiel 34:1-10).

Consider the fallen person and their victims

It is right that we should feel sorrow when a leader falls and that we should have compassion for them. Whatever wrongs they have done, there is no pleasure in seeing someone humbled.

The Scriptures consistently hope for the restoration of those who fall through a fair process based on truth (Matthew 18:15-20 ; 2 Corinthians 2:5-8; James 5:19-20).

We should seek to go about this restoration in a “spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1).

At the same time, any response to a story of leadership failing must take account of the victims.

In some cases, these are people who were directly harmed by abuse. In others they are people who had put trust in the person which is now shown to be misplaced.

Power dynamics are always at play in relationships with leaders – the formal power and informal influence of a charismatic leader is alluring and leaders must realise that it means that greater responsibility falls on them than on others, even when a person seems to consent to wrong or unwise activity.

The damage done by leadership failings is immense – emotional bruising and crushing, abandonment of church or even faith, inability to trust again, bringing the church and gospel into disrepute – and we should rightly prioritise the protection of those Jesus calls “little ones” who have been caused to stumble (Matthew 18:6).

Ensure fairness and thoroughness in investigations

It is important that leaders are treated fairly. We should not entertain accusations against a leader lightly (1 Timothy 5:19). Evidence must be gathered and we should not assume the worst until a proper investigation has been conducted.

Hearsay is insufficient and processes for investigation must include a commitment to a sufficient standard of evidence. False accusations against a leader can cause immense harm and other leaders must not rush into knee jerk reactions or assumptions.

Their primary responsibility is to protect the truth

At the same time, any investigation must be thorough. It is wise in cases of possible serious failings to include some perspective that is truly external to the organisation and removed from the loyalties that can lead our judgement to be conflicted.

The local leaders who appointed or supervised a failing leader – and even more so those who were appointed under the leader’s recommendation or patronage – are often too close to the situation to see clearly or to assure victims that they can be trusted to investigate fairly.

It is also crucial that those who instinctively feel the leader must be innocent do not say so until the facts are gathered, as this will prejudice the investigation.

Too often, people who raise concerns are seen as disruptors and troublemakers, while those who should hold leaders to account circle around them in unquestioning support.

And, vitally, safeguarding processes must be followed transparently where there is any concern about children or adults at risk of harm.

Due processes are important to protect everyone – the potential victims and the leader who may be falsely accused alike. Incomplete processes leave open the possibility that a victim has not been heard or leave a question mark hanging over an innocent leader.

Consider the individual and the system

When a person sins, that person is individually responsible. Scripture does not engage in psychologising about the reasons for leadership failings or shifting of the blame to other people or systemic failings. We must not do so either.

Sadly, I have read comments on leaders who sinned that seem to subtly displace responsibility on to other individuals, most often the person’s insufficiently supportive spouse or the unreasonably demanding people under their leadership.

Such excuses are not worthy of the gospel. Pastoral care and emotional support are important, but they do not remove personal responsibility.

The pathway to restoration of a leader must entail a clear acknowledgement from the individual of their sin without excuses.

Whatever deficiencies there may be in care for leaders and whatever struggles a leader may have, the epistles consistently place the responsibility to maintain integrity on the individual leader.

People do not sin because they are lonely and discouraged, but because they follow the desires of their hearts (James 1:14-15) and do not put the flesh to death.

At the same time, the frequency of failings among evangelical leaders should cause us to consider what it is about our systems and ways of working that allows so many cases to go undetected and whether some measures could help reduce the temptation leaders face.

Sadly, evangelicalism’s ‘relational’ systems can sometimes work better for dishonest leaders who will flatter and boast than for leaders of integrity who speak the truth in humility.

We need to work against tendencies towards gatekeeping and control that can be unfair. We must ensure that we value truth more than we value comfort.

We need better systems of accountability and greater discernment in making judgements. This is a biblical imperative, leaders are mutually accountable (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

Asking more probing questions and taking concerns more seriously early on can help identify issues at an earlier stage and may prevent disaster. While support does not remove responsibility, it can reduce vulnerability.

Providing more support for pastoral need and mental health struggles at an earlier stage will help some who might otherwise burnout or drop out, or give in to temptation, to stay faithful and persevere in ministry.

Appoint on the basis of gift and character

In His sovereign wisdom, the Lord distributes gifts to His people and it is important that we recognise when someone has a gift that should be used for His glory.

Ability to teach and to manage a household are essential abilities for a leader in the church.

We should encourage people who use their gifts and celebrate everything good they bring to God’s people and contribute to His mission.

But the greater emphasis in New Testament qualifications for leaders is on character (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). A leader must exhibit humility and self-control. We must look for consistency of character that is tested across family life, working life and church life.

And we should look especially for integrity, marked by openness and honesty. When challenged, is the person’s instinct to make excuses and evade detail or is the person transparent and open to their story being tested with others?

If we discover there was any lack of full disclosure on appointment or at review or any indicators of self-serving narrative distortion, we should treat it as a significant breach of trust.

The person should either be removed from leadership or placed under measures to ensure growth in integrity. It is inadequate to excuse such behaviour on the basis that the person was under pressure or afraid of the consequences.

Honesty is non-negotiable in Christian leadership. It is essential to protecting the flock and building trust.

Seek restoration and trustworthiness

As mentioned before, the New Testament hopes for restoration when people fall into sin. We should invest in working patiently and lovingly with a leader who has fallen to help them to come back into a trusting relationship with God and the worshipping life of the church.

This will depend on their willingness to confess their sin and to commit to ‘works consistent with repentance’.

However, restoration to ministry is a different question. It is not unloving or unforgiving to recognise that trust has been breached when a leader proves to have been untrustworthy.

Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin and repentance does not automatically rebuild trust. The reputation of the gospel and the integrity of the mission of the Church matter more than the individual’s contribution in leadership.

The qualification of being “above reproach” with a “good reputation with outsiders” is central to New Testament expectations of leaders (1 Timothy 3:2, 7; Titus 1:6-7) – once it is lost it is difficult to see how it can be regained.

No one, however gifted or whatever their past fruitfulness, is entitled to a leadership position. Leadership is not a right, but a sacred entrusting from the Lord who is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:2-4).

We may need to invest in helping them find alternative income and they should be able to serve again in some capacity, but leadership should not normally be open to them in the future.

I say ‘normally’ because I do not see an absolute prohibition on restoring people to leadership in Scripture, but any such reinstatement must be done slowly with careful discernment and strong measures of accountability.

Some might point to Old Testament examples of leaders who failed but were not removed, such as David after his horrendous sin with Bathsheba.

But those stories cannot be used as precedents for what is wise in a church setting, and they also tend to show the consequences of sin persist even after repentance (for example, David’s child with Bathsheba died and his family dynamics were scarred by his sinful actions in other ways).

A closing encouragement

In conclusion, when a fair investigation finds that a leader has failed, we should protect victims, reflect upon ourselves, review our systems, and seek restoration for the person who failed.

These four responses are not in contradiction and together reflect a humble commitment to both grace and truth.

We should be careful not to comment publicly in any detail about cases in which we lack the full details but we can help each other to commit to principles and build systems that can guard leadership integrity.

We do this because we serve a God of integrity and His glory and name is worthy of all honour.

Paul Coulter, author, executive director of the Centre for Christianity in Society in Northern Ireland. This article was first published on the author's blog, Connected Christianity. If you would like to be informed when the Christian Leadership Integrity Commitments are released, please subscribe to this blog.