Ethical issues can be complicated. They involve competing interests: privacy versus disclosure, redemption versus justice, rights of the individual versus the good of the community.
As the three case studies in this issue illustrate (see pages 35, 41, 51) pastors sometimes need the wisdom of Solomon. But it’s amid such ethical knots that a leader’s integrity is tested and proven.
Leadership editors Marshall Shelley and Eric Reed gathered four men who understand the complex relationship of ethics and integrity. Here they discuss ethical principles; in the case studies, you’ll see them applied.
Mark Beeson is founding pastor of Granger Community Church (UMC) in South Bend, Indiana. He took his first pastorate when he was 18.
David Handley has for 21 years pastored First Presbyterian Church of Evanston, Illinois.
Stan Grenz is distinguished professor of theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco, Texas. Previously he taught theology and ethics at Carey Theological College and Regent College in Vancouver, B.C.
Erwin Lutzer has for 23 years been pastor of historic Moody Memorial Church in Chicago.
How important are ethics? Are ethics like etiquette (nice for those who want to be proper), or more like a code of honor (the higher standard we’re committed to), or the essential rules of conduct (the definition of acceptable behavior)?
Erwin Lutzer: Ethics are absolutely the bedrock of ministry, and always have been. The need for ethics and integrity is magnified against the background of the present culture, in which we have had so much moral failure and distrust of politicians and ministers and where respect for the pastor is constantly being eroded.
Trust is really the foundation of everything we do. If you have lost the congregation’s trust, I’m not sure whether it can ever be regained.
David Handley: The foundation of relationship is: Can I trust you, or will you betray and disillusion me? Postmodern America is crying for trustworthy leadership. We cannot compartmentalize our lives. We can’t say, “I had integrity in making my hospital calls, and working on my sermon” while we are having some illicit affair in our private life, as if that doesn’t affect us in other areas.
Yet that premise is posed again and again in our culture. People claim “public” and “private” selves are separate, and one area doesn’t affect the other areas of their lives. A Christian knows that is just not true.
How do ethics affect trust?
Mark Beeson: Trust emerges from knowing there’s a rationale for your behavior. It’s not that I just happened to be caught doing the right thing. No, my behavior is chosen and intentional.
When people perceive us to have a defensible framework for what we do, and we are acting with integrity and character and discipline, upholding an ethic we can articulate, then there’s credibility.
What are “pastoral ethics”?
Stan Grenz: The ethical life is the living out, in one’s relationships, of the fundamental faith commitments that one has.
In ethics class, we spend a lot of time debating the question: Is the pastorate a profession? If so, the ministry is the one profession which can countenance no disparity between private morality and public performance.
I frequently have shown in class the Steve Martin movie Leap of Faith, in which he plays a con-artist evangelist. When it’s over, we debate this statement: The “success” of my ministry is dependent on my personal holiness.
That reminds us that there are two sides to this. We must forthrightly declare that ethical living is the crucial foundation for ministry. At the same time, we must avoid anything that smacks of “works righteousness.”
We dare not assume that the effectiveness of our ministry is the direct result of our living morally. Personal morality and ethics is essential, but we can’t make it into a technique.
For pastors, what are the greatest challenges to living ethically?
Lutzer: I can think of several.
First, manipulation. Some pastors want a certain agenda so badly that they’re willing to forgo consensus, to ignore credible objections. They “vision cast” but don’t paint the whole picture. They run roughshod over the feelings and the aspirations and maybe the wisdom of others. And that creates hard feelings and erodes trust because people immediately think, “Oh yeah, that’s his agenda. He’s deaf to other voices.”
Second, spin. We can use personal illustrations in the pulpit in ways that magnify us or show how wonderful we are. Everyone we witness to gets saved. All our advice is profound. I think that if we use personal illustrations, let them be illustrations that magnify our humanity and maybe our failures as well as our virtues.
Third, inappropriate behavior. This can include a lot of things—one’s relationship to women, one’s relationship to money. For example, and not everyone agrees with me here, but when it comes to money, I leave all the details to the finance committee. I stay away from its management. All I do is read the reports and find out every week where we are.
Fourth, self-promotion. Recently I heard of a pastor about whom it was said “If you give him an idea and it’s one that he has thought of and that he’s promoting, he’s with you. If it is your idea, he will never accept it unless somehow he can take credit for it.” Can you really trust someone like that?
Interestingly, none of these cases involved outright lying or flagrant improper behavior. But it’s a personality, a lifestyle that erodes people’s trust. At the end of the day, trust isn’t just that we can believe what a pastor says; it’s that we can actually look into his life and believe that he really wants what the Almighty wants, which therefore encourages a spiritual bonding.
Someone asked St. Francis of Assisi, “Art thou St. Francis?” He said, “Yes.” And the man said, “Take heed that thou be as good as men believe thee to be.”
Handley: That’s true. In many subtle ways, the leader sets the pace for the institution. This involves things like leading with a transparent and repentant heart, things like what kind of accountability do people see in my life? To whom am I accountable spiritually? Do I have a spiritual director?
It is reflected in how I handle dissent. If someone challenges or confronts me, I don’t want to silence the prophet. I want to encourage dissent that’s loyal dissent.
It is reflected in how we talk about other church members. It’s easy to roll the eyes when describing someone, to let patronizing little phrases slip in: “She means well” or “Yeah, we’ve heard that before” or “He’s got an agenda, doesn’t he?” What an easy way to dismiss somebody!
We set the tone. If we manipulate, silence, or dismiss people, that gives permission for our elders and staff to do that, too.
Our church leaders try to practice what we call “The Good Report Principle.” Our elders agree to this covenant: I will never talk about another person, except with a good report, outside his or her hearing. If I’m going to say something negative, he’d better be there, and I’d better say it directly to him.
Lutzer: Now wait a minute, Dave. Don’t you as staff sometimes talk about people with problems? At least we do sometimes.
Handley: If I’m one-on-one with my associate, sometimes we have to, yes. But in a larger meeting, say, with the whole staff of ten, we almost never do.
Lutzer: I’m trying to see how that principle could possibly work. I mean, some people chronically have problems. We talk about these people among our leaders, not with malice, but to determine how to help them.
Handley: True, you can’t let somebody else be blindsided by one of these people.
Lutzer: Say, for instance, someone in your church is getting a divorce. Wouldn’t you talk to your staff about the situation?
Handley: Good example. What I would do there is note in our staff prayer time that so-and-so is going through a divorce and things have been hard, but I wouldn’t mention any particulars. Now behind closed doors with an associate pastor I might say, “These are the issues I’m seeing, and here’s what I’m telling the husband, who’s had an affair and the wife doesn’t know. … ” Yes, sometimes it takes the wisdom of Solomon to figure out what is appropriate. But I still stand on the principle of being cautious, especially publicly, about how we talk about others.
Grenz: Yes, it’s easy for us to cast things as a conflict, a “them vs. us” context. The danger is, even with staff, you communicate that “there are some bad people” here, against whom we must rally. That’s where “the good report principle” fits. It’s a refusal to do that.
Handley: It may be okay to talk with a trusted confidante about “How should I have handled last night’s meeting with so-and-so?” Because I need the counsel and insight. But even then, it must be done carefully and with respect. If I model “dissing,” even with a confidante, I am giving permission.
Grenz: The “Who has a right to know?” principle fits here. Those with responsibility for representing the church in a particular circumstance have a right to know. Those who aren’t directly involved don’t need to be privy to that information.
Handley: “The tongue is a fire” is my text here. It’s so true, and the higher you get in leadership the more hurt your words can cause.
Beeson: It’s important for pastors to understand the weight of their words increases dramatically with the perception of their responsibilities. For instance, I process verbally. So I’ll talk and talk just to figure out what I think about something. It took me years to realize that I was confusing my leaders. I was talking and they were taking notes and taking their cues from my half-formed ideas.
Later we’d have some misunderstanding, and they’d claim, “Well, you said. … ” And I had to explain, “No, wait. I was just talking.”
So now they say, “Are you telling us something, or are you just talking?” (Laughter.) So they’re learning to determine if I’m just processing an idea, or if something is actually resolved and I’m giving direction.
Handley: It’s true. You can’t casually make some statements. You must consider the perceptions that go with your office.
I understand the church father Ambrose said to one of his assistants, “You must never remark on the body of a woman.” Even if I’m in private, if I make such a comment, there’s permission being given. The leader sets the pace for what is permissable and what is unacceptable. How we talk about the opposite sex is important. And not just in terms of sexual things, but also in terms of peer respect.
Another situation is how we talk about our predecessor. A colleague, Gary Demerest, once said, “There are plenty of pastors who build their ministries on the weaknesses of their predecessors.” It can be easy to highlight the shortcomings, to roll our eyes and say, “Yeah, Joe would do that kind of thing.” But even subtle put-downs can be disillusioning to our people.
But what if people come to you and talk about your predecessor’s shortcomings—and you know the observations are true?
Handley: I’d still try to comment in some positive way. If there had been, for instance, an autocratic style, then I’d want to say, “I hear you saying that you want collegial leadership, and you don’t want me to be an autocrat.” I’d try to pick up on something positive about my predecessor, like, “But he started some important programs here.”
But I won’t say, “Yeah, he was lousy, and I’m not going to be like him.”
Does this point to an inherent tension between integrity and authenticity? Wouldn’t integrity lead you to guard your words and speak with respect, while authenticity might lead you to identify with a person’s feelings and openly talk about your predecessor’s dark side?
Grenz: That depends on how you view authenticity. Authenticity ought not be confused with just letting it all hang out. It’s not exhibitionism.
What then is authenticity?
Grenz: Authenticity, in part, is the opposite of duplicity. An authentic person is one in whom there is no guile, in contrast with the person who is out for something, who has a hidden agenda. What you see is not what this person is really after. That’s duplicity.
Lutzer: Authenticity is not nakedness. Some ideas and words need to be clothed.
There’s a big difference between a pastor who lets the congregation know he has struggles, saying something like, “All of us men struggle with purity issues,” and a pastor standing in the pulpit saying, “As I look at you women, I’m struggling with lust.” That’s totally inappropriate. Such revelations are neither helpful nor honoring to the Lord.
On the other hand, some pastors share absolutely nothing, and while they may be people of integrity, they’re terrified of revealing their humanness. It’s a balance.
Grenz: Yes, it has less to do with how many personal illustrations I use in my sermons. It’s just a basic way in which I relate to people. People will tend to say, “Yeah, when I’m around him I don’t get the feeling that he’s running for office.”
But not all information is appropriate to disclose.
Is the level of authenticity changing? Does the emerging generation expect a different kind of transparency?
Beeson: One of the challenges is helping people recognize that your language, lifestyle, and activities will vary depending on your surroundings. If I lived in Tucson, I would have different friends and different pursuits than I do in South Bend. But on a deeper level, surroundings and circumstance don’t change who I am at the core.
Paul says, “I become all things to all men,” and I’m supposed to relate wherever I am, with any group. But the deeper reality is that I’m a bondslave of Christ. That’s who I am.
There’s no duplicity between what you see and who I am, but there’s always more to the picture than meets the eye.
So while appearances will change, your purpose is unchanging.
Beeson: Yes. I want to serve Jesus. That will be manifested in different ways depending on the setting. I don’t want to come with guile, manipulation, or treachery. But what you see is only the tip of the iceberg. If the ice has integrity, what’s under the surface is the same as what you see above the surface.
One of the key ethical issues in the news these days is plagiarism in the pulpit. We’ll let you weigh in on that topic elsewhere (see page 35). But how do you feel about citing sources in your sermons?
Beeson: I had an interesting experience with that. We put our sermon outline and Bible text in the bulletin. We call it “Granger Notes.” At the bottom of the “Granger Notes,” I put the sources for material quoted and, when applicable, a notice: “These books are available in our bookstore.”
Well, after doing that for a year, I realized that our sermon tapes were distributed without the Granger Notes. So people who just heard the tape didn’t know if I was citing my sources. So I now have to make verbal mention.
Grenz: Citation can be overdone. We don’t want to put ourselves in a situation, even to avoid the appearance of plagiarism, where we name everyone whose ideas have influenced us. I’ve heard pastors go through sermons dropping dozens of names—”Well, this comes from William Barclay.” And then, “I was reading this great book by Bill Hybels.” And “I picked this out of Barth’s Church Dogmatics.”
I’m thinking, I don’t need all that. I just want the end product.
With too many citations you can appear egotistical: Look how learned I am. Look at how many people I’ve read.
Lutzer: This is an important point. I seldom mention sources by name. I will say, “One commentator put it this way” because it’s distracting to people if I say, “According to Swindoll. … ” They immediately think, Oh yeah, that Chuck is a great guy, isn’t he? I remember his sermon on. …
Simply preface the comments, “I read an interesting description of this recently.”
Another inescapable issue today, which the Catholic bishops are hammering out, is how to handle accusations of abuse. What do you see as the key ethical issues here?
Lutzer: The priority, of course, is redemption. The ethical issue is balancing the rights of the accused versus the good of the body. And that leads very quickly back to the issue of disclosure: Who has a right to know?
Years ago, we had to remove a staff member and we did not disclose the reasons to the congregation. We just said it was because of “conduct inappropriate to leadership.” We thought we were doing the person a favor by not being specific.
But we weren’t. People felt free to fill in the blank. Some began speculating it was due to homosexuality (it wasn’t) or drug dealing (it wasn’t) or adultery (which it wasn’t, although it was close to that).
I learned from that experience that if you leave things too ambiguous in an attempt to protect the person, the effect may be worse than carefully phrased disclosure.
Beeson: We had a situation in which we learned of a staff pastor’s pattern of promiscuous homosexual behavior. He tearfully confessed, repented, and offered to resign.
That was on a Friday. We agonized over what to do and what to say publicly. In light of the clamor in the Roman Catholic Church, we had to let people know this was not an issue of pedophilia, no children had been molested. We couldn’t just remove him without saying something, because people make up answers to fill in the blanks.
By God’s grace, I happened to have conversations that next week with both Bill Hybels and John Maxwell.
I asked their advice, and totally independent of each other, they said the same thing: “You’ve got to announce this to the church next Sunday. One weekend has already passed. If you let two weekends pass, and if it gets to the press before you disclose it, no matter what you do then, you’ll be seen as covering up a scandal.”
Even though the next Sunday was Mother’s Day, we went ahead and spent most of the service announcing and addressing this issue.
After a song or two, I said, “We try to communicate the standard for leadership in this church. We know you have a rightful, biblical expectation for the pastors who oversee the spiritual development of you and your family.
“Everyone has value. People mess up. We’re in this together. But there are consequences that we face for decisions that we make, and our brother made some decisions that will have very difficult consequences.”
I read his letter, in which he confessed his sin and expressed his sorrow, and announced his resignation.
Then I spoke, assuring the congregation that this brother matters to us, and we’re going to care for him and for his family’s needs, including insurance coverage and counseling, but that he needs to step away from ministry leadership to repair his marriage, restore his family, and his soul. And that’s what we need to be praying for.
What was the result?
Beeson: Amazingly positive. He and his family are still in the church. The media didn’t treat this as a scandal. And through a painful time, the church acted with loving integrity.
This conversation continues as the participants respond to case studies of specific ethical issues on pages 35, 41, and 51.
Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
