SERIES: The Gospel of John
The Abuse of Religious Power
SPEAKER: Michael P. Andrus
Introduction: The capacity for evil on the part of deeply religious people is frightening. Two weeks ago an American immigrant to Israel opened fire on a group of Palestinians at prayer and murdered about 40 of them. It was done in the name of religion. Last month hundreds of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serb Christians. It was done in the name of religion. A year ago a mad bomber tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six, injuring over 1000, and doing tens of millions of dollars in damage. It was done in the name of religion.
For decades in Northern Ireland the Protestants and Catholics have been killing each other—men, women, and children indiscriminately—all in the name of religion. Millions of black Africans were imported to the United States during the first century of our nation’s existence, and were kept in degrading servitude, often in the name of religion.
We sometimes have the impression that people who commit such atrocities are just a tiny lunatic fringe, but the fact is most of the violent actions I have described were approved by a sizeable number of people and, perhaps more surprisingly, were instigated and incited by professional clergymen of mainstream religions. All of this goes a long way to prove Pascal’s adage to the effect that “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” [i] C.S. Lewis put it another way: “Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst.” [ii]
At least four books have been published by Christian authors since 1991 on the topic of the abuse of religious power. They are not aimed just at the cults and fanatical sects—the Jim Joneses and the David Koreshes—but also at mainstream Christians, Fundamentalists, and even Evangelicals. The most recent and probably the best of these books is entitled Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences, by Ken Blue. He comments perceptively:
“Unlike physical abuse that often results in bruised bodies, spiritual abuse leaves scars on the psyche and soul. It is inflicted by persons who are accorded respect and honor in our society by virtue of their role as religious leaders and models of spiritual authority. They base that authority on the Bible, the Word of God, and see themselves as shepherds with a sacred trust. But when they violate that trust, when they abuse heir authority, and when they misuse ecclesiastical power to control and manipulate the flock, the results can be catastrophic.” [iii]
He cautions, however, that the definition of spiritual abuse must be carefully limited.
“If everything church leaders do wrong is called spiritual abuse, the issue is trivialized. I want to discourage the superficial labeling of too many leaders as spiritual abusers. Let’s deal responsibly with the real problem and not turn our concern with spiritual abuse into the Salem witch hunt of our time.”[iv]
The author goes on to offer what he believes to be the single most effective antidote to the abuse of religious power—the development of servant leadership on the part of pastors, Elders, Deacons, youth workers, and teachers. The principles of servant leadership, by the way, apply to parents and husbands, as well.
We can learn about servant leadership in two ways: one is to study the many passages, particularly in the Pastoral Epistles, which urge Christian leaders to be servants—passages like 2 Tim. 2:24, where Paul says to Pastor Timothy, “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct.” Or 1 Peter 5:2-3, where the Apostle speaks to the Elders of the church and says, “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
That’s servant leadership. It does not imply, as Dr. Paul Cedar, President of the EFCA writes in his excellent book, Strength in Servant Leadership, “that the effective leader should be too timid to be seen or heard…. He or she must be visible, shoulder responsibility, and speak out with vigor and conviction. It is a matter of motives: the Christian leader’s passion is to lead people to follow Christ, not himself.” [v]
The other way to learn about servant leadership is to study its opposite, learning from the negative examples of those who violate its principles. And, believe me, there are plenty of negative examples in Scripture, particularly in the conflict between Jesus and the spiritual leaders of Israel as recorded throughout the Gospels. As Ken Blue has written,
“Jesus was so focused on the problem of spiritual abuse that it … was the only cultural problem that he repeatedly exposed and opposed. This is amazing when we recall that his culture was plagued by a host of serious social ills. Jesus took no public stand against slavery, racism, class warfare, state-sponsored terrorism, military occupation, corruption in government, abortion, infanticide, homosexuality, or the exploitation of women and children.” [vi]
This is not to say that Christ’s teachings are not fundamentally in opposition to all these evils, but the one He nailed constantly was the abuse of spiritual power. This morning, as we continue our journey through the Gospel of John, we are going to examine the tragic case of two religious leaders who played a key role in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There is much we can learn about how notto lead from their examples. In turn we will see more clearly what servant leadership is, and how it is exercised for the good of Christ’s Body.
Let’s begin by setting the stage. Following His Upper Room Discourse and His High Priestly Prayer, Jesus took His disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. It was late on Thursday night, possibly past midnight, and the disciples had a very difficult time staying awake as Jesus went off by Himself to pour out His heart to the Father. Three times they fell asleep in the solitude of the Garden. Suddenly, the peace and quiet of that sacred place was shattered as Judas appeared with Jesus’ enemies and betrayed the Savior with a kiss.
We pick up the story in John 18:12: “Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.” Thus began the trial, condemnation, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Actually there were two trials—one a religious trial before the Jews and the other a political trial before the Romans, each consisting of several phases. This morning we will consider only the religious trial before the Jews, but in two weeks we will see the other trial, as we do a character sketch of the man known as Pontius Pilate.
The two key figures in the religious trial of Jesus were Annas and Caiaphas. Annas became High Priest in Israel in AD 6, when Jesus was just a small boy. Nine years later the Roman governor deposed him for unknown failings, but he succeeded in getting his son-in-law, Caiaphas, appointed high priest just a few years later. Thus, he remained the patriarch of the high priestly family and the real power behind the throne.
The family of Annas was immensely rich, and the principal way they made their money was disgraceful. In the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple in Jerusalem there were those who sold animals for the required sacrifices. Originally this was done as a service to the many pilgrims who visited Jerusalem from great distance and who could not readily bring their sacrificial animals with them. Under Annas, however, these merchandisers became more like extortioners.
Every animal victim offered in the Temple had to be without blemish, and the High Priest had his inspectors to make certain it was so. If an animal were brought in from outside the Temple, the inspectors always found a flaw in it and then directed the worshipper to buy a substitute animal at the Temple booths, called “The Bazaars of Annas.” These animals already bore the official seal of approval and there was no risk of rejection. Incidentally, the price of animals inside the Temple just happened to average ten to twenty times the price on the street (so you can now see where the concession monopoly at major sports events today originated!)
The whole business was sheer exploitation, and it enabled Annas to amass a large fortune. This helps us understand why Annas arranged that Jesus be brought first to him, even though it was his son-in-law who currently held the office of High Priest. Jesus had attacked Anna’s vested interest when He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers and merchandisers less than a week earlier. That action had hit Annas where it hurt—in his pocketbook.
Our text today tells us that “Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.” Actually, Caiaphas was High Priest from AD 18 to AD 36, but the fact that he ever held the position brings to mind the first of five principles of servant leadership I want us to consider this morning.
Servant leadership cannot be inherited. (John 18:13)
History makes it clear that the only way Caiaphas ever got to be High Priest was that he married into the right family. It was a case of sheer nepotism, for he obviously had no spiritual qualifications for the job. He was the highest bidder and the one most willing to toe the line with the Roman governor. He became the arch-collaborator, the one who bought comfort and ease and prestige and power by paying off and cooperating with his country’s masters.
But servant leaders are always made, never born. In God’s church, ancestry means nothing. It has often been said that “God has only children, no grandchildren.” Everyone who comes to God must come on his own, must exercise personal faith, and must take up his own cross and follow Jesus. The same is true when it comes to leadership in God’s church. It is a beautiful thing when children learn from godly parents and follow in the footsteps of faith which their parents walked before them, but no child should ever inherit a position of leadership in God’s church on the basis of bloodline.
The gifts of the Spirit, personal maturity, and a godly track record are worth far more than ancestry or prestige or degrees or anything else the world can offer.
Servant leadership does not sacrifice people on the altar of power. (John 11:45-53)
In John 18:14 we read this parenthetical thought: “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.” Let’s back up to chapter 11 and read the first-hand account that explains this. It occurs right after Lazarus is raised from the dead. I’ll read beginning in verse 45:
“Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. ‘Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You guys are totally ignorant! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’”
Caiaphas, facing the prospect that Jesus’ rising popularity might make the Romans nervous and cause them to crack down, suggests that Jesus be sacrificed so that the nation might survive. The fact that Jesus was innocent of any capital crime (or any crime at all) was irrelevant to Caiaphas. If the nation could be saved (and Caiaphas’ job with it), one peasant preacher’s life was a small price to pay.
But Caiaphas said more than he realized. John 11 goes on, “Caiaphas did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” When Caiaphas said, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish,” he had nothing but murder in mind, but God used him to unwittingly deliver a prophecy about Jesus’ vicarious atonement.
Politically Caiaphas’ plan failed, for the crucifixion of Jesus did not preserve the nation, for just 35 years later the Romans came and wiped Jerusalem off the map. But spiritually speaking, when Jesus died on the cross one man did take the place of the nation. In fact, He took the place of all sinners everywhere so that no one has to die spiritually. Jesus became our substitute, paying the wages of sin with His own death, with the result that all those who receive Him are given the gift of eternal life. Of course, the fact that God intended something spiritual behind Caiaphas’ words in no way exonerates him. He still must be judged on the fact that his own position, power and prosperity were more important to him than an innocent life. He was willing to sacrifice a person on the altar of power.
While we are not likely to come across a Christian leader today who resorts to murder to achieve his ends, it is not uncommon for Christian leaders to sacrifice people in other ways on the altar of power. Sometimes people are silenced when they disagree with the leadership. Sometimes they are publicly humiliated for not measuring up to the leader’s expectations. Sometimes the accepted decision-making process is circumvented in order to achieve the leaders’ goals. Sometimes programs become more important the people. In Christian homes sometimes relationships are sacrificed so the breadwinner can climb the ladder of success.
Friends, God calls us to be person-centered in the church and in the home. All the success in the world an organization might achieve is not worth the sacrifice of one innocent person. We should never write individuals off by arguing that the common good demands it. Oh, there are times when people write themselves off, and through anger and bitterness or overt sin they take themselves out, refusing to be restored and reconciled, but every opportunity for redemption should be given to them.
A third principle I see in our text is that …
Servant leadership does not use intimidation to enforce its influence. (John 18:22)
As we pick up the story in John 18:19, we find Annas, who is still referred to as the High Priest (in much the same way that we still refer to George Bush as President Bush), questioning Jesus about two matters—His disciples and His teaching. The former question may have dealt with the size of His following and the potential for any possible conspiracy; while the latter suggests that Annas hoped to find some ground for an accusation of heresy.
About His disciples, Jesus says nothing, determined as He was to protect them to the end. More generally, Jesus responds that He has always spoken openly to the world. He did not maintain one message for public consumption and another, more dangerous one for a secret group of disciples. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
Now I think it is important for us to understand that Jesus had every legal right to respond as He did. Jewish jurisprudence was quite advanced in the first century, and it was illegal to compel a defendant to testify against himself. However, it says in verse 22, “When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. ‘Is this the way you answer the high priest?’ he demanded.” Now it is true that Annas himself did not strike Jesus, but the one who did worked for Annas, and Annas in no way reprimanded the man. I think it is legitimate to suggest that Annas was responsible for the attack. He used intimidation to get what he could not achieve through rational argument, consensus, or evidence.
It’s a curious thing how often insecure church leaders resort to intimidation tactics of one sort or another to enforce their influence. Physical beatings are hopefully rare in churches, but emotional and psychological abuse are not so uncommon. Pastors and other spiritual leaders often use guilt to motivate people. Broad, vague appeals to “surrender fully,” “yield completely” or “lay it all on the altar” can play on people’s emotions and cause intimidation. Sometimes spiritual leaders exercise control over people’s private lives or manipulate their marriages. An autocratic leadership style that communicates “my way or the highway” is another intimidation tactic.
In contrast, wise leaders will encourage discussion, give people every opportunity to express their reservations, and air all viewpoints before asking for a vote. Personally, I believe every controversial issue in a church business meeting should be voted on by secret ballot so that people never feel intimidated when they disagree with leadership. What is there to lose? If leaders don’t have the hearts of their people with them, winning a vote isn’t going to solve anything.
A fourth principle I find illustrated negatively by Annas and Caiaphas is this:
Servant leadership does not sacrifice truth on the altar of tradition. (Mark 14:55-57)
One of the revealing facts about Annas and Caiaphas is that they were both Sadducees. The Sadducees constituted one of the two principal parties among the Jews, the other being the Pharisees. Sadducees would correspond very roughly to Reformed Jews today, whereas the Pharisees were the forerunners of Orthodox Jews, as we know them today. As the liberal wing of Judaism, the Sadducees denied divine providence, the existence of angels or spirits, the hope of a personal Messiah, and the resurrection of the body. But they loved their traditions, which they viewed as binding all Jews together culturally, no matter what they believed individually. The Sadducees’ influence was dominant with the rich and aristocratic, and they had virtually complete control of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body which would correspond in many ways to the Israeli Knesset today.
It is before this Sanhedrin that Jesus is brought, still bound, in the wee hours of Friday morning, having already endured a grueling preliminary hearing before Annas. It was illegal for the Sanhedrin to try a defendant at night, but that doesn’t stop Caiaphas, the sitting High Priest who presides over this body, and whose unabashed goal is to find evidence against Jesus so that they can put Him to death.
When unable to find any evidence, Caiaphas considers it just a minor glitch, for he is able to obtain false witnesses willing to testify against Jesus, no doubt for a price. But Mark tells us their statements do not agree. Even when they quote something He really said, albeit missing His point by a mile, there are still conflicts in their testimony. The significance of this is that Jewish law gave all the benefit of doubt to the accused. If there were conflicts among eyewitnesses, the defendant was to be acquitted.
Caiaphas knows this, of course, but it doesn’t matter to him because for him truth and justice are completely expendable in the pursuit of tradition. The perpetuation of the institution has become the end, and any means to that end is deemed legitimate.
Do we see this happening today in the church? Do we see institutions taking on a life of their own? Do we have pet doctrines to which we are so committed that we are willing to twist the Scripture to maintain them? Are we so attached to a style of worship or a philosophy of ministry or a kind of church government that we are willing to preserve it at all costs.
I read through the worship surveys that about 150 of you returned and found one that illustrates my point. In answer to the question, “What could our church do to make your worship experience more meaningful?”, this person wrote, “Whenever people raise their hands during musical worship, either call on them or cut off one finger each time.” In fairness the person added in parenthesis, “Just kidding, maybe!” I’m glad he or she was kidding, but what this reveals, if I may be so bold as to guess, is that this person has a traditional way of worshipping that is very important to him—so important that he is willing to ignore the many passages of Scripture that not only speak of believers raising their hands but even command them to do so. I understand the emotions of it, because I grew up in a tradition where hand-raising was not done, but the question is, should spiritual leaders sacrifice truth on the altar of tradition, even evangelical tradition?
Now I am certainly not trying to compare the person who turned in this survey to Caiaphas. But I think if I am honest and if you are honest, we must admit we are all guilty at times of doing what Caiaphas did, only on lesser issues. But when we compromise on small issues it has a way of affecting our credibility on the larger ones.
Servant leadership does not achieve its goals by manipulating people’s emotions. (Mark 14:63-65)
When the attempt to get eyewitnesses to agree on their testimony fails, Caiaphas addresses Jesus directly, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Though Jesus had not answered the previous questions, He is unwilling to pass up such a clear opportunity to testify concerning His own nature and person. “’I am,’ he says. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Might One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ At this the high priest tears his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asks. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’”
Here again we see that justice is set aside in the pursuit of an evil end. Jewish law forbade the high priest to express an opinion in a trial or to interrogate either the witnesses or the accused. Rather he was to keep perfectly silent. But Caiaphas finally has what he wants—a charge which, though illegally obtained, is sufficient to stir up the crowd to demand of the Romans that they execute the prisoner. The text says that in response to Caiaphas’ challenge, the entire Sanhedrin “condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards took him and beat him.” He successfully stirred them up by manipulating their emotions.
Servant leadership does not do that. From time to time I am asked why we don’t have invitations at the end of our services. This is the primary reason. I believe what Hebrews 4:12 says, namely that“the Word of God is living and powerful, sharper than any double-edged sword, able to penetrate even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and intents of the human heart.” I have seen many come to faith in Christ without the emotional appeal of the preacher. That offers no excuse for failing to make the Gospel clear, but it does reflect my strong opinion that the Holy Spirit is the one who must bring people to faith, not the evangelist.
Emotions are a powerful tool, and they are a legitimate part of Christian faith. Manipulation of people through use of the emotions of guilt, grief, fear, or even exuberance really works, but I reject it as a legitimate way to motivate. I believe God intended for the mind to rule the emotions, not the other way around.[vii]
Conclusion and Communion: Servant leadership was totally absent from Annas and Caiaphas; ironically it was totally resident in their prisoner. We have seen many times in the Gospel of John how Jesus served others rather than Himself, how He knelt down and washed His disciples’ feet, and how He reached out to the poor and the downtrodden instead of hobnobbing with the rich and powerful.
This was revolutionary—a leader serving his followers! No other religious or political figure in history had ever done that to this extent. And now we see Him walking steadfastly to the Cross to demonstrate the ultimate in servanthood.
Just a week before He was crucified Jesus called together His disciples and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)
It is our privilege and responsibility regularly as a Body of Christ to remember His ultimate act of servant leadership, when Jesus laid down His life for His friends, not just as an example but as a substitute for us. He died that we might live.
DATE: March 6, 1994
Tags:
Spiritual abuse
Servant leadership
Tradition
[i] Blaise Pascal, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/blaise_pascal_133606.
[ii] C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, 31-32.
[iii] Ken Blue, Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences, 13.
[iv] Ibid., 12.
[v] Paul Cedar, Strength in Servant Leadership, page # lost.
[vi] Blue, 18.
[vii] To summarize these five principles of servant leadership, I want to quote Jesus Himself, who frequently warned His disciples about the abuse of religious power. He said of the spiritual leaders of Israel, “Be careful. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Isn’t that interesting? Jesus did not warn His disciples to beware of the yeast of the prostitutes and the tax collectors—the lowlifes of His day. Their evil was obvious, of course, and therefore relatively harmless. The true danger is the high-sounding religious lie mixed in with a body of truth spoken by a person of respect.