The quarterly elders’ meeting had reached any other business when Boro reached into his briefcase and laid a brown envelope on the table.
Boro was the most senior elder in the congregation, a retired civil engineer who had built half the culverts in two local government areas and who still spoke slowly, as though measuring every word for load. He had been a member since the church began in a classroom in Uyo twenty-seven years earlier. The founder, Rev Ukpong, had baptised his children. The two men had prayed together through floods, a fire and the death of Boro’s first son. Everyone at that table knew what it was costing Boro to open the envelope.
Inside were two documents. The first was a letter signed by three members of the church staff: the administrator, the youth pastor and the pastor’s driver. It described a pattern over two years. Being shouted at in front of visitors. Being threatened with dismissal for small mistakes. The driver had been required to work every Sunday for six months, from five in the morning until late evening, without the extra pay his contract provided. The second document was a single typed sheet with no name on it. It claimed that the new Hilux the church had bought in March was registered in the pastor’s personal name.
Rev Ukpong read both in silence. Then his jaw set. “Who wrote the second one?”
“We don’t know,” Boro said. “That is why we will treat it differently from the first.”
“And the first? These three, after everything I have done for them?”
Boro looked at his friend for a long moment. “Pastor, I am not asking you to agree with them tonight. I am asking you to answer them. We will hear you fully before anyone decides anything. That is how we would treat any member of this church. It is how we must treat you.”
Rev Ukpong drove home without speaking. He told me later that he did not sleep. Thirty years of ministry, he thought, and this is how it ends. Sometime after three in the morning his wife sat up beside him and said one sentence. “Answer the paper, not the people.” He did not understand what she meant until weeks later.
More responsibility, more scrutiny
There is a deep instinct in human societies that the higher a person rises, the fewer questions he should have to answer. The chief is not questioned by the youth. The oga is not corrected by the junior staff. The man of God is not examined by the congregation. Many churches have absorbed this instinct and baptised it.
Scripture runs in exactly the opposite direction. James wrote, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). The word translated masters means teachers, those who instruct others in the faith. The word translated condemnation refers to judgement, the assessment a person must face. James is saying that those who teach face a stricter evaluation, because their words shape other people’s lives. And notice that James includes himself: “we shall receive.” He immediately adds, “For in many things we offend all” (James 3:2). The leader is not a different category of human being. He stumbles in many ways like everyone else, and his stumbling affects more people.
Jesus put the same principle in His parable of the steward: “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Luke 12:48). Responsibility and accountability rise together. A Christian leader who demands to be exempt from examination has turned the gospel order upside down.
Honest examination is therefore one of the ways the church takes leadership seriously. If a pastor’s conduct did not matter, nobody would need to examine it. The scrutiny exists because the office carries weight.
Paul withstood Peter to the face
The New Testament gives us a startling example of correction at the highest level of the church. Peter was not a minor figure. He had walked with Jesus for three years, preached on the day of Pentecost, healed the lame man at the temple gate and opened the door of the gospel to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. Paul himself calls him one of those “who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9). And yet:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
The setting is Antioch, where Jewish and Gentile believers had been eating together as one family. Peter had joined in freely. Then a group arrived from Jerusalem, associated with James, and Peter quietly withdrew from the Gentile tables. Paul tells us why: “fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Peter’s convictions had not changed. His behaviour had, under social pressure. And because Peter was so respected, others followed. “Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” Dissimulation means hypocrisy, acting a part. Even Barnabas, the son of encouragement, was swept along.
Paul’s response is instructive. First, he was clear about the issue. It was not a personal irritation or a difference of style. Peter and the others “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” By separating from Gentile believers, Peter was implying that they were second-class Christians unless they adopted Jewish customs. The heart of the gospel was at stake.
Second, Paul went directly to Peter. “I withstood him to the face.” He did not campaign behind Peter’s back or write anonymous letters to other churches.
Third, the correction was public because the offence was public. “I said unto Peter before them all.” Peter’s withdrawal had been seen by the whole church and had misled many. A private word alone would not have repaired the public damage.
And here is the remarkable sequel. Years later, Peter wrote of “our beloved brother Paul” and commended the wisdom given to him (2 Peter 3:15). The correction did not end the relationship. Peter seems to have received it. That is what correction among believers is meant to produce: not destruction, but restoration to the truth.
PunchlineIf Peter, the apostle who walked on water, could be wrong and need correction, then no pastor, bishop, general overseer or prophet stands beyond it.
No Christian leader stands above correction. If an apostle could be withstood to the face for the sake of the gospel, no title today places a person beyond honest examination.
A king who heard and a king who would not
The Old Testament gives us two kings who were confronted, and the difference in their responses tells us almost everything.
When David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged her husband’s death, God sent the prophet Nathan to him. Nathan told a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s only lamb, and when David burned with anger, Nathan said simply, “Thou art the man” (2 Samuel 12:7). David’s response was immediate: “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:13). The consequences of his sin were real and lasting, but his heart was soft enough to hear.
Uzziah was different. He was one of Judah’s most successful kings. He built towers, dug wells, organised a skilled army and developed military technology. And then:
But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD , that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD , but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD , from beside the incense altar.
“But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction.” Success had done to Uzziah what failure had never managed. He decided that the boundaries applying to everyone else did not apply to him. And when eighty-one priests stood in the doorway of the temple and told him the truth, “Then Uzziah was wroth.” He did not stop to consider whether they were right. He became angry that they had dared to speak. The leprosy that broke out on his forehead in that moment remained for the rest of his life, and he lived in isolation until his death.
The pattern is worth noticing. The danger often comes “when he was strong.” Leaders who are struggling tend to listen. Leaders who are succeeding begin to believe their success proves they are right about everything. The bigger the church, the more prominent the ministry, the more profitable the company, the more carefully a leader needs to guard against Uzziah’s anger.
Rev Ukpong’s first response that night was Uzziah’s. Thankfully it was not his last.
A fair process for every accusation
If leaders must be correctable, the church also needs to know how correction should happen. Here Paul gave Timothy clear instructions:
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
Three principles are packed into these verses.
The first is protection against unsupported accusation. “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” Leaders are exposed. They make decisions that disappoint people. They preach against sins that someone in the congregation is committing. They are natural targets for rumour, resentment and malice. A single unsupported claim should not be allowed to destroy a person’s ministry. Paul is drawing on a principle that runs through the whole of Scripture:
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is , shall stand before the LORD , before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Look at the care built into this law. More than one witness. Both parties brought before the judges. “The judges shall make diligent inquisition,” a careful investigation. And a severe consequence for a false witness, who receives the penalty he intended for the accused. God’s law took false accusation as seriously as the crime itself.
The second principle is real accountability when wrongdoing is established. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Where an elder is shown to have sinned, especially in a way that has affected the church, the matter is not to be buried to protect his reputation or the ministry’s image. The phrase “that others also may fear” shows that public accountability serves the whole body. It teaches everyone, leaders included, that the standard is real.
The third principle is impartiality. Paul charges Timothy “before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,” that he should act “without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” This echoes the old law of Israel: “thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour” (Leviticus 19:15). The popular preacher and the unknown usher stand under the same standard. So do the founder and the newest member. A process that bends according to the status of the accused is no longer a just process.
The verse that follows adds a word of caution about appointments: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins” (1 Timothy 5:22). Churches that rush to recognise leaders often find themselves rushing later to manage the damage.
The right to be heard
Fair process includes one more element that Scripture insists on: the accused must be allowed to answer.
When the chief priests and Pharisees were condemning Jesus without having heard Him, one of their own number spoke up:
Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
“Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” Nicodemus was appealing to a principle every system of justice needs. Proverbs puts it sharply: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13). And again: “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him” (Proverbs 18:17). The first story always sounds convincing. Then the other side is heard, and the picture changes, sometimes a little and sometimes completely.
Even the pagan governor Festus understood this. “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself” (Acts 25:16). If a Roman court could recognise the right to answer, a Christian church can hardly do less.
Peter himself modelled the right response to being questioned. When he returned to Jerusalem after baptising Cornelius and his household, “they that were of the circumcision contended with him” (Acts 11:2). Peter did not pull rank or claim that apostles need not explain themselves. He “rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them” (Acts 11:4). He gave his account carefully and in order. And when the others had heard him, “they held their peace, and glorified God” (Acts 11:18).
NuggetThis is exactly what Boro offered his friend. Hear the concerns in full. Respond in full. Let the facts be examined. Then decide.
Two errors the church must refuse
Between them, these passages rule out two opposite errors.
The first is immunity. This is the culture in which the leader is beyond question, where “Touch not mine anointed” is used to silence concerns about conduct or money, where boards exist only on paper, and where anyone who raises a matter is labelled rebellious. That verse, in its setting, concerns physical harm to God’s people, not questions about a leader’s behaviour, and David himself was confronted to his face by Nathan. A culture of immunity does not protect the anointing. It protects wrongdoing, and it eventually destroys both the leader and the people.
The second is careless accusation. This is the culture of the WhatsApp broadcast and the viral video, where an allegation is shared to thousands before anyone has checked a single fact, where anonymous claims are treated as proven, and where a leader is convicted in the court of public opinion without ever being heard. “Thou shalt not raise a false report” (Exodus 23:1). The same verse continues, “put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness,” and the next warns, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” Sharing an unverified accusation against anyone, leader or not, can make you a partner in slander.
In the Uyo church, the elders refused both errors. They did not bury the staff letter because the founder was respected. And they did not act on the anonymous sheet as though it were established. They checked it. The vehicle registration papers were requested from the church’s files and from the licensing office. The Hilux was registered in the church’s name, exactly as the board had approved. An early proforma invoice from the dealer had carried the pastor’s name as the contact person, and someone had seen it and drawn the wrong conclusion. The accusation was false, and the elders said so plainly in their report.
When the allegation is abuse
The two-or-three-witnesses principle must never be misused to protect abusers. This needs to be said carefully and clearly.
Abuse, especially sexual abuse, usually happens in private. There are rarely two eyewitnesses. If a church insists on two people having seen the same act before it will take a complaint seriously, it has turned a protection against malice into a shield for predators. The biblical principle concerns establishing a matter with sufficient evidence. Corroboration can come in many forms: a pattern of similar complaints from different people, messages and records, the testimony of those who saw the aftermath, medical evidence, or admissions. Each of these counts.
When an allegation involves possible crime, such as sexual abuse, assault, abuse of a child or vulnerable adult, or financial fraud, the church must not handle it as an internal matter only. It should be reported to the police and the relevant authorities. Where a child may be at risk, act immediately. No appeal to honour, anointing or the reputation of the ministry justifies silence.
While a serious allegation is being investigated, it is wise for the leader to step aside from ministry duties. This is not a declaration of guilt. It protects the complainants, the integrity of the investigation and, if the allegation proves false, the leader himself. Investigations into a senior leader should be conducted by people independent of him, not by staff whose salaries he controls.
Those who raise concerns must be protected from retaliation. A complainant should never be required to confront a powerful person privately as a condition of being heard. The instruction in Matthew 18 to go to a brother alone was given for ordinary offences between equals, not to force a vulnerable person into a room with someone who has power over them.
And the accused still has the right to answer. Safeguarding and fair process are not enemies. A just process takes the complainant seriously and gives the accused a full hearing. Both are required by Scripture.
Leaders who welcome correction
The best protection against both errors is a leader who actually wants to be corrected. David prayed, “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil” (Psalm 141:5). Proverbs is blunter: “Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish” (Proverbs 12:1).
What makes a leader able to receive correction? At root, it is the gospel. A leader who is justified by grace does not need to be right in order to be accepted. His standing before God does not rest on his record, so he does not have to defend his record at all costs. He can say, “I was wrong,” without his world collapsing, because his world was never built on being right. The insecure leader, who has quietly made his ministry the foundation of his identity, experiences every correction as an existential threat. That is why he reaches for Uzziah’s anger.
Wise leaders build correction into the structure of their lives before they need it. An independent board with real authority. Audited accounts published to members. Regular reviews in which the leader’s conduct, not just his results, is discussed. A clear way for staff and members to raise concerns that does not run through the leader himself. In the marketplace, the same principles apply: a chief executive answers to a board, the board to shareholders and regulators, and a whistleblowing policy is a sign of health. Christian business leaders should be the first to welcome such accountability, not the last.
One further distinction will save churches much confusion: restoration and reinstatement are different things. When a leader who has sinned repents, he is restored to fellowship with God at once, and the church should receive him as a forgiven brother. Paul urged the Corinthians to “forgive him, and comfort him” once discipline had done its work (2 Corinthians 2:7). But a return to public office is a separate question. It depends on the nature of the wrong, on whether those harmed have been heard and helped, and on trust being rebuilt over time. Where the sin involved abuse of the vulnerable, a return to positions of oversight over them may never be wise. Forgiveness is a gift freely given. Trust in a public role is earned slowly, and a church that confuses the two will either crush the repentant or endanger the flock.
The two people the elders asked to review the staff letter were from outside the congregation: a pastor from a sister church in Calabar and a chartered accountant who attended a different denomination. Rev Ukpong received the letter in full and had three weeks to respond in writing. Then he met the reviewers in person. The three staff members were told, in writing, that no one would face any consequence for having raised the matter.
The reviewers found that the complaints were substantially true. Rev Ukpong had not realised how often he raised his voice or how frightened his staff had become. He had genuinely forgotten about the driver’s Sundays. He had simply needed a driver and assumed someone was handling the pay.
On a Sunday in October he stood in front of the congregation. He did not give details that would embarrass anyone. He said that his elders had brought concerns to him about the way he had treated some of the staff, that the concerns were true, that he had apologised to each person privately, and that he was now apologising to the church whose name he represented. He had paid the driver’s arrears himself. He would meet with the elders every quarter for a review of his conduct, and he invited anyone who had been hurt by him to speak to Boro.
Afterwards I asked him what his wife had meant that night. He smiled. “I wanted to fight the people. She told me to answer the paper. When I did, the paper saved me twice. It cleared my name where I was innocent, and it corrected me where I was wrong. A leader who will not be questioned loses both.”
PunchlineNo leader is above correction. Thank God for that. It is one of His kindnesses to us.
Teaching Companion
For Reflection
- Do you tend more toward the culture of immunity or the culture of careless accusation? Where have you seen each do damage?
- Why do you think Peter was able to receive Paul’s public correction, and later call him “our beloved brother”?
- Uzziah’s heart was lifted up “when he was strong.” In what areas of success might you be most resistant to correction?
- How does being justified by grace free a leader to say “I was wrong”?
- If you lead, what structure for honest examination exists in your life today? If none exists, what could you put in place this year?
This Week
If you lead in any setting, ask two people who work under you this week to answer one question honestly, in writing if they prefer: “What is one thing I do that makes your work harder, or that you have been afraid to tell me?” Receive their answers without defending yourself, thank them, and decide on one change. If you are not in leadership, practise the other side of fair process: the next time you receive an accusation about anyone, leader or not, refuse to forward it until you have checked whether it is true and whether the person has been heard.
A Prayer
Lord Jesus, You are the only Leader who has never needed correction, and You have called every other leader to walk humbly before You. Thank You that my acceptance rests on Your righteousness and not on my record. Make me teachable. Let the righteous smite me, and let me receive it as kindness. Guard me from the anger of Uzziah when I am strong. Give me courage to speak the truth to those in authority when the gospel or the vulnerable are at stake, and give me the patience to hear every side before I judge. Protect the weak, expose what is false, and make Your church a place of truth and justice. Amen.
Truth received brings freedom. Truth believed establishes the heart.
Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. · Illustrations using first names only are composites unless stated otherwise.