The past 20 years have seen a number of written exposes of churches with pathologically controlling leaders who "shepherd" their flocks so harshly that the congregations in question appear to be modeled more after Stalinist Russia than the Kingdom of God. Quite a few such churches do indeed exist and the term "mini-cult" can be fairly used to describe them. That these spawning grounds of abuse masquerading as authentic biblical communities have been exposed is, on the whole, a good thing. It appears that at least some living under a yoke of spiritual and psychological oppression have been set free by this form of Christian investigative journalism, and for that we can rejoice.

Unfortunately these books and articles have also provoked a backlash that feeds into an epidemic problem in American evangelical churches, the growing unwillingness to use legitimately scriptural church discipline.

Many pastors today are fearful of confronting morally erring Christians in their pews. They are faced with the prospect of being accused of fostering "Churches that Abuse" when they take a biblical stand against the clear-cut immorality that is today becoming as prevalent and socially acceptable among professing believers as it is in the surrounding culture. The result is congregations in danger of becoming so compromised that they cease to be authentically Christian. The pendulum appears to be swinging so far from what is perceived as intolerant fundamentalism that it is entering a region where churches are not allowed to deal with "sin in the camp" in any meaningful way.

The Bible is clear that those who are members of a church but who unrepentantly continue in known sin must be lovingly but firmly challenged by the leadership of that church. The goal of such confrontation is twofold; to help erring Christians return to a life of ethical integrity and to safeguard the larger congregation from further infection by the sin in question. Avoiding the use of scripturally sanctioned discipline puts the individual and the church they are a part of in peril of judgment. The long-term affects of laxity in this area are, at the least, the temporal destruction of both. The application of corrective discipline is a profoundly serious responsibility and cannot be ignored for the sake of avoiding the appearance of being "controlling" or "abusive".

There are some who will wave the flag of legalism every time someone dares to call sin sin and do something about it. They will quote from legitimate exposes of clerical abuse for illegitimate reasons that revolve around a desire to turn Christian liberty into license. This is the rationalization of the indulgence of the flesh under the banner of tolerance and it has no place in truly Christian communities. It is vital that both pastoral and lay leadership in evangelical congregations recognize the wrongful use of valid critiques of oppressive and legalistic churches by individuals who want to sin with impunity. The answer is not to deny that such churches exist, they do, but two wrongs never make a right.

As always a Spirit-inspired balance must be consciously and prayerfully sought between the two extremes of oppressive rule keeping and permissive moral compromise. Intentional effort in this direction on the part of those who shepherd God’s people here is vital and should be pursued without fear of human reprisal because He will honor such an effort to create healthy, obedient churches. The alternative is the continued deterioration of American evangelicalism.