M.A. Thesis

Research Report or Thesis Submission Form Name of Student:

Mark Hill

HBC Student Number:

HBC1011208

Title of Thesis:

Abuse of Power and its Consequences: An Examination of Two Danish Churches in Which Abuse Occurred

Degree being attempted:

Master of Arts in Ministry

Name of Supervisor:

Dr. David Jakobsen

Date of Submission:

November 1st, 2017

Student Declaration: I, Mark Hill, certify that this thesis or essay is my own work, that the research has been conducted in accordance with the approved research plan, and that all agreed ethical requirements have been adhered to.

I also certify that the thesis or essay is based upon the research undertaken during the course of my current candidature and that it has not been presented for any other degree.

Mark K. Hill November 1st, 2017

1

Confidential Material If there is confidential material in the thesis which may help to identify a person or group being researched, please provide details here

Supervisor’s Declaration I, David Jakobsen, certify that I have supervised and advised the student Mark Hill as he prepared the attached thesis/ essay on Abuse of Power and its Consequences: An Examination of Two Danish Churches in Which Abuse Occurred. To the best of my knowledge, this thesis or essay is the student’s own work, that the research has been conducted in accordance with the approved research plan, and that all agreed ethical requirements have been adhered to.

I also certify that, in my opinion, the thesis or essay is of the required standard [for MA reports, this means it should gain at least a Credit grade] and worthy of submission towards the award of the specified degree and it is free from major errors of presentation.

David Jakobsen November 1st, 2017

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

4

1. Literature Review

5

1.1 Books on Power Abuse 1.2 Types of Power 1.3 Experts & Ethics 1.4 Previous Research 1.5 TV Documentaries 1.6 A “Man of God” 1.7 Biblical Leadership 1.8 Research Question, Sub-Questions and Hypotheses

5 7 10 10 12 13 14 14

2. Methodology

15

2.1 Ethical Considerations

16

3. Results

17

3.1 Survey A – Abuse 3.1.1 Man of God 3.1.2 Attractive but Unhealthy 3.1.3 Hurt & Abuse 3.1.4 Recovering From an Unhealthy Church 3.1.5 Reflections by Respondents

18 18 19 20 21 21

3.2 Survey B – Leadership Perspectives 3.2.1 Starting out in Ministry 3.2.2 Accountability & Transparency 3.2.3 Termination of a Position 3.2.4 More on the “Man of God” Concept 3.2.5 Power Structures

23 23 24 24 25 25

4. Discussion

26

4.1 Pentecostalism and Faith Movement 4.2 Types of Power Being Abused 4.3 Abusive Leaders and Systems 4.4 Not Everything is Abuse

26 28 29 31

Conclusion

32

Bibliography

35

Appendices

38

Appendix 1 - Information Letter and Questions, Survey A Appendix 2 - Information Letter and Questions, Survey B

38 42

3

Introduction Jesus is the good shepherd, and a good shepherd gives his life for sheep (John 10:11), but what about bad shepherds watching the flock? Shepherds who are not simply the indifferent hirelings from Jesus’ parable, who do not protect the sheep, but are shepherds who actually hurt the sheep.

Shepherds who do not run from the wolf, but might even be wolves themselves. Wolves who, as Johnson & Van Vonderen pointedly says, does not hate the sheep, but “he just needs to consume them to satisfy his own hungers” (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 171-172). The Bible warned us that wolves would come into the house: For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. (Acts 20:29-30) In this research, I wish to investigate how the leaders of two churches abused their position of power and which consequences it brought with it, both on some of the victims and how Pentecostal/charismatic churches were subsequently portrayed in Danish media with headlines like, “Pastor of free church1 has been reported to the police: Children had to eat vomit!” (Rasmussen, 2012).

The background for this topic, is that in recent years there has been several cases in Denmark where Christian leaders have acted unethically and have abused their position of power, resulting in many hurt and disillusioned Christians, who subsequently had to be helped with recovery in areas such as (1) functioning emotionally, (2) maintaining their faith in God, and (3) being able to trust a Christian leader again.

I will be researching the cases of, Evangelist and Byens Kirke, which are both relatively recent. My own interest in this topic is probably linked to the fact that I served in a church some years ago, where I experienced being hurt by a leader who abused his power and made unreasonable demands towards me. It took a few years to get over, and it is not something I would wish for other people to go through. However, this was not one of the two cases I am researching, so this research is not a matter of revenge or getting even, but rather a matter of understanding what factors are involved in power abuse by a Christian leader. Through these unrelated, but similar cases, I hope to discover some factors that can help others to prevent abuse and protect themselves in the future.

I believe power abuse by Christian leaders is an important topic, which does not seem to occur less and less, but rather is something that unfortunately is growing exponentially.

1

Free church, meaning, not the Lutheran state church.

4

I myself am a member of the Pentecostal movement of Denmark, and have been since my childhood. In addition, Denmark is a small country, so even though I have never visited the two churches I am researching, I personally know several people who have been going there.

This research is conducted through existing literature on the topic and related topics, and through information provided by former members, and I am also drawing on insight from other pastors of the Pentecostal movement.

1. Literature Review A good number of existing literature and previous research is available and relevant for this research. The major focus of the literature that informs the academic foundation of this research is literature on the nature of power abuse (1.1) and various types of power (1.2) being abused. One of the major reasons for this approach is the underlying assumption that power abuse has taken place in the cases chosen for the research.

Books on leadership and ethics (1.3) have been relevant too. Two previous studies conducted in Denmark (1.4) as well as several TV-documentaries (1.5) have been of major importance, along with several books of minor importance on various topics, which still holds some relevance.

1.1 Books on power abuse Johnson & Van Vonderen argue that power abuse by Christian leaders, which they label “spiritual abuse” is not a new phenomenon, but even dates back to biblical times. They give a good scriptural basis for this (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 28-39).

Moreover, they explain, this abuse can occur: …when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person. It often involves overriding the feelings and opinions of another without regard to what will result in the other person’s state of living, emotions or spiritual well-being (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 20-21).

They argue that you can identify abusive leaders and systems through the following four characteristics: (1) “Power-Posturing.” That is when leaders are very occupied with their own authority, and reminding others of it. It is needed because their spiritual authority is not based on a genuine godly character, but it is postured. (2) “Performance Preoccupation”, is when the system is preoccupied with the performance of its members. One church required documentation for how members spent every minute of every day, and would confront people for spending 15 min. instead of 10 when taking a bath, since they could have spent the extra 5 min. reading the Bible. Such a 5

“system does not foster holiness or obedience to God, it merely accommodates the leader’s sick interpretation of spirituality and their need for control.” (3) “Unspoken Rules” are those that “govern unhealthy churches or families but are not said out loud.” You do not know that they are there until you break one of them. If revealed in “the light of mature dialogue” it becomes apparent that it is illogical, anti-Christian etc. Unspoken rules include the “Can’t Talk” rule, which means: “The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change.” If you point out that there is a problem, then you become the problem, and become a target. (4) “Lack of balance”. This fourth and final characteristic deals with an “unbalanced approach to living out the truth of the Christian life.” It reveals itself on the one hand in an “extreme objectivism” which excludes valid subjective experiences. The work of the Holy Spirit might be acknowledged theologically, but is denied practically. Authority becomes only a matter of education and intellectual capacity, with no intimacy with God and sensitivity to his Spirit. On the other hand, you find it also as an “extreme subjectivism” where truth is based on feelings and experiences, and more weight is given to those even if the Bible says something quite different (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 63-70). Hence the lack of balance The basis for the authors claims are the many cases through which they have gained experience through pastoring and counselling, and they back up these claims with examples from real life, so, seemingly there is evidence to support their claims, and are not simply assumptions.

It relates to my research question since it gives me a good basis for identifying an abusive leader, and gives me a greater understanding of power abuse in churches and ministry settings.

Other writers support the views found in this book. In his two books on churches that abuse, professor of sociology, Ronald M. Enroth agrees and writes many similar things based on his research through interviewing survivors of abusive churches. Enroth adds that members of abusive churches might feel a sense of superiority while they are there: As I look back on it now, it is clear that, subtly at first, there began to be a feeling of superiority and exclusiveness among the people. This was more evident in some than in others, but I think we all were affected by it. There began to be a feeling that this church was unique, and that while we loved other brothers in Christ, to leave Community Chapel would always be a step down spiritually. (Enroth, 1992, p. 26) The book “Toxic Faith” by Arterburn & Felton, also supports what is written by Johnson & Van Vonderen above, regarding abusive leaders and abusive systems; but with the additional theme that sometimes even the wrong ideas regarding our beliefs in God can be hurtful and maintain people in an abusive setting.

6

Arterburn & Felton believe it is possible to recover from an abusive setting (Arterburn & Felton, 2001, p. 225), although Enroth states that, “not everyone who leaves an unhealthy religious group will experience an adequate and wholesome recovery” (Enroth, 1994, p. 16).

There are a number of articles and journals regarding power abuse by Christian leaders as well (Haon, 2013) (Van Gelder, 2007) (Graves, 2014) (Fehlauer, 2001) (Spielman, 1999). The many articles indicate that power abuse by Christian leaders is a topic that has not diminished since Enroth’s book from 1992, but it is a phenomenon that is increasing - or at least is getting more attention.

Even though all the literature above is within an American context, there are many similarities to the Danish culture since we are both within a Western World Culture. But power abuse is not simply an American phenomenon. In her book: “Disguised: Nice psychopaths and their victims”, Lind, a Christian Psychologist, confirms that it happens in Denmark too, and writes how we find the socalled “nice” (nice-looking) psychopaths in churches (Lind, 2014, pp. 73-94), and she helps us to spot them. We also find abusive systems in Denmark (Herbst, 2013).

1.2 Types of Power Hardy et al. state that there are different types of power (or bases of power), namely: Reward power, coercive power, informational power, expert power, legitimate power, and referent power (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 136-141).

Reward power is used by leaders or individuals to give (or at least promise) rewards for compliance to their requests (or demands). In a business setting, it will typically be a promised bonus for a good outcome, which is a motivator to reach company goals. In churches, we find it as well, for instance in giving tithes, which is often associated with promises of reward for the giver, and in some charismatic churches a theology of reward may develop around healing, health, wealth, and the believer’s faith level (i.e. in prosperity preaching) (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 136-137).

Coercive power is a more obvious kind of power. It “is the ability of a group, social system, or individual to give or threaten punishment for non-compliance with expected behaviors.” In churches, it is usually more subtle, but seen if a member is ex-communicated for breaking norms of expected behavior perhaps through living in sin and being unwilling to change that behavior.

Sometimes it is found in preaching with threats of hell for not responding to the message. Or seen in churches where the leader has strong support from most of the members, and where members who are not liked by that leader may be punished by being withheld from having a position in the church. - Usually not due to a real offense against established membership criteria, but rather due

7

to a personality clash, where the leader removes responsibilities from people he doesn’t like in order to get his own way (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 137-138).

Information power is when the influencer has more information than the target has. Historically priests and monks have often had this power since they brought learning to the people. However, the emergent postmodern generation do not trust that any one informational power system can claim absolute truth and thereby have authority over their lives. Young people will feel overwhelmed and overpowered by competing information, and finding the living Spirit of Christ as a guide in their lives will be a salvation from unnecessary information and a way forward (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 138-139).

Expert power is similar to the previous one. Here “the influencer has generally greater expertise and knowledge than themselves” (Hardy et al., 2015, p. 139). We see this in society, which is built up around an expert system, where we have doctors, bank advisors, journalists, professors etc. telling us what to believe, and we usually trust them implicitly.

Church leaders who have limited experience managing a church may feel overpowered by church members who might be captains of industry, who know how to direct large organizations. Even ordinary church members may feel disempowered to share matters of faith with their pastor who holds a M.A. or Ph.D. (Hardy et al., 2015, p. 139).

Churches in the West put more and more emphasis on higher education for their clergy, giving them expert power, so that they can serve their congregations the best way possible (although historically many leaders have planted churches without any formal training, but their experience has made them experts in their field) (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 139-140).

Fifthly, legitimate power has to do with an influencer being authorized by a recognized power, which gives him the power to command and decide, and therefore must be obeyed. In state churches like Catholics, the Anglicans in England, or the Lutherans in Denmark, those priests hold legitimate power supported by the state as well as an ancient tradition supporting the hierarchy of popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests. “The legitimization of power by such hierarchies makes it hard for lay members to be empowered to take active roles within churches beyond a certain point” (Hardy et al., 2015, p. 140). Legitimate power also exists within congregational churches, where long-term family members often become a dynasty, functioning as king makers, or power brokers. The members and the minister then have to understand “how we do things around here” or else they will be disempowered (Hardy et al., 2015, p. 140).

Finally, referent power has to do with identification with a person or a group that you like (or have an attraction to/respect for). The source of influence holds power due to charisma, friendships, or 8

relationships. House churches or churches with forty member or less could be examples of this type of power, or even emerging churches meeting in pubs, coffee shops or other informal settings.

People in these groups have a need to be wanted and liked by the charismatic group leaders. If the leaders “do not like those who want to join them” or have come to dislike them after getting to know them, they can disempower them “by seeking to undermine their reputations or characters.”

Another charismatic personality who wishes to join the group can be perceived as a threat. But sometimes the group allows another likeable charismatic person to join, which can lead to a split, with some staying with the original leader and others joining the new, where one leader might disempower the other, which could result in an expulsion. “Larger churches can be based on referent power of this type as well” (Hardy et al., 2015, pp. 140-141).

This book is on a high level, academically. The authors come from Great Britain and they base their research both on the mission field and on churches in a Western Culture. Great Britain is closer to Denmark both in context and geographically.2 Culturally though, in Pentecostal churches we try to get away from the whole clergy/laity division of believers, which the authors of this book take for granted in their use of words.

Other authors agree with their definitions of power, although there might be a few variations in the names. For instance, Clinton & Allen call the bases of power “authority power forms” of which they list five. Some of these power forms are the same as above, for instance “coercive authority” and “legitimate authority”. Some are the same but with a different name. When you read the descriptions, it becomes clear that what they call “Induced authority” is the same as “Reward power”, and “Competent authority” equals “expert power”. They also has one called “Personal authority” which sounds similar to “Referent power”, but not exactly the same. Clinton & Allen describes it thusly: “Personal authority is the form of power in which a leader obtains or expects compliance (but can not demand it) by virtue of the follower's recognition of the leader's personal characteristics” (Clinton & Allen, 2002, p. 115).

They then add another power form further down, called “Spiritual authority” which is “the right to influence conferred upon a leader by followers because of their perception of spirituality in that leader.” That influence can take place through (1) Persuasion, (2) force of modeling (the leader is an example), and (3) moral expertise. If a leader shows that, he has “gifted power—that is, a clear testimony to divine intervention in the ministry—there will be spiritual authority.” Nevertheless,

2

We are neighbours, only separated by water.

9

they also conclude that “Spiritual authority, like any of the authority forms, can be abused.” (Clinton & Allen, 2002, pp. 116-117).

These definitions of power relate to my research in determining what type of power and power abuse were being executed, and hold some significance.

1.3 Experts & Ethics In “The Consequences of Modernity” Anthony Giddens makes a case for the fact that our society has learned to trust implicitly in systems and experts, whom we rely on, whether they are teachers, doctors, pilots, or perhaps our bosses (Giddens, 1996). His arguments are well substantiated on a high academic level, and to generalize, we all probably all know this to be true from experience.

Ministers seen as experts, has given them a higher status, being on another level. “It has given them a superiority, and thus a sense of power, that has often made abuse easy and helped in concealing it” (Hughes, 2013, p. 11).3 This argument is of minor significance, but is still important nevertheless.

Having good ethics is crucial if want to be leaders Christian ministry. In his book, “Ministerial Ethics” Pierce argues that we must have good ethics in our responsibilities, our morals, in dealing with money, sex and power, and generally to be authentic as leaders. He writes from a good scriptural foundation based on Jesus’ teachings as well as the Ten Commandments (Pierce, 2000).

Other writers concur with his conclusions, the now classic “The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex & Power” is basically the same book written by a different author (Foster, 1985), and you find the same general principles with other well-renowned Christian authors (Hybels, 2002) (Clinton, 1993) (Blanchard & Hodges, 2007) (Peterson, 1993).

This relates to my research, when discerning the ethical performance of the leaders of the cases in question.

1.4 Previous research In his Ph.D. dissertation, Sørensen, argues that Pentecostal fellowships sometimes have problematic relations to the society. He gives examples of two churches in Demark with strained relationships with its surroundings, plus one church, which is more seeker-friendly, and does good things for the community. His two negative cases (Faderhuset and Evangelist) have an us-against-them mentality, and are very closed groups, and people who join them cuts off all other relationships with people who are not part of those groups. His research is conducted through interviews and several onsite

3

This agrees with the description of Expert Power above in section 1.2.

10

visits to these churches (Sørensen, 2010). His claims are a valid interpretation of his findings, confirmed by several video documentaries by Danish media (1.5).

One of the three churches in his thesis, Evangelist, is also one I will be researching, therefore relating directly to my topic. I will build on his research, but not focus so much on the relationship with surroundings, but rather what took place within closed doors in terms of power abuse. I will be using him as a reliable source in the discussion section (chapter 4), where I look at what type of power abuse took place, as a supplement to the results I gather.

In addition, he writes as an outside spectator, and some leaders are of the opinion that he is too critical of Pentecostalism in general, but I do not think this criticism is fair. His third case is a positive example of how a well-functioning Pentecostal church can have good relationship with the society and be a resource and help to others.

Being a Pentecostal myself, I can possibly add some relevant insights, when I build on his thesis for this research. I am writing as a Pentecostal for Pentecostals, and will therefore not give a historical account of how the movement began (even though church history is one of my favorite topics).

Three psychology students made a study4 entitled “traumatized faith” [in Danish]. Their research also focuses on Evangelist, but from a more psychological perspective, looking at the results of the abuse, which they claim leads to problems such as Anxiety, depression, stress and PTSD. They state that the abuse that took place included the elements of (1) control, (2) fear, (3) threats and (4) punishment, which were used as tools to uphold the leader’s religious power. The leader (and coleaders) of Evangelist justified their behaviour with the doctrine found in some Charismatic Churches in Denmark5, called “the man of God” principle. The data used to support their arguments in this qualitative research, come from a questionnaire with 20 respondents and four in depth interviews (Bæhr et al., 2012).

Tools used to uphold a leader’s power are normal for such groups: Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation (Enroth, 1992, p. 53).

4 A Master’s thesis of which I have borrowed a hard-copy.

5

As well as many Faith Movement churches around the world.

11

This study is of major significance to my own research as a reference point, which will either confirm or contradict my findings. I will be building on this study as well, but I will go deeper into the discussion of the “man of god” principle.

1.5 TV Documentaries Several TV documentaries exist, made by the two major TV-channels of Denmark, DR and TV2, where the churches Evangelist and Byens Kirke, Silkeborg are under scrutiny (Heide-Jørgensen, 2007) (Vilsmark, 2009) (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a).

The programs about Evangelist report on relationships being broken on account of the faith, as people within breaks off all contact with people on the “outside” (Heide-Jørgensen, 2007).

People in “rehabilitating centres” are asked to give up their medicine and instead pray and fast for three days, which they are told will cure them, despite the advice of doctors, and while they are at these centres, they have to give their whole pay checks to the leadership, and only get a small allowance themselves (Vilsmark, 2009).

They show Christian Hedegaard as a strong leader, who had the final word in all aspects of the movement. - He is “the man of God” who must be obeyed if you want to remain within the group.

He said in one of the programmes that it is easy to leave Evangelist: “All you have to do is disobey, and then you are out of here!” (Heide-Jørgensen, 2007).

The strength of these programs are that they do not make claims, but rather let people tell their stories. Of course, they are not completely objective, since they ask questions, which touch areas, which the journalists feel, are questionable.

It benefits my research by helping me understand the case in that I can hear some of the leaders’s and member’s own words and reasoning, including the main leader Christian Hedegaard.

The two TV-documentaries about Byens Kirke in the city of Silkeborg tell a terrible story of a pastor abusing teenagers over several years. He arranged “games” where the young people should eat vomit; have lighter fluid poured over them with threats of being lit on fire. He arranged drinking parties with large amounts of alcohol, where they should stand naked in front of each other. The pastor would sexually molest young boys in his church office. One boy should “prove his love to God, by doing what he hates the most”, which meant pleasuring the pastor with oral sex while touching himself. Another boy had to eat his own semen. A third boy shared, how he was called in for “man talk”, where he was asked to show his penis, which he did reluctantly, and the pastor would touch it. This boy was instructed not to tell his mother, but that they should “keep it between 12

them”6. As an explanation for his actions, the pastor said, “he is a man of God, and a man of God should be obeyed. If you don’t, it is a sin, and you would be on your way to damnation… hell” (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a).

The documentaries do not mention the pastor’s name since there is a criminal investigation going on. Likewise, out of respect of the Danish laws, I will not mention his name either even though most Pentecostals in Denmark know his name, and it was revealed in newspapers (Rasmussen, 2012).

This abuse was of sexual nature. Still, even sexual abuse has an element of power abuse included (Ormerod & Ormerod, 1995).

Danish newspapers confirm the documentaries. (Rasmussen, 2012) (Christensen, 2016). The pastor who is now in police custody has not been willing to comment to any media (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016b).

These two documentaries are of major significance to my research as it unveils some of the terrible things that went on in this church, which I wish investigate further, since this is the other of my two cases.

1.6 A “Man of God” Being a “Man of God” which is mentioned in several of the TV documentaries as well as the previous research above, has its basis in scriptures describing, how we must not harm or touch “God’s anointed. One of the key verses is found in Psalm 105:15, which says: “Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm” (NKJV). We see an example of this when David were able to sneak up on King Saul in a cave and cut off a piece of clothing, which David regretted doing and repented of (1 Sam. 24:1-15).

The phrase “the Lord’s anointed” is an Old Testament concept, which typically refers to the kings of Israel. When Psalm 105 also mentions prophets, it actually refers to the patriarchs for instance Abraham, whom God called a prophet (Hanegraaff, 1993, p. 364).

Benny Hinn used this doctrine to elevate himself above criticism, threatening your children in doing so (on several occasions): Now I’m pointing my finger with the mighty power of God on me…. You hear this: There are men and women in Southern California attacking me. I will tell you under the anointing now, you’ll reap it in your children unless you stop…. And your children will suffer.

6

See the ”Can’t Talk” rule mentioned above in section 1.1 of the literature review, page 6.

13

You’re attacking me on the radio every night – you’ll pay and your children will. Hear this from the lips of God’s servant. You are in danger. Repent! Or God Almighty will move His hand. Touch not my Anointed…. (Hanegraaf, 1993, p. 344) You must not touch (criticize) a man of God, since they are God’s anointed, therefore anybody who claims to be a man of God, are free to do as he pleases. This doctrine is of great importance in the two cases I am investigating.

1.7 Biblical Leadership Grant, describes what according to his view of the Bible, is a good (or an appropriate) leader: A Christ-centered person, who has come into relationship with Jesus Christ, understanding his truth, and encountering his power. God’s spiritual authority flows through this person’s new allegiance, drawing people towards God himself, and through them empowering others towards his transforming purposes for them and their worlds. (Grant, 2005, p. 77) Jesus introduced a new style of leadership, which was not about exercising power over others, but rather serving those whom you lead (Matt. 20:25-26).

Jesus turns the pyramid of status upside down and demonstrated what has later been given the name Servant Leadership, and he challenged his disciples to do the same (Blanchard & Hodges, 2007, p. 116) as seen, when Jesus washed the feet of his co-workers (John 13:12-15).

Russell expands on what being a servant Leader means, claiming that, as a servant leader the fundamental motivation for becoming a leader, should be out of a desire to serve, and you must value human equality and be willing to give up personal rights in order to find greatness serving others (Russell, 2001, pp. 79-80).

Being in ministry requires an accountability: “No servant is greater than his master” (John 13:16), and we must live honest and transparent lives and avoid hypocrisy (Luke 12:2-3).

1.8 Research Question, Sub-Questions and Hypotheses Based on this literature above, my research question, which I will attempt to answer is this: In the recent cases of Evangelist and Byens Kirke, how did the leaders abuse their position of power?

What were the consequences? What type of abuse took place? And what were the factors that allowed this abuse to continue over a period of time?

Sub-questions Johnson & Van Vonderen help us to identify an abusive leader or system. (1) Did these churches

14

become abusive systems? (2) If you are in an abusive church, or under an abusive leader, what can you do? (3) When are unpleasant things not abuse?

(4) Did the members receive a sense of superiority and of being on a higher level than other Christians, while they were there? (5) How have the members of the two churches recovered after their experiences?

(6) Out of the various types of power, which were being used in these abusive environments? (7) What was the level of accountability in these cases? (8) What is the normal level of autonomy in Danish Pentecostal churches? (9) How does a pastor or leader typically enter into ministry?

(10) Are the documentaries fair in their portrays of Evangelist and Byens Kirke?

(11) How did the “man of god” principle find its way into Danish Pentecostal and Charismatic churches? (12) Who developed this doctrine based on the scriptures about “the Lord’s anointed”?

(13) Do other Pentecostal pastors believe and live by this doctrine?

(14) How did the leaders in question live up to the Biblical standards for leadership? (15) How do Danish Pentecostal pastors feel about accountability and transparency?

(17) What can be learned from these cases? And (18) can we do anything to prevent or minimize abuse in the future?

Hypothesis If an abusive leader has gained a position, where he (or she) hurts people, I hypothesize, it is often “swept under the carpet” and covered up, and is therefore allowed to continue.

2. Methodology After considering both “Phenomenological methodologies” and “Studying Dimensions of Congregational Life” as possible methodologies, I decided on “Case Studies” to be the most appropriate for this research. I will examine two cases in depth. I will look at what factors contributed to what was occurring (Hughes, 2015). I have chosen two similar cases (or you could call it one case with two groups) where abuse was happening. The cases are Evangelist and Byens Kirke [i.e. church of the city] in the city of Silkeborg.

I am doing qualitative research rather than quantitative research. Due to the sensitive nature of the research topic, I have used questionnaires rather than interviews, which hopefully helped the respondents feel freer to communicate (and less intimidated). The first questionnaire is for former members of Evangelist and Byens Kirke.

15

To ensure no one misunderstood the questions, I made the survey in Danish, and then translated it to English, writing my research. I asked them questions about their initial attraction to the church, about unhealthy fellowships, about their experience with abuse, and their personal well-being. I asked them to reflect on what they have learned in retrospect etc.7 I also did a second survey with pastors from other churches to learn what their views are on the practice of being a pastor or a leader, and how they view what went on with these cases. I addressed their views on structures which ensure accountability, perspectives on leadership which give a high level of autonomy, the levels of transparency in how leaders operate, etc.8 These two sets of questionnaires will be the base of my arguments in answering my research question. Survey A will address the question of how the leaders of said cases abused their power, and what the consequences were. Both Survey A and B I will use to answer the question of how the abuse were able to continue over a period of time (as well as answer the many related sub-questions and one hypothesis).

Since this a qualitative study and not quantitative one, the percentages mentioned in the results do not hold statistical precision, but they have value as being indicative. Moreover, the comments are of great importance since it provides unique insight, I would not have otherwise.

The findings of the two surveys are not given here as a systematic account of all the results, but they are summarized to show the general patterns of responses that are relevant to the research question.

2.1 Ethical Considerations I am aware of the delicate and sensitive nature of the cases, and have therefore respected everyone involved in the utmost way.

In finding the respondents for survey A, I have asked former students whom I know from being a teacher at the Danish Pentecostal Bible College in Mariager. And some of these former students have asked others on my behalf, using a letter (info sheet) I prepared in advance (see appendix A).

This way I do not know, who were contacted unless they decided to participate, and I ensured that the participants’ involvement were in fact voluntary, and was easy for them to say no, if they did not wish to participate.

7 8

For the complete list of questions, see appendix A. For the complete list of questions, see appendix B.

16

The letter explained the purpose of the survey and what it would be used for. It explained the benefits of the study, and how their anonymity would be protected 100 %, and approximately how long it would take to fill out the survey. Since we are dealing with potential hurtful memories, I included the contact information for two Christian psychiatrists (one male and one female) in case any of the respondents would like to talk with one.

As for the leaders, they are equal to me or above me in status, and therefore there are no any ethical problems in contacting them.

The answers are anonymous in both surveys, and there will no records, where the respondents subsequently can be tracked down.

In my research, I wish to be fair and not jump to any unsubstantiated conclusions, including when discussing the abusive leaders. They may or may not have been aware of what they were doing, and what consequences it brought. I hope that if any of those leaders in question one day should read my research, they will not feel, I treated them unfairly.

In addition, even though we have freedom of speech in Denmark, Danish law (Chapter 27 of the Criminal Code) states that I cannot make strong attacks on a person’s reputation and sense of honour. So, I cannot say “whatever I want” legally, even if I am repeating something that came up in the survey, if it slanders the leaders of the cases (Harlang, 2017). Worst-case scenario, I could end up being sued. Although, as one lawyer states, if someone is considering suing for slander, he should first go to the 34th room of the National Museum. - That’s where the Australian boomerangs are hanging! The point to this anecdote, is, you should not sue, unless the slander is especially harsh, and not sue if the counterpart has any information that could fall back on you and hurt you (Harlang, 2017). I can, however, refer to what has already been said on the news (whether TV or newspapers), if needed. Still, I wish to do even that in the best ethical way possible.

3. Results I will keep the two surveys separate for overview’s sake. Survey A are with former members of the churches Evangelist and Byens Kirke, and there are 10 respondents. Survey B are with pastors and leaders from whom I received seven responses.

17

3.1 Survey A – Abuse The respondents were a part of these two churches anywhere from 1-10 years. Most are female, and two are male. The majority are between the ages 23-35 with some both younger or older than that.

3.1.1 Man of God Nine out of ten respondents confirm hearing the doctrine being taught that the leaders were “men of God”, meaning that the leader is above reproach or criticism.

When the respondents were members of these churches they believed for the most part that the teachings were in accordance with the Bible. Today 90 % disagrees with the statement that that a “man of God” is at a higher level than other Christians, but as to whether the doctrine is a true biblical principle or not, the responses are very divided.

They were not so divided in the question whether their leader’s behaviour were in agreement with how the Bible describes Christian leadership ought to be. 90 % agrees that it was not. One person commented that it started well, but got worse as the leader grew in power.9 All ten respondents disagree today with the statement that “you must not question a leader’s decision but it should be obeyed, since the leader is inspired by God,” however four people commented and explained that you should still respect your leaders, and for a church to function you must occasionally obey the leader even if you do not agree with everything.

If the gifts of the Spirit are evident in a leader’s life, two respondents believe that it means that the leader is correct in most other areas as well, however, 80 % disagrees with that sentiment. 90 % believe it is ok to question a leader’s decisions.

Eight out of ten respondents believe that Christian leaders should have higher moral standards and principles than people who do not have leadership positions. This question received extra comments from five people, who said things like: There are no perfect people, and you cannot become more holy in your own power, but there are higher expectations to a leader, which Paul seems to suggest.

9

Sub-question 14.

18

3.1.2 Attractive but Unhealthy 90 % of the respondents were attracted to these two churches, since they felt that it had “something” other churches had not discovered.10 The following three factors were important in this attraction: (1) It was a little black and white, but very radical without room for being lukewarm, so it seemed authentic. (2) A good fellowship. (3) The Leader seemed to have a special connection with God. These three factors of attraction were of almost equal importance in the responses, with the “good fellowship” being highest by a small margin.

Some were quick to discover that unhealthy things were going on in the churches. Half the respondents did so after 0-2 years. A smaller number after 3-6 years and an even smaller number after 7-10 years. None of the respondents were oblivious to anything unhealthy going on.

A big reason for not leaving immediately once they found out something strange were going, was the fear of losing one’s friends. Secondly, a fear of God’s punishment. One experienced this fear very severely. She was told that within Evangelist, she was protected against divorce, disease, and she was ensured wealth and lifted high as a part of God’s kingdom (of all which would be lost if she left).

Other respondents explained that even though they would often think about leaving, then suddenly people would get healed (sometimes with seemingly significant miracles like being healed from cancer or getting out of a wheelchair), and people were getting saved and received help in higher numbers than in other churches by comparison. Therefore they concluded that it could not be all bad (or unhealthy).

Some of the respondents claim that to their knowledge there are between 5-10 unhealthy Churches in Denmark right now. Most of the respondents say that there are between 2-4. As to what makes a Church unhealthy, the respondents give almost equal importance to (1) bad theology, (2) leaders who do harm, and (3) being “overly spiritual11.” Harmful leaders scored the highest, but not by much (0, 33 %).

10

Sub-question 4.

Being ”overly spiritual” is a Danish expression, which refers to going too far in attempting to be spiritual, and in effect, common sense or even the Bible is neglected.

11

19

3.1.3 Hurt & Abuse More than half of the respondents experienced hurt and abuse personally by being in these two churches, and 90 % knew of - or were close to someone - who were hurt. 80 % say that the hurt was due to abuse.

Of those that experienced abuse personally it was mainly power abuse, but one was of a sexual kind.

One respondent mentions that manipulation, bullying, and control through fear were common elements not just from the main leader, but also from other leaders under him [indicating an abusive system]. Another mentions that when she started asking questions, other members were told to delete her as a Facebook friend, and stop having contact any with her, since she probably was a journalist [which she wasn’t].

Of the abuse that happened to someone the respondents knew of or were close to, sexual abuse was a little higher, but power abuse was still the highest.

Sexual abuse did not only occur in Byens Kirke, which were exposed in the media (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a), but one respondent stated that sexual and other physical abuse occurred within Evangelist as well [without specifying further who the perpetrator was].

Another respondent wrote that many experienced psychological problems and several marriages broke up as a consequence [of being in Evangelist].

70 % of the respondents could recall 10 or more examples of power abuse, which happened either to themselves or someone they know. The power abuse included (1) their trust being violated. (2) The leader did not live up to the standard that was expected, and (3) the leader could be violent [or co-leaders]. Furthermore, the comments show that (4) some felt spiritually violated, and (5) some had their economy ruined due to investment projects that they were talked into.

Most of the respondents carried their negative experiences with them in silence until they eventually left. Only a few talked with someone they trusted about it. One explains that she did not feel she could trust anyone within “this system”, but she talked with someone after leaving.

The biggest reason why the power abuse could continue over a longer period of time, they evaluate, was because they didn’t know what was going on. Fear of opposing the leader, or not being supposed to criticize “God’s anointed” were other reasons. Sometimes it was a combination of these. One explained that opposing the leader, meant severe consequences as to how you were treated afterwards by that leader.

20

3.1.4 Recovering From an Unhealthy Church 90 % had emotional scars they had to deal with, while at the same time feeling a sense of relief for “being out.” One carried a deep concern for those still “inside.” Another one was sick for 6 months with depression. 70 % of the respondents received help from a psychiatrist or another counsellor after leaving and know of people who also received help. One have had to see a psychiatrist continually for the last seven years.12 In describing their spiritual state, they wrote, they still have a faith, but have had to learn to view God as He is, and not through the former leader’s lenses. It was difficult to connect with a church again. It was hard to read the Bible and to pray. It was hard to trust people in general. While not doubting God’s existence, it was difficult to determine whether He is a good or evil God. Most had lost all confidence in leaders, and become very careful towards other people. One described that it is mainly difficult if a leader has the same leadership style as the one in Byens Kirke.

Today, most of the respondents have a job and they go to church regularly. Two people attend, but not regularly. One does not go, since she feels, it is hard to open up again. Most of them go to a Pentecostal church. Some go to a Baptist or other free churches.

The most important reasons to go to church, the respondents feel, are fellowship with other believers, and having a relationship with God. Strengthening the Christian values, they also consider important. Less important, however, is to go to church out of an obligation to God or other people.

Other reasons they list, is going for the praise and worship, or to be member of the body of Christ, which one concludes, you cannot be on your own.

In order of importance, the following were helpful in their recovery processes: (1) Friends. (2) Family. (3) Other Christian leaders. Others list their spouse, good biblical teaching (at a different church or Bible school), time, and simply observing good leaders, as elements that were helpful in the recovery.

3.1.5 Reflections by Respondents Half of the respondents think it would be a good idea to have a national leadership that will supervise the churches to protect the various members. The other half do not, but still think it would be good with some supervision and knowing who to go to if there are problems, and the church leaders should each have a mentor.

12

Sub-question 5.

21

Concerns with having a national leadership include: (1) too much power and control, (2) who will supervise the supervisors? (3) Christians overlook things (they prefer to think the best of each other) so a non-Christian should be part of such a board, for it to work. One feels that (4) honesty and trust is better than supervision.

When asked what they would recommend to prevent similar negative cases in the future, seven of the ten respondents had all the following suggestions (in no particular order): 1. When something happens which is wrong or unfair, do not stay silent, but talk about it. 2. Openness and teaching regarding healthy and unhealthy fellowships. 3. Listening to a person who leaves a church, and not just listen to the leader’s version of the story.

4. Pastors and leaders should have better biblical knowledge. 5. Avoid making unhealthy fellowships a taboo. 6. To have non-Christians help with supervision and advice. 7. Always have room for dialogue within the church. 8. Not letting young people break out and start their own church without having mature Christians along with spiritual experience and good judgment to look after the young people. 9. When arrogance, rebellion or selfishness is seen in a minister, the leadership should take it very seriously. 10. Churches supervising each other so no “man of God� will get too much power. 11. Education: Information about the characteristics of unhealthy fellowships, power hungry leaders, or leaders who are in risk of becoming it. 12. A willingness in both Christians and leaders to accept that things are not always as nice as they seem on the surface, when they are told otherwise, especially if they think they know the person in question. Bad leaders can probably not be avoided completely, but information can stop the unhealthy environments from growing. 13. Love the people in unhealthy fellowships and be there for them. Do not judge them, but be supportive, visit them and show interest. Respect their choices and be there when it is hard. When they discover they are in a bad place, then you have the possibility to help. You cannot force it. 14. Financial help for people leaving a sect. It is costly to leave. 15. Openness and honesty in relationships even if means giving up pride and honour. 16. Take reports seriously, and change what needs changing, similar to a marriage.13 Of these comments, some are similar which shows agreement, for instance no. 2 and 11 both suggest that more knowledge regarding unhealthy churches are needed. No. 3 and 16 that we should be willing to listen to reports even if they are bad. And comment no. 5 and 15 both suggest that we should avoid making this topic a taboo, but rather be open about it.

All of the respondents feel something good have come out of these negative experiences. For instance (1) growing as a person, and becoming stronger. (2) Getting to know some nice people and maintaining these friendships with other former members. (3) An ability to help others in similar situations. (4) Having learned to spot unhealthy fellowships and sociopaths and more knowledge about this topic. (5) Knowing the importance of a church working with other churches nationally

13

Sub-question 18.

22

and being part of networks.14 (6) Appreciation for solid Biblical teaching. (7) A stronger faith and greater depth in life.

Finally, I asked whether they had anything to add, which I had not asked. Six of the respondents did, which was: (1) When you are in a sect, you are manipulated with, and you cannot think straight until you are out. (2) This is an important topic, and all churches need to be aware of sectarian tendencies.

(3) The church is still going on even though it is closed on the surface. (4) Former members of unhealthy churches are often treated with suspicion and an unwillingness to believe what we experienced. (5) Christians need to be less squeamish about this topic. (6) Christian Hedegaard is dangerous, financially irresponsible, a chameleon who has no empathy unless he can gain something from it, and his family are victims too [this comment I both shortened and toned down considerably from the original15].

3.2 Survey B – Leadership Perspectives This second survey is a supplement to the first. It is not equal in size, but provide important insight as to how pastors view these two cases and leadership principles in general.

3.2.1 Starting out in Ministry Based on the answers, a pastor in Denmark often begins his ministry by experiencing a calling from God, being hired by a church, or having family members who are also in ministry. The respondents typically experienced God calling them, and then they started by serving as volunteer workers in the church in various areas. One went to a Bible School and was hired immediately after. Another had a pastor/mentor, who trained him.

The process in the respondents’ local churches for employing somebody into ministry include conducting an interview, a trial period, and recommendations from others. Other relevant steps involve the practical aspects of making a job description, discussing salary, the minister’s character, having a good chemistry, giving tithes, and having a mentor.16

14

Like the Danish Frikirkenet or Mosaik, which were mentioned specifically in the comments.

In accordance with my ethical considerations, section 2.1.

16 Sub-question 9.

15

23

3.2.2 Accountability & Transparency All of the asked pastors are accountable to someone whether it is church boards, leadership teams, mentors or Mosaik. For most of the respondents it a requirement. When asked whether anyone would ever find out if they were not accountable to anyone, the answer was yes, typically the mentor or senior pastor would know.

Some of the respondents believe there is enough transparency in the way pastors operate, some feel it is hard to say, commenting: “While it has gotten better in recent years, many decisions are still made by a few people without ‘testing’ it with those it involves.”17 The main leadership problem within Evangelist was that there was no accountability. One comment explains that this was because Evangelist was not part of a movement [union of churches] with established procedures for accountability. A second problem was that the main leader took on a role that did not match his gifting. Lack of accountability was also the main problem in Byens Kirke.

The church would not be accountable to the other Pentecostal churches, and was subsequently excluded.18 Whether something could have been done on an earlier stage to prevent the negative outcome of these two churches most of the respondents say yes, but didn’t give any suggestions as to what.

One explains, that anyone can claim to be a “man of God”, but it is up to the people around him to evaluate his call and demand accountability. If he is in a network of churches those leaders are responsible for expecting such an accountability. In Byens Kirke the family held their hand over him, and that is hard to unravel. As a church member, one should leave rather than being under such a structure.

To the question whether the media exposure of these two churches was good for the kingdom of God in Denmark the respondents were very divided. Half of the respondents felt the media was fair in their portrayals. A smaller number did not believe so, and some did not know.19

3.2.3 Termination of a Position 80 % of the respondents believe it should always be possible to fire a pastor. One added that the conditions should be clearly defined before the hiring, since there have been many cases where the opposite was the case.

17

Sub-question 15.

Sub-question 7.

19 Sub-question 10.

18

24

The respondents believe a board or leadership team should have the authority to terminate a pastor/leader from his position, which corresponds with their own situations. One thinks it ought to be a process involving the leadership, employees and mentor/supervisor.

Immorality, criminal activity and power abuse, they all believe are legitimate reasons to fire a pastor.

When asked how they would feel about having a national leader or board over them who potentially could fire them, one respondent thought it might be good for the churches of Denmark, one did not know, and the rest of the respondents would not like to work under those conditions.

3.2.4 More on the “Man of God” Concept Most of the respondents do not consider a “man of God” as being at a higher level than other Christians, and more than half do not think a pastor should be considered a man of God in this sense.

However, one honest comment, stated that he hopes that he is a man of God to the church he is leading. - Not that he is at a higher level, but with a different responsibility i.e. to lead.

80 % of the respondents do not believe that their churches should always obey them since they are their pastor, likewise they do not believe that the “man of God” concept is a true biblical principle.20 None believed, that you are not allowed to question a leader’s decision, since he/she is inspired by God. However, one commented saying, that it doesn’t give people the right to “comment on everything” either. Another said, words from God, should be discerned by God’s people.

Likewise, they do not agree with the statement “if the gifts of the Spirit are evident in a minister’s life it is a sign that he is correct in most other areas also.” [The respondents of survey A, were not as sure.]

3.2.5 Power Structures The respondents believe the level of autonomy in the Danish Pentecostal churches is appropriate, and not too high. One thought it could be even higher.21 None believe, that the reason the union of Danish Pentecostal churches changed their name to Mosaik, was to distance themselves from the negative publicity of Evangelist and Byens Kirke.

About half of the respondents think Mosaik should create structures to endure an accountability in all of its member churches, the other half believe that Mosaik have already done that. None of the

20 21

Sub-question 13.

Sub-question 8.

25

respondents are against such structures. 80 % of the respondents think Mosaik should enforce such structures so that they can take action if an accountability is missing.

There were no additional comments to this survey by the respondents.

4. Discussion In connection to my research question, the answers in survey A has confirmed that the leaders did indeed abuse their power and hurt many people. I have learned more details of the various types of abuse that took place, and what consequences came with it in terms of a long recovery processes for the victims. Some of the factors that made the abuse possible to continue over time were fear of the leader, and that you were not supposed to criticize “God’s anointed”, and that the churches became abusive systems.22 Now, while the respondents do confirm my arguments, can they be trusted as a reliable resource?

If I had asked ten different people, would they have painted a different picture?

Of the ten respondents, eight had been there two years or more (some between 5-10 years), and all ten respondents had personally experienced abuse or knew someone it happened to. Therefore, I contend that the answers of the respondents are a trustworthy source to base my arguments on.

I have shown that the two leaders established themselves as “men of God” which they used as the basis for justifying their actions. Where did they get this doctrine?

4.1 Pentecostalism and faith movement The “man of God” teaching originated in America in the Faith Movement where some of the most influential faith teachers were Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn (and several others) (Hanegraaf, 1993, pp. 332-345).23 It then spread to Uppsala Sweden, where the faith movement were founded and led by Ulf Ekman (Ekman, 2004, p. 156). From there it came to Denmark.24 Now, Christian Hedegaard, the founder and leader of Evangelist, is a former student at the Danish Pentecostal Bible College in Mariager although he was only there for a brief period of time (Hedegaard, 1999, p. 18). He then attended the Faith Movement’s Bible school, KBC25, for two years before founding Evangelist (Hedegaard, 1999, p. 24). It is reasonable to assume that this is where he picked up this doctrine, although I have no way of knowing for sure.

22

Sub-question 1.

Sub-question 12.

24 Sub-question 11.

25 Københavns Bibeltrænings Center [i.e. Copenhagen Bible Training Center].

23

26

The pastor of Byens Kirke, was a big fan of Benny Hinn, and tried to imitate him (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a). However, whether he got this doctrine from Benny Hinn or from somewhere else, is unknown.

The fact remains that both Christian Hedegaard and the former pastor Byens Kirke adapted and used this idea (Heide-Jørgensen, 2007) (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a).

Furthermore, Hedegaard has said that “preachers, priest and evangelists are people who holds a special ministry in God’s kingdom, men and women of God. And you need to be extra careful and attentive around them. There is an order of rank in the kingdom of God, where you must submit to your superior leaders and do EVERYTHING they say” (Sørensen, 2010, p. 79). For the pastor of Byens Kirke, obeying him included sexual acts (Hagen Rasmussen, 2016a).

Christian Hedegaard applied for membership for Evangelist into the network of free churches [FrikirkeNet], but it was denied him (Sørensen, 2010, p. 52), and the church/movement, which he founded, was free to operate without supervision. This turned out to be a problem.

Byens Kirke had been a part of the Pentecostal Churches of Denmark for many years before things went haywire, and even after being excluded from the network of Pentecostal Churches, the sign outside the building, which read Pinsekirken [i.e. Pentecostal] remained there till the very end.

Churches in Denmark can say they are Pentecostal without being a member of the official network.

We have other “Pentecostal” churches in Denmark who unfortunately operate without the supervision of a network, and who potentially can do harm.

The respondents of survey A claim to be familiar with as many as ten unhealthy churches currently existing in Denmark. However, since I did not ask them to name these churches, I cannot document further, whether this is true, and the number might be considerably lower. Still, I would argue that any number higher than zero is too high.

As a guideline, if the “Pentecostal” church you are attending is not in any network of churches then that should be a red flag and of concern to you.26 While Hedegaard and Evangelist were never official members of the Pentecostal churches, he claimed they were Pentecostal in the original sense of the word (while allowing the faith movement teachings). They have been called the “naughty cousins” of Pentecostalism (Sørensen, 2010, p. 64).

Interestingly enough, after Byens Kirke was officially closed following the media scandal, the faith movement leader, Jens Garnfeldt of KBC, was asked to step in and try to salvage the church (and not a Pentecostal pastor as could have been expected). This raised eyebrows and criticism both by

26

As stated in the comments of survey B.

27

the media and the spokesperson of FrikirkeNet, Tonny Jakobsen, who called this “irresponsible” and sounding “unsafe” (Eggert, 2016).

Likewise, members of Evangelist still meet under the name Powerhouse Church DK, and their home page www.powerhousechurch.dk connects you to Evangelist’s old home page www.evangelist.dk, which gives you the latest updates on Christian Hedegaard’s ministry who now operates out of America.

The two churches, who were both officially closed due to court cases and media scandal, seem very much alive still.

4.2 Types of Power Being Abused Many of the churches that become abusive are churches that are founded from scratch with a group of relatively young people. The leaders can reach the position of power they have, because they founded the church themselves. The leaders have the final word, because they also had the first word (Sørensen, 2010, p. 83). Without mature Christians involved, there is a danger of the church getting off track. This should raise some concern when new churches pop up, founded by a strong leader, who does not wish to be a part of a network of churches. Although there is a chance things will turn out all right, there is also the perhaps higher probability that things will turn out badly.

“Leaders must be accountable to other leaders” (Haon, 2013, p. 119).

When a leader has absolute power “everyone loses, even God” (Arterburn, & Felton, 2001, p. 140).

Power abuse should be considered a sin. It “stands between God and man… separating innocent, defenseless members from the head, which is Christ” (Bloomer, 1995, p. 12).

The types of power involved in the abuse within these two churches were (1) reward power, (2) coercive power, (3) informational power, (4) ) referent power, and (5) spiritual authority.27 There were promises of reward (1) in terms of protection against divorce and disease, insurance of wealth and a high position in God’s kingdom.

Threats and punishment were frequent, which is (2) coercive power. The comments of the respondent revealed that if you had any criticism, you were “out in the cold” being excluded socially, bullied, yelled at, and manipulated into making the “right” decisions.

In Evangelist they also practiced “internal expulsions” where you were not kicked out, but humiliated in the worst possible ways (Bæhr et al., 2012, p. 129). Shame is used as a tool in abusive churches (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, p. 22).

27

See the definition of these in the Literaure Review, section 1.2, pp. 9-11.

28

A terrible picture was also painted of would happen if you were to ever leave Evangelist. It would lead to personal ruin and misery. You might as well die, because there is no life outside. If you leave, everything will go wrong. And living outside Evangelist will be like hell on earth for you (Bæhr et al., 2012, p. 128).

Regarding (3) informational power, the leaders tried to control the information that would reach the members. The members of Evangelist were instructed not to read or watch anything in the press that was critical against Evangelist since it would “pollute their faith”, and the leaders could also restrict communication with family and former friends. Contact with critical ex-members was discouraged (Sørensen, 2010, pp. 92-93).

This is typical of abusive churches where people outside of the group are considered dangerous (Arterburn & Felton, 2001, p. 120).

Negative experiences were toned down or ignored completely, but the success-stories were spread within the community and their publications (Vilsmark, 2009). In Byens Kirke they tried to cover up the heinous things that were going on.

(4) Referent power were also in use here since both leaders of the two churches had charismatic personalities, which the members were attracted to. If Hedegaard did not like a person, because they did not follow his orders then they were “out of here” according to his own words (HeideJørgensen, 2007). When a girl started asking to many questions, the leader of Byens Kirke undermined her character with false accusations to get rid of her and her influence.

Finally, (5) spiritual authority was also abused. The followers perceived the leaders of the two churches as spiritual leaders, and allowed their influence through persuasion (or manipulation), which had damaging results.

4.3 Abusive Leaders and Systems Unhealthy fellowships are not just for compliant people who are attracted to a strong leader, but according to a former cult member, it is also for “strong-willed, intelligent, and sensitive people” (Herbst, 2013, p. 208).

Regarding the four characteristics to identify an abusive leader or system,28 the first three of these are clearly found in the two leaders and churches in question.

(1) Power-Posturing is clearly seen in their constant reminders that they were “men of God” who must be obeyed no matter how ungodly their demands were.

28

See the Literature Review, section 1.1, pp. 5-6.

29

(2) Performance Preoccupation in Evangelist was seen in an enormous work pressure that people were under, which was not acknowledged or appreciated, which led to stress for many (Bæhr et al., 2012, p. 204), and vacations were not considered appropriate for regular members (Bæhr et al., 2012, p. 137). In Byens Kirke it is seen through the many hours, members were asked to spend at the church at the cost of relationships with parents and people on the outside.

(3) Unspoken rules and especially the “can’t-talk” rule were common in both of these churches. The fourth characteristic regarding (4) a lack of balance, I do not have any evidence for, mainly because I have not listened to any sermons by the two leaders.

When you have an abusive system, it is not only the main leader who is abusive, but you have a group of enablers and maintainers of the system to help it function. Survey A showed that several leaders were involved in the abuse and in keeping people within the abusive system. Even if they were “just following orders”, they still have a responsibility to their brothers and sisters in the Lord, whom they abused or allowed the circumstances to, by not interfering.

However, these enablers and maintainers were also victims in a sense, and perhaps afraid to go against the strong leader, and experience the same treatment as other “disobedient” members.

Arterburn & Felton suggest that an abusive system need the following ten rules to function: 1. The leader must be in control at all times. 2. When problems arise, immediately find a guilty party to blame. 3. Don’t make mistakes. 4. Never point out the reality of a situation. 5. Never express your feelings unless they are positive. 6. Don’t ask questions, especially if they are tough ones. 7. Don’t do anything outside of your role.

8. Don’t trust anyone. 9. Nothing is more important than giving money to the organization. 10. At all cost, keep up the image of the organization or family.

(Arterburn & Felton, 2001, p. 223) The rules can vary, and all of these may be unspoken rules (until you break one of them). Several of these 10 rules were in use within the two churches.

In Evangelist the control of the leader (rule 1), included whom people should marry, when the couples could have sex, and what jobs they could have (Bæhr et al., 2012, pp. 125, 150).

Only allowing positive feelings (rule 5) meant you “must pray yourself happy” and you could be sent out “into the swamp”, where you would walk around until the negative feelings disappeared. If they didn’t, it was your own fault (Bæhr et al., 2012, pp. 144-145).

There was a “snitch” mentality within the group (rule 8). Hedegaard demanded that people told him everything they know about other members. And you would be accused of undermining activity, if you did things without clearing it with the leader first, even if it was to help someone (Bæhr et al., 2012, pp. 119-120, 152).

As seen earlier, rules 6 and 10 were very apparent in Byens Kirke.

30

Several unhealthy ideas flourished within these two churches. At the core of these are the “man of God� concept, which once introduced, opened up a can of worms that lead to (or allowed) many other ideas in its wake.

All leaders are in danger of abusing power once they have received a position. It is a temptation.

Henri Nouwen observed, "What makes the temptation of power so seemingly irresistible? Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people" (Graves, 2014).

If you are in a fellowship you would consider abusive, you have two options: Fight or flight. You can try to make things better, and take the battles, which is not easy, or you can leave, which is not easy either, but necessary (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 213-231).29

4.4 Not everything is abuse Not everything should be considered abuse, however, and a reason for switching churches. All good parents make mistakes; the same is true for good leaders. According to Johnson & Van Vonderen, the following is not abuse: It is not abusive when a leader makes a decision that go against your opinion, as long as he/she does not devalue you in doing so. If it is the responsibility of the leader to make the final decisions there will be times, where you may not agree. It is not abuse when a Christian (leader or not) confronts another Christian with things that need correction, whether it is sin, wrongdoing or simple mistakes.

The purpose of the correction, of course, must not be to shame or discredit the person, but to heal and help the person. Neither is it abuse, if you are asked to step down from a position because of emotional, physical, mental or spiritual problems, as long as the focus is on helping you to recover and return to ministry, if that is the best action. It is not abusive if a leader disagrees with you on doctrinal or other issues even if it is done in public as long as it is done with respect. Just because a leader is strong and decisive does not mean he/she is abusive. Finally, holding certain standards within a group is not abuse (dresscode etc.), but it becomes abusive if people who do not hold the same convictions are shamed or degraded spiritually (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, p. 24). 30 The same authors also make the interesting and perhaps controversial point that an abusive leader is also a victim, trapped in his or her unhealthy beliefs and actions just as those whom they abuse either knowingly or unknowingly. And every Christian can both be a victim and perpetrator of abuse

29 30

Sub-question 2.

Sub-question 3.

31

at the same time. For instance, while feeling mistreated by the pressure of a Christian leader, you may treat your children or spouse in a bad way (Johnson & Van Vonderen, 2005, pp. 24-25).

Being victims themselves or not, Linn writes that psychopaths run freely around in the churches of Denmark, and that it takes a long time to spot a psychopath, but also adds, that is only specialists who are qualified to make such a diagnosis, and it is not something the average person should attempt to do (Linn, 2014, pp. 84, 95, 133).

Throughout this research, all my “accusations” about Hedegaard or the pastor of Byens Kirke have been well documented. Therefore, I do not believe, I have treated the leaders of the cases unfairly.

Conclusion This research has shown that abuse in churches by Christian leaders does indeed occur in Denmark.

I have shown it is easy for a leader to rise to a position of power, especially if it is a church he/she started, and if such a church grows without proper supervision, mentorship and accountability, it is in danger of getting off track and become abusive.

A leader who is not operating in his gifting may become problematic, but could function well together with other leaders supplementing his gifts.

No matter the gifting, a transparency, accountability and networking with other churches is crucial in avoiding future negative cases.

My research has shown that the leaders of Evangelist and Byens Kirke abused their positions as leaders and harmed people emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually.

While the media exposure of these two cases seemed fair, it also painted a negative view of the Pentecostal community in Denmark, which might make ordinary Danish people afraid of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches in general. The question of how ordinary Danish people view Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, was not covered in my research, and could be an interesting topic to study further.

The factors that made the abuse possible was first and foremost a theological factor. The leaders of the two churches borrowed the “man of God” concept from the faith movement, through which they made themselves “dictators of God” who must be obeyed in everything.

A second factor was the creation of abusive systems, where the rules, beliefs and ways of doing things became harmful. Control, fear, shaming people, secrecy etc. were tools being used to maintain this system, which could run on autopilot and function for a longer period of time.

32

The reason why members did not leave immediately as soon as bad things started happening, was both because things were covered up and swept under the carpet, while only showing the success stories31. Another reason was that there were not only negative things happening. Members saw people saying yes to Jesus, getting healed, being set free of addictions, at the same time as the abuse were going on. “Unfortunately” God does not revoke his gifts (Rom. 11:29), which would have made it easier for members to leave in this case. The respondents of both surveys agreed that when the gifts of the spirit are present, it is not proof that everything the leader does is ok.

Thirdly, leaving the church would mean also losing your friends within the church, who would not be allowed to have fellowship with you, similar to many cults.

This research has shown that many people were harmed by these two churches, and have needed professional help by psychiatrists and other counsellors to recover from the damages by these Christian leaders. For some, this recovery process is still going on. This shows that the damage abusive leaders can make is extensive, and no good comes from sweeping things under the carpet and allowing abuse to continue. People experience that their relationships with God, church, and other leaders get damaged as a result of abuse.

As someone who has had negative experiences with a Christian leader in an unrelated but similar case, has made me sympathetic to the hurt and pain of these former members. It has not been easy to read about what these people have gone through, so how much more terrible must it have been for them to live through it.

This research is important, because it deals with a taboo in Denmark that many Christians are unwilling to talk about. Like the abusive systems, people would rather show the good sides in public, and ignore the bad, and pretend it never happened by sticking the hand in the sand like an ostrich.

Churches in Denmark may not need to always flash their dirty laundry, but should take the negative cases seriously, and help victims the best way possible. This research has shown that former members of abusive churches feel alienated and feel that they are met with disbelief by other Christians, who cannot believe, their experiences “were really that bad.”

This research has also shown that there are good guidelines in place within the networks of churches like FrikirkeNet and Mosaik in terms of accountability and transparency. Where there could be a problem are with the churches that may call themselves Pentecostal and have signs on the building saying the same, but who refuses to be a part of a network with other churches, and therefore

31

See the hypothesis on page 18.

33

operate without supervision. Those churches are potentially dangerous. The same could be said of other free charismatic churches in Denmark, who refuses to be part of a network. 32 Now, good things will also happen in abusive churches, it is never only bad things, otherwise these churches would not be able to exist, and no churches are perfect. But while we should obey our leaders, we must obey God more than men (Acts 5:29), and follow the good Shepherd, Jesus, while being aware of the wolves, which are among us also.

I hope this research in some small way will help prevent future abuse by Christian leaders in Denmark. I am not encouraging people to “cry wolf� at a leader any chance they get, but I do encourage people to react and protect themselves accordingly, if they become aware of things similar to the descriptions of this research, or things that are in danger of escalating into an abusive situation.

32

All of the above addresses Sub-question 17.

34

Bibliography Arterburn, S., & Felton, J. (2001). Toxic Faith. Colorado Springs, Colorado: WaterBrook Press.

Bacher Dirchsen, J. (Executive producer). (2009, April 22) Danmark Ifølge Bubber (2:6) [Television program]. Odense, Denmark: TV2.

Blanchard, K., & Hodges. P. (2007). Lead Like Jesus. (Jensen, M. (Tran.)). Copenhagen, Denmark: Scandinavia.

Bloomer, G. G (1995). Authority Abusers. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House.

Bæhr, M., Harild, C., & Wendner, S. (2012). Traumatiseret tro. (Master’s thesis). Aalborg, DK: Aalborg University.

Cameron, H. and C. Duce (2013). Researching Practice in Ministry and Mission: A Companion.

London: SCM Press.

Christensen, A. S. (2016). I sektens kløer. DR. Retrieved from: http://www.dr.dk/omdr/programmer-og-koncerter/i-sektens-kloeer (May 3, 2017).

Chrnalogar, M. A. (2000). Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse. (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Clinton, J. R. (1993). The making of a leader: Recognizing the Lessons and Stages of Leadership Development. Colorado Springs, CO: Navypress.

Clinton, J. R., & Allen, D. H. (2002). Nehemiah – Focused Leadership. Clinton’s Biblical Leadership Commentary Series. USA: J. Robert Clinton.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Damazio, F. (1993). Effective Keys to Successful Leadership. Portland, Oregon: Bible Temple.

Delgado, R. (1984). When Religious Exercise is not Free: Deprogramming and the Constitutional Status of Coercively Induced Beliefs. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University School of Law. Eggert, M. (2016). Trods sexanmeldelser: Silkeborg-frikirke kører videre med omstridt prædikant.

MX Metroxpress. Retrived from: https://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/12005006 (October 2, 2017).

Ekman, U. (2003). The Jews: People of the Future. (4th ed.). Sweden: Ulf Ekman Ministries.

Enroth, R. M. (1992). Churches that Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Enroth, R. M. (1994). Recovering from Churches That Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Fehlauer, M. (2001). Warning Signs of Spiritual Abuse, Part Two. CBN. Retrieved from: http://www1.cbn.com/warning-signs-of-spiritual-abuse-part-two (March 12, 2017).

Foster, R. J. (1985). The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex & Power. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Giddens, A. (1996). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Grant, I L. (2005). Christian Leadership and Globalizing Christianity: Missiological Approaches.

Journal of Asian Missions. [PDF] 7(1), 63-84.

35

Graves, M. (2014). 3 Temptations of Leadership: Abuse of Power. Christianity Today. Retrieved from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/women-leaders/2014/january/3-temptations-ofleadership-abuse-of-power.html?start=2 (March 12, 2017).

Hagen Rasmussen, N. (Executive producer). (2016, December 19) I Sektens Kløer (1:2) [Television program]. Copenhagen, Denmark: DR2.

Hagen Rasmussen, N. (Executive producer). (2016, December 20) I Sektens Kløer (2:2) [Television program]. Copenhagen, Denmark: DR2.

Hanegraaff, H. (1993). Christianity in Crisis. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House.

Haon, A. (2013). Identifying Leadership Power Abuse and its Prevention in the Local Church Context. Melanesian Journal of Theology 29(1), 104-122. Retrieved from: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/mjt/29-1_104.pdf Hardy, A., Whitehouse, R, & Yarnell, D. (2015). Power and the Powers: The Use and Abuse of Power in its Missional Context. UK: Cascade books.

Harlang, C. (2017). Injurier. Advokatfirma Christian Harlang. Retrieved from: http://www.harlanglaw.dk/injurier.html# (May 6, 2017) Hedegaard, C. (1999). Sejr over Dæmoner. Copenhagen, DK: Hedegaard.

Heide-Jørgensen, V. (Executive producer). (2007, October 3) DR1 Dokumentaren: Gud i Gørløse [Television program]. Copenhagen, Denmark: DR. Herbst, M. (2013). Sunde og syge fællesskaber. Denmark: Alfa.

Hughes, P. (Ed.) (2015). Research for Ministry and Mission [CD-ROM] (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Christian Research Association.

Hughes, P. (2013). Sexual Abuse by Clergy and Other Church Workers. Pointers, CRA. [PDF] Vol. 23(3).

Hybels, B. (2002). Courageous Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Johnson, D. & Van Vonderen, J. (1991). The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: The Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church.

Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House.

Jørgensen, E. M. (2010). Derfor forlader jeg Evangelist. Kristeligt Dagblad. Retrieved from: https://www.religion.dk/fra-bloggen/derfor-forlader-jegevangelist?_ga=2.1453041.1340000343.1493797816-652833691.1492509361 (May 3, 2017).

Keenan, M. (2012) Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power and Organizational Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kristeligt Dagblad. (2012). Præst meldt til politiet for overgreb mod unge. Kristeligt Dagblad.

Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/præst-meldt-til-politietovergreb-mod-unge (May 3, 2017).

Larsen, K. M. (2006). Glimt af lys og mørke. Denmark: Fortælling.

Lifton, R. J. (1989). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of ’Brainwashing’ in China. (2nd ed.). North Carolina: University of N. C. Press.

Lind, I. R. (2014). Forklædt: Pæne psykopater og deres ofre. (2nd ed.). Fredericia, DK: Credo.

Løvås, E. (1999). Det Farlige Maktmennesket. Norway: Luther.

36

McClung, F. (1985). The Father Heart of God (Molin, A. (Tran.)). Skive, Denmark: Lychnos.

McGhie, S. (2014). Historien om evangelisternes deroute. Kristeligt Dagblad. Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/historien-om-evangelisternes-deroute (May 3, 2017).

Openshaw, P. E. (n.d.). Shepherding God’s Flock. Part 12: The Abuse of Authority by Leadership.

Retrieved from: http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/abuse/shep12ab.htm (March 12, 2017).

Ormerod, N. & Ormerod, T. (1995). When Ministers sin: Sexual Abuse in the Churches. Australia: Millenium Books.

Peterson, E. H. (1993). The Contemplative pastor. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Pierce, T. B. (2000). Ministerial Ethics: A Guide for Spirit-Filled Believers. Springfield, MO: Logion Press.

Randall, D. M. (2012). Leadership and the use of Power: Shaping an Ethical Climate. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership Vol. 6(1), 28-35. Retrieved from: https://www.andrews.edu/services/jacl/article_archive/6_1_spring_2012/04featurearticles/jacl_6-1_randall.pdf Rasmussen, M. (2012). Frikirke-præst meldt til politiet: Børn skulle spise opkast. Kristeligt Dagblad.

Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/frikirke-præst-meldt-til-politietbørn-skulle-spise-opkast (May 3, 2017).

Ritzau (2012). Landsretten slår fast: Evangelists stifter begik kvaksalveri. Kristeligt Dagblad.

Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/landsretten-slår-fastevangelists-stifter-begik-kvaksalveri (May 3, 2017).

Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. [PDF] 22(2), 76-83.

Skov Hansen, M. (2011). Evangelist-leder: Retssag er til grin. Kristeligt Dagblad. Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/evangelist-leder-retssag-er-til-grin (May 3, 2017).

Skov Hansen, M. (2011). Evangelist-leder dømt for kvaksalveri. Kristeligt Dagblad. Retrieved from: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/evangelist-leder-dømt-kvaksalveri (May 3, 2017).

Spielman, L. W. (1999). David’s Abuse of Power. ATLAS. 19(3), 251-259. Retrieved from: http://otgateway.com/articles/19-3_Spielman.pdf Sørensen, I. (2010). Leg med ilden: Pentekostale trosfællesskaber og problematiske omverdensrelationer. (Doctoral dissertation). Odense, DK: Syddansk Universitet.

Van Gelder, C. (2007). Defining the Issues Related to Power and Authority in Religious Leadership.

Journal of Religious Leadership. 6(2), 1-14. Retrieved from: http://arl-jrl.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Van-Gelder-Defining-the-Issues-2007-Fall.pdf Vilsmark, K. (Executive producer). (2009, May 11) Operation X: Besat af dæmoner [Television program]. Odense, Denmark: TV2.

Thomas, V. (2003). Future Leader. (5th ed.). Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press.

Udfordringen. (2004). Domino er frikirkernes nye blad. Udfordringen. Retrieved from: https://udfordringen.dk/2004/10/domino-er-frikirkernes-nye-blad/ (May 8, 2017).

37

Appendix 1 – Survey A Information letter This survey is part of a larger research conducted with the intent of learning and understanding more about Power Abuse by Christian Leaders.

Through the recent cases of Evangelist and Byens Kirke, which received media attention, I wish to clarify and learn how the leaders of these two churches abused their position of power and which effects it brought with it. I wish to clarify what type of abuse took place, and how it was possible for it to happen for a longer period of time, and to find out which factors were involved.

This research, I hope, will benefit the churches of Denmark, as it will provide a better understanding of what happened, and could help prevent or minimize similar, negative cases in the future.

The research will be the completion of a Master’s Degree with Harvest Bible College, in Melbourne Australia.

Completing the survey will take about 40-45 min. of your time (there are 42 questions). It is voluntary, but I hope you will join since the information you can provide will be very helpful. There are no right or wrong answers, I am simply interested in your opinions and insight.

In the research, I will not be reporting the responses of individuals, but only the general patterns of responses. All information is treated in a confidential manner and every respondent is completely anonymous and will be able to be identified from this survey.

If you wish to join in this survey, then send an e-mail to me to this address: markkenhill@hotmail.com and confirm your wish of participation. I will then send you an invitation to the survey, which is made with the program SurveyMonkey. I would ask you to give you answers by the 28th of August.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, you are welcome to contact Mark Hill at the mail address above.

If you have any ethical concerns about the project, please contact Harvest Bible College at: ATurner@Harvest.edu.au Since some of the questions in the survey deal with experiences and memories that could be painful the following two psychiatrists, who are both Christians, are willing to help you. If there is a need, I encourage you to make use of them, or another professional counsellor. Here is their contact info: Karleen Paquette www.karleepaquette.dk contact@karleepaquette.dk (+45) 53 55 29 32

Peter Søndergaard www.ps-skive.dk peter@ps-skive.dk (+45) 96 14 70 50

Thank you very much for your participation.

Mark K. Hill Questions: General information First of all, I would like some basic information, which will help analysing the results.

1. What gender are you? a) Male b) Female c) Other 2. How old are you now? a) Between18-25 years b) 26-35 c) 36-45

d) 46 or higher e) Other 3. Which of the following best describes your job situation? a) Working full time b) Working part time c) Student d) Retired e) Other (please describe)_________________ Leadership

38

I would like to ask you a few questions about the nature of the leadership in the church where abuse took place, when you were still a part of the church.

4. Did the leaders at the time of the abuse teach that Christian leaders were ‘men of God’ who should not be questioned? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (please explain)

Reflections Having been away from this church for a while now, I want to ask some questions about if your views on leadership have changed.

10. When you were involved in that church did you think that their teaching was in accord with the Bible? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose

5. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: A "man of God" is on a higher level than other Christians? a) Agree strongly b) Agree a little c) Disagree a little d) Disagree strongly e) Can’t choose

11. Do you now think that Christian leaders should not be questioned? (be above criticism?) a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose

6. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: The doctrine of the “man of God” is a true biblical principle? a) Agree strongly b) Agree a little c) Disagree a little d) Disagree strongly e) Can’t choose

12. Do you think that Christian leaders should have higher moral principles than people who are not in leadership positions? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose

7. Was the behavior of your former leader in agreement with how the Bible describes Christian leadership? a) Agree strongly b) Agree a little c) Disagree a little d) Disagree strongly e) Can’t choose

The Attraction of the Church The following questions are regarding some general information on the church, and what initially led you to it, and what kept you there.

8. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: A leader’s decision should not be questioned, but obeyed, since he is inspired by God? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose 9. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: If the gifts of the Spirit are clearly evident in a leader’s life, it is a sign that the leader is correct in most other areas of life also? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose

13. For how long did you attend this church? a) 0-1 year b) 2-4 years c) 3-5 years d) 5-10 years (or more) e) Other (please explain) 14. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: This church had realized something the other churches haven’t discovered? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose 15. Which factors attracted you to that church in the beginning? On a scale of 1 to 5 indicate next to each answer the importance, where 5 is the highest number, and 1 is the lowest. a) It was a little black and white, but very radical with no room for lukewarm Christians, so it seemed authentic: _______

39

b) A good fellowship: _____ c) The leader seemed to be in touch with God in a special way: ____________ d) Other reasons (please explain): __________ Unhealthy churches The next questions deal with churches that would be considered unhealthy.

16. When did you discover that unhealthy things were happening? a) After 0-2 year b) After 3-6 year c) After 7-10 years d) I didn’t discover that e) Other (please explain) 17. On a scale of 1 to 5, which of the following reasons kept you from leaving immediately, when you discovered it was an unhealthy fellowship? (Indicate next to each answer) a) Fear of losing friends: ________ b) Fear of God’s punishment: _____ c) I don’t think it was unhealthy: ______ d) Other reasons (please explain): __________ 18. How many unhealthy churches do you know of that presently exists in Denmark? a) 0-1 b) 2-4 c) 3-5 d) 5-10 e) I don’t know f) Other (please explain) 19. On a scale of 1 to 5, which of the following makes a church unhealthy, first and foremost? a) Bad theology: ________ b) Leaders that are damaging: _________ c) To be ”overly spiritual”: __________ d) Other reasons (please explain): __________ Hurt and abuse The following questions deal with your personal experiences of hurt as a result of power abuse.

20. Did you experience hurt in your former church? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose 21. The hurt you experienced, would you consider that abuse? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose

d) Explain: _________________________ 22. Did someone you know or were close to experience hurt in your former church? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose 23. The hurt someone you know or were close to experienced, would you consider that abuse? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Explain: _________________________ 24. What type of hurt did your leader inflict on you? a) Of a sexual kind. b) Abuse of his power. c) Neither d) Can’t choose e) Other. Explain: ______________ 25. What type of hurt did your leader inflict on someone you know or were close to? a) Of a sexual kind. b) Abuse of his power. c) Neither d) Can’t choose e) Other. Explain: ______________ 26. On a scale of 1 to 5, how much did you, or someone you know, experience hurt because of the following? a) He betrayed my trust: _______ b) He did not live up to the standards I expected of him: ___________ c) He was violent: _________ d) Other (please explain): _________ 27. How often did you, or someone you know, experience abuse from the leader? a) Around 1-5 times b) Around 5-10 times c) 10 times or more d) Never e) Can’t choose 28. How did you react to the abuse? a) I left the church b) I carried it within me in silence c) I told someone I could trust d) Can’t choose e) Other reaction (please explain): __________ 29. In your opinion, why was the abuse allowed to continue over a period of time?

40

a) People were afraid to contradict the leader b) People did not know it was going on c) You should not correct a leader who is anointed by God d) Other (please explain): __________

35. Do you attend a church regularly today? a) Yes b) No. I don’t go to church anymore c) I go to a church, but it is not regularly d) Can’t choose

Recovering The following questions will be about how you have recovered from your former church, including your personal well-being, emotionally and spiritually.

36. Which denomination is it? a) Pentecostal b) The Lutheran state church c) I don’t go to church anymore d) Can’t choose e) Other denomination, describe: __________

30. How were you doing emotionally after you left that church? a) I was relieved: _________ b) I had emotional scars I had to deal with: ____ c) Both of the above d) I was unaffected by the situation: _______ e) Can’t choose f) Other (please explain): __________ 31. Have you received help from a psychiatrist or other counselor after you left that church? a) Yes b) Not yet, but I think I will do it c) No d) Don’t think I will need it e) Can’t choose 32. Did someone close to you, or someone you know, receive help from a psychiatrist or other counselor after he/she left that church? a) Yes b) Not yet, but I think he/she needs it c) No d) Don’t think he/she will need it e) Can’t choose 33) How were you doing spiritually after you left that church? a) I nearly lost my faith in God: _______ b) It took a long time before I could join a Christian fellowship again: __________ c) Both of the above d) I was doing fine: ______________ e) Can’t choose f) Other (please explain): __________ 34. How did you feel about leaders in general after you left that church? a) I had lost all confidence in leaders b) I became very careful around other people c) Both of the above d) I have no problems with leaders e) Can’t choose f) Other (please explain): __________

37. On a scale of 1 to 5, how important are the following statements as reasons for going to church? a) A sense of duty to God and to others: ____ b) Fellowship with other believers: _____ c) Having a relationship with God: ____ d) Affirmation of Christian principles of life: __ e) Other (please explain): ______ 38. On a scale of 1 to 5, how much have the following helped you recover from your former church? a) Family: ______ b) Friends: ______ c) Other Christian Leaders: ______ d) Other (please explain): ______ Final questions The last questions are of a reflective nature.

39. Ought the Pentecostal churches of Denmark have more control from above (for instance from a national leadership) to protect the members, so that there is more supervision with local leaders? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (please explain): ______ 40. What would you recommend to prevent similar cases? a) Can’t choose b) My assessment: ________ 41. Did any positive things come out of these negative experiences? a) No b) Can’t choose c) Yes (please explain) _________ 42. Is there anything I have not asked, but would be good for others to know? a) No b) Can’t choose c) Yes (please explain) _________

41

Appendix 2 – Survey B Information letter This survey is part of a larger research conducted with the intent of learning and understanding more about Power Abuse by Christian Leaders.

Through the recent cases of Evangelist and Byens Kirke, which received media attention, I wish to clarify and learn how the leaders of these churches abused their position of power and which effects it brought with it. In another survey, I wish to clarify what type of abuse took place, and how it was possible for it to happen for a longer period of time, and to find out which factors were involved.

The survey I am asking you to join will be regarding leadership, leadership structures, and being in a ministry in Pentecostal Churches in Denmark. And also, how you view the above-mentioned cases.

This research, I hope will benefit the churches of Denmark, and could help prevent or minimize similar, negative cases in the future.

The research will be the completion of a Master’s Degree with Harvest Bible College, in Melbourne Australia.

Completing the survey will take about 30-35 min. of your time (there are 33 questions). It is voluntary, but I hope you will join since the information you can provide will be very helpful. There are no right or wrong answers, I am simply interested in your opinions and insight.

In the research, I will not be reporting the responses of individuals, but only the general patterns of responses. All information is treated in a confidential manner and every respondent is completely anonymous and will be able to be identified from this survey.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, you are welcome to contact me at: markkenhill@hotmail.com If you have any ethical concerns please contact Harvest Bible College at: ATurner@Harvest.edu.au Thank you very much for your participation.

Mark K. Hill

42

Questions General information First of all, I would like some basic information, which will help analysing the results.

1. What gender are you? a) Male b) Female c) Other 2. How old are you? a) Between18-29 years b) 30-39 c) 40-49 d) 50 or higher e) Other 3. Which of the following best describes your job situation? a) Working full time b) Working part time d) Retired e) Other (please describe): ____________ Entering ministry The following questions deals with how a person becomes a pastor.

4. How does a pastor or leader typically enter into ministry in the Pentecostal Churches? a) Experience a call from God b) They get hired by a church c) They have other family members in ministry d) All of the above e) Can’t choose f) Other (please explain): _________ 5. How did you enter into ministry? a) Describe briefly: __________________ b) Can’t choose 6. What is the process in your church before someone can get hired into ministry? a) An interview is made b) Trial period c) Recommendation from others d) All of the above e) Can’t choose f) Other (please explain): _________ 7. Are there any other relevant steps to the process before one can enter into ministry? a) No b) Can’t choose

c) Yes (please explain): ___________ Accountability The following questions have to do with being accountable and transparency.

8. As a pastor or leader do you have an accountability? (someone you must report to?) a) No b) Can’t choose c) Yes (please explain): ___________ 9. Is this accountability something of your own choice, or is that a requirement? a) Explain: _______________________ b) Can’t choose 10. If you were not accountable to someone, would the church or ministry ever find out? a) No b) Can’t choose c) Yes (please explain): ___________ 11. Is there enough transparency in how leaders operate in Pentecostal churches? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Comments: ______________________ Negative cases The following questions deal with how you view what happened in Evangelist and Byens Kirke.

12. In the case of Evangelist, what was the main problem in terms of the leadership? a) He was not called by God b) He took on a role that did not match his gifting c) There was no accountability d) Can’t choose e) Other (please explain): _____________ 13. Could anything have been done earlier on to prevent the negative outcome of Evangelist? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments to yes or no: ____ 14. In the case of Byens Kirke, Silkeborg, what was the main problem in terms of the leadership? a) He was not called by God b) He took on a role that did not match his gifting c) There was no accountability d) Can’t choose

43

e) Other (please explain): _______________ 15. Could anything have been done earlier on to prevent the negative outcome of Byens Kirke, Silkeborg? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments to yes or no: ____ 16. Was the media exposure of these churches good for the kingdom of God in Denmark? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments to yes or no: ____ 17. In your opinion, were the media exposure fair in how these churches were portrayed? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments to yes or no: ____ Termination The following questions deals with how a job as a pastor or leaders could possibly be terminated, in order to find out what the normal praxis is.

18. Should there always be the possibility to fire the main leader of a church? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments: ____ 19. In your opinion, who should have the right to fire a pastor or leader? a) A board b) The congregation (through a vote) c) Nobody d) Can’t choose e) Other (please explain): _____________ 20. Who has the power to fire you? a) A board b) The congregation (through a vote) c) Nobody d) Can’t choose e) Other (please explain): _____________ 21. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest, what are valid reasons to have a pastor or leader fired?

(Please indicate for each of the possibilities) a) Immorality: _____________

b) Criminal activity: _________ c) Abuse of power: _________ d) Boring sermons: ___________ e) Lack of leadership skills: _________ f) Other candidates could do better: _________ 22. How would you feel about having a national leader or board over you, who could potentially fire you? a) It could be good for the churches of Denmark with such a leadership b) I would NOT like to work under such conditions c) Can’t choose d) Other (please explain): _______________ Man of God The next questions relate to concept of a “man of God” as it was being used in Evangelist, which meant that the leader was above criticism, and the decisions were not up for discussion. But also about how you understand it from a biblical perspective.

23. Is a "man of God" on a higher level than other Christians? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (further comments): ______________ 24. Is a pastor of a church a “man of God” meaning he/she is on a higher level than other Christians? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (further comments): ______________ 25. Should your church always obey you, since you are their pastor? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (further comments): ______________ 26. Is the idea of a “man of God” – who is on a higher level than other Christians - a true biblical principle? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Other (further comments): ______________ 27. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: A leader’s decision should not be questioned, but obeyed, since he/she is inspired by God? a) Very much so b) To some degree

44

c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose f) Other (further comments): ______________ 28. To what degree do you agree with the following statement: If the gifts of the Spirit are clearly evident in a minister’s life, it is a sign that the minister is correct in most other areas of life also? a) Very much so b) To some degree c) Not so much d) Not at all e) Can’t choose f) Other (further comments): ______________ Final Questions The last questions deal with Mosaik (the Pentecostal Churches of Denmark), power structures and autonomy.

29. Do Danish Pentecostal leaders have too much autonomy (self-government)? a) Yes, it too high b) It is fitting as it is c) They could have even more autonomy d) Can’t choose e) Other (please explain): ____________

30. Do you think the reason why the Pentecostal churches recently changed its name to Mosaik was to distance themselves from Evangelist and Byens Kirke and the bad publicity? a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know the reason d) Can’t choose e) Other (please explain): ____________ 31. Should Mosaik create structures to ensure accountability in all of its churches? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments: ____ 32. Should Mosaik enforce such structures, so they could take action if there is a lack of accountability? a) Yes b) No c) Can’t choose d) Further comments: ____ 33. Is there something I have not asked, but that you would like to say, or comment further on, in relation to any of these questions in this survey? a) No b) Can’t choose c) Comments: ___________

45