THE 'KANGAROO COURT', 'GANG UP' OR 'ABUSIVE INTERROGATION'........................................................ 1 HOW TO FIND ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AN INNOCENT PERSON.................................................................... 1 THE THREAT AND ULTIMATUM.............................................................................................................................. 3 ALTERNATING TO FLATTERY AND CONCILIATION.................................................................................... . . . . . . . 3 ETHICAL PROBLEMS................................................................................................................................................. 4 WHY DO OTHERWISE GOOD LEADERS BEHAVE LIKE THIS?.................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ACTION.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

When one hears news of unethical behaviour in some ministries, one may wonder how the leader
managed to avoid being held accountable. Many such ministries have developed sophisticated
mechanisms to defend themselves from accountability. Often these methods have become part of
the senior leadership culture, but no one else knows about them. Thus they can catch people by
surprise. Unsuspecting enthusiastic young Christians involve themselves under the authority of a
dynamic and successful ministry leadership \u2013 not realising that the leader and his organisational
hierarchy is itself not subject to proper authority checks and balances. We all like to think that the
ministry to which we belong is spiritual and in the will of God, but multiple scandals have to force
us to sober up and consider what we can do to protect our own ministry against falling into such
behaviour.

One of the most effective methods is the \u2018Kangaroo Court\u2019, otherwise known as the \u2018gang up\u2019 or
\u2018abusive interrogation\u2019. The person raising an objection is invited to a meeting, to discuss his
concerns. He is not allowed to bring any witnesses, as the meeting is supposedly a 'friendly one'.
He is also asked not to take notes at the meeting, since it is 'friendly'. On arrival he finds four to six
senior leaders in the ministry waiting for him. Nevertheless, the issues he has come to discuss will
not be discussed. The meeting has one purpose only - to neutralise the person trying to hold the
ministry accountable \u2013 by any means possible.

The abusive leader may has usually developed something of a \u2018personality cult following\u2019. Some
loyal yes-men may participate in such behaviour with the best intentions, believing they are
protecting the ministry from a \u2018troublemaker\u2019 or \u2018division\u2019.

Sometimes the leaders will be introduced in a grandiose manner, in an effort to intimidate the
objector - using big titles and bloated achievements. Then the accusations begin. The leaders attack
the objector with any type of accusation they can think of. The objector may try to defend himself,
but this will not be allowed. If he tries to do so, another leader will accuse him of disrespect. At
this point it becomes evident that the meeting is an ambush and is not a friendly discussion about
concerns with the ministry. There is no logical or fair discussion. The leaders know that if they
were to allow this, they may lose, so they don't allow it. They just attack. The abusive leaders take
turns to attack and may interrupt each other to add to the abusive accusations.

How do the leaders find the accusations? Anything in the objectors favour is reversed in these
attacks. For example, if he has raised the same concerns with other leaders, then he is accused of
'slander'. If some of the other leaders agree with him, then he is accused of 'divisiveness'. An
objection to the ministry raised at the meeting becomes evidence of 'disrespect'. If he wanted to
bring a witness or wants confirmation of records, then he is accused of 'not trusting the leaders'. If
he doesn't bring a witness, then he can be accused of 'acting alone'. Raising problems in the
ministry is 'troublemaking'. If the objector is part of the ministry leadership, he can be accused of
'unsubmissiveness'. If he is not part of the leadership, then he can be accused of 'lack of
accountability' or 'not being a leader' and thus having no right to raise objections. A general
accusation that can be levelled at anyone raising objections to a ministry' behaviour is 'a bad
attitude', since this is unprovable. If he is disagreeing with the ministry tradition, then this must be
evidence of 'pride'. An objection to a policy of the ministry is 'hurtful' to the leaders of the
ministry. All of the above require 'repentance'.

The leaders may try to attack the status of the objector. A technique is to make them wait a long time outside. Then they can be attacked for any reason e.g. marital status; lack of ordination or leadership status within the ministry; spiritual maturity; sanity etc.

Another source of items to attack is issues totally unrelated and irrelevant to the current issues in question. Take trivial past incidents and blow them up into big issues trying to prove guilt. This practice is know as \u2018manufacturing offence\u2019 and is related to bearing false witness against ones neighbour \u2013 a violation of the 9th commandment, with the intention of undermining or destroying his reputation.

If the abusive leader doesn't know anything against the objector, then he can at least in some
ministries use his 'spiritual gift of discernment'. i.e. Pretend that the 'Holy Spirit' has shown him all
kinds of problems in the life and background of the victim/objector.

Efforts are made to get the objector to 'confess his sin'. If he does so, this can be used against him and he may feel legitimately guilty. Trying to get the objector to do this is a clever manipulative trick, because:

If he does confess, then the abusive leaders can distract the focus of the meeting from
the serious sin of the organisation or leader to whatever has been confessed. The
confidence of the objector may also be weakened.

During the discussion, the abusive leaders may try to legitimise their authority through dubious theology. Any attempt to debate this or other ethical issues related to the objection will not be tolerated. The objective of the meeting again is not to find truth, but to silence the objector.

Another tactic is for the interrogators to provoke the objector to anger with false accusations and then accuse them of being angry. If the objector shows signs of frustration, he may be accused of \u2018bitterness\u2019.

By attacking the objector personally, mistreating and slandering him, rather than discussing his
concerns, the abusive leaders lay the groundwork for more potential further accusations. The
objector must now show even more restraint in raising his objections, lest he be accused of \u2018taking
revenge\u2019 for personal reasons, rather than those of the public good. The leaders move attention off

At the end of the meeting, which may last several hours, the objector will be given threats and an
ultimatum to shut up or leave the ministry. The ultimatum may include methods to control the
objector, that will have been agreed by the leaders beforehand. The abusive ministry leaders want
the objector to come under their control. They can do this for example by setting up a structure
which they invite the objector to join or alternatively demanding that he 'be discipled' or
'counselled'. Obviously, the point of such a 'structure' or 'discipling' or 'counselling' is to change his
mind or alternatively intimidate him into shutting up.

If the objector at a later time tries to clear his name either by explaining or apologising for whatever
accusations have been made, this will be fruitless. The issue is that the ministry leaders are not
interested in the truth. They just want to silence the objector. The abusive leaders may be too busy
to meet again. Alternatively, the objector must waste his time trying to meet with each of them
individually. The point is that the ministry doesn't want to know the truth, because that might be
painful and cause them to have to change their behaviour. The only thing they want is for the
objector to withdraw his objections and shut up.

By this time, the objectors mind will be focused on defending themselves rather than the original purpose of the meeting, which was to discuss his objection. He is now in a vulnerable position to agree to shut up.

Now most people have no idea that the leaders they respect and look up to can be manipulative and
abusive. But these things happen in ministries as with some families and also romantic
relationships. So, unprepared the victim/objector may be in a state of shock and think that they may
truly have done something wrong - which they need to try remedy.

If the above approach does not work, and the objector is not intimidated by the abusive behaviour
but persists with objections, then the abusive leaders may either escalate the abusiveness or
alternatively shift to conciliation and flattery. This is similar to an abusive husband who beats his
wife and then the next day tries to romance her so that she forgives him.

After such abuse, the objector/victim will often be so relieved by the shift to conciliation that he
will accept anything rather than re-raise his issues of objection. The issues can thus just be
sidelined by evasion and doublespeak without the need for the use of additional threats. The
objector may be offered some benefits from the ministry in exchange for dropping the issue.

Nevertheless, if the objector does persist, the 'Good cop-bad cop' manipulation technique will shift
back to abusiveness. If they cannot silence the objector then they will have to find a way to
discredit them (using true or false accusations) or otherwise evict them from the ministry.