When the Shepherd Is Told He Has Hurt a Sheep

Listen to this article (BETA)

Preparing the reader…

Your progress: Not started

Mark Complete Start Over Reset History

▶ Listen

Graham sat in his truck for nearly twenty minutes before walking into the church office. He had rehearsed the conversation on the drive over, but now that he was here, he was no longer sure he could say what he needed to say without becoming emotional. Twice he reached for the door handle. Twice he let go.

Six weeks earlier, Pastor Torres had removed Graham from the worship team after a disagreement that had become more serious than either man initially expected. Graham knew he had handled parts of it poorly. He had become defensive, spoken sharply, and said things he later regretted. He was not coming to insist that he had done nothing wrong, and he was not asking to be put back on the team.

But he had been struggling with what happened afterward. During their previous meeting, Pastor Torres had questioned Graham’s character, brought up past mistakes, and ended the conversation so abruptly that Graham left feeling there was nothing more he could say. Graham had apologized for his own conduct, but he was no longer sure whether his pastor wanted anything to do with him.

In the weeks that followed, Graham found it increasingly difficult to come to church. He still loved the people there and wanted to worship with them. Yet he dreaded running into Pastor Torres. A man he had once sought out for counsel had become someone he tried to avoid in the hallway.

Now, sitting across from him again, Graham struggled to begin.

“Pastor, I know I was wrong about some things,” he said. “And I’m not here to argue about being taken off the team. But the way you handled it really hurt me. I felt like you were finished with me.”

Pastor Torres felt his stomach tighten. He remembered the disagreement quite differently. He remembered Graham’s angry words, the concerns raised by other team members, and his responsibility to protect the ministry. He had spent hours thinking through the decision and believed it was necessary. He could explain every reason for removing Graham from the team.

But Graham had not come to ask for another explanation of that decision. He had come to tell his pastor that he was hurting. Pastor Torres now had another shepherding responsibility, and how he responded could either begin to repair their relationship or make Graham wish he had never come.

A Right Decision Does Not Make Every Action Right

Pastor Torres may have been right to remove Graham from the worship team. A pastor must care for the congregation and the ministries under his oversight, and that care sometimes requires correction or the removal of responsibility. Graham’s acknowledgment of his own conduct matters. His pain does not erase what he said or the consequences of what he did.

But the necessity of correction does not establish that Pastor Torres carried it out faithfully. He could have made the right decision and spoken sinfully. He could have addressed Graham’s misconduct accurately while allowing personal frustration to shape his words. He could have protected the worship team while neglecting the man he had removed from it.

Paul’s instruction in Galatians 6:1 holds these responsibilities together. When someone is caught in a trespass, those who are spiritual are to restore him with gentleness while watching themselves lest they also be tempted. The person offering correction is not placed above the danger of sin simply because another person’s sin needs to be addressed. The responsibility to restore someone calls for particular watchfulness over one’s own heart.

That is especially important for a pastor. His authority gives his words and decisions unusual weight in the lives of those he shepherds. A rebuke from a fellow church member may be painful; a rebuke from the pastor who also determines whether someone may continue serving can carry consequences far beyond the conversation itself. Graham may accept the loss of his ministry role and still need pastoral care for the way he was treated.

A pastor’s authority to correct another person does not exempt his own conduct from correction.

Pastor Torres must distinguish two questions that may have become tangled together: Was removing Graham from the team necessary? And did he sin against Graham in the way he handled it? An answer to the first does not settle the second. If he treats Graham’s complaint as an attempt to reopen the ministry decision, he may miss the very thing Graham has found so difficult to say.

Hearing What Graham Actually Came to Say

Pastor Torres knows the reasons for his original decision. He may be so prepared to defend them that he begins answering before Graham has finished describing his concern. Yet Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering a matter before hearing it. Knowing why he acted does not mean Pastor Torres already knows everything Graham has come to tell him.

The pastor may remember his intentions clearly while remembering his words less accurately. He may recall the pressure he was under without recognizing how that pressure affected his manner. Graham, for his part, may remember some details inaccurately or interpret them through the pain of losing a ministry role. Neither man’s sincerity settles every question of fact, and neither should be asked to abandon the truth in order to preserve the relationship.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds us that an account can seem complete until another person examines it. Pastor Torres can ask what Graham heard him say, which part of the meeting has stayed with him, and what happened afterward that made him feel unable to approach his pastor. If they remember a detail differently, they can examine it rather than allowing the disagreement to end the conversation.

Those questions are not an admission of sin. They are part of seeking the truth. James 1:19–20 remains a fitting companion passage: the pastor who is called to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger must practice those commands when the subject is his own leadership. Proverbs 18:13 brings the immediate danger into sharper focus. Pastor Torres may have an answer ready for a question Graham has not asked.

He can be right about the original decision and still fail to hear the person sitting in front of him.

A Shepherd Who Can Receive Correction

There is a particular vulnerability in Graham’s position. He has come to the man who corrected him to say that the correction itself may have involved sin. He cannot know whether Pastor Torres will hear that concern as a request for pastoral care or as another challenge to his authority. Graham has already spent six weeks wondering whether he still has a place in his pastor’s affections. He is now taking the risk of telling him why.

Pastor Torres may feel misunderstood or unfairly accused. He may remember how difficult Graham had been during the original conflict and wonder whether this meeting is another attempt to avoid responsibility. Those reactions may be understandable, but they are not reliable guides to the truth. If he allows them to govern the conversation, Graham may find himself defending his right to speak before his pastor has even considered what he said.

David’s prayer in Psalm 141:5 offers a better posture. He asks to receive the righteous person’s rebuke as kindness rather than refuse it. The psalm does not teach that every criticism is righteous. It teaches a willingness to receive correction when correction is deserved. Pastor Torres does not need to decide in advance that Graham is right, but he does need to be willing to discover that Graham may be right about something he has done.

Jonathan Edwards, in Religious Affections, connects Christian humility with a willingness to receive reproof and be taught. Humility is not merely the ability to speak modestly about oneself; it becomes visible in one’s conduct toward other people.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

+1

A pastor may teach about repentance, preach against pride, and sincerely affirm that every Christian needs correction. Yet when someone describes a sin he may have committed, his first instinct may still be to explain why the person is mistaken.

Pastor Torres does not need to set aside his responsibility as Graham’s pastor in order to listen to him. He needs to exercise that responsibility faithfully. A shepherd who calls others to submit to God’s Word must remain willing to submit his own conduct to that same Word.

Hurt Is Not Always Proof of Sin, but It Is Always Worthy of Care

The fact that Graham is hurting does not, by itself, establish that Pastor Torres sinned against him. Necessary correction can be painful. A person may feel rejected when he is held accountable, even when the correction is appropriate and delivered with genuine care. Graham may need help understanding why his conduct required a response and why returning to the worship team is not yet appropriate.

But the absence of pastoral sin would not make Graham’s pain irrelevant. If Graham has misunderstood the pastor, he still needs patient shepherding. If he is struggling to accept necessary correction, he still needs help working through that struggle. If he has been wounded by the pastor’s sinful conduct, he needs the pastor to acknowledge and address that sin. In each circumstance, Pastor Torres has a responsibility to care.

A shepherd does not have to agree with a sheep’s account of what happened before he can begin caring for the sheep.

In Ezekiel 34, the Lord condemns shepherds who attend to themselves while neglecting the flock. The weak are not strengthened, the sick are not healed, and the injured are not bound up. The passage addresses a broader pattern of unfaithful shepherding than Graham’s particular complaint, but it establishes something Pastor Torres must not overlook: the condition of the sheep matters to the Shepherd who owns them.

First Peter 5:2–3 likewise calls elders to shepherd God’s flock willingly and without domineering over those entrusted to them. Graham is not Pastor Torres’s possession. He is a person under his care, and that care does not end because Graham has been difficult, has sinned, or has lost a ministry responsibility.

Pastor Torres may eventually need to help Graham understand why the ministry decision was necessary. But he must not treat Graham’s need for care as an inconvenience that can be dismissed once the decision has been explained. The man who needed correction six weeks ago may also need comfort, patient instruction, and reassurance that his pastor has not abandoned him.

When Explanation Becomes a Defense

As Graham speaks, Pastor Torres remembers details he believes Graham has left out. He wants to explain how much pressure he was under, how many people were affected, and why the meeting had become so difficult. Some of those facts may help them understand what happened. The question is whether Pastor Torres is offering them to clarify the truth or to avoid examining his own conduct.

John Newton warned that a person can defend truth while allowing anger, contempt, or self-righteousness to govern the way he treats another person. Tim Keller later drew on Newton’s counsel when discussing how Christians receive criticism, particularly the temptation to respond to an unfair accusation by despising the critic.

ligonier.org

+1

Graham is not Pastor Torres’s opponent. But if the pastor begins to regard him that way, even sound explanations may become weapons. The facts of Graham’s misconduct can become a way to make the pastor’s own conduct seem unworthy of examination.

If Pastor Torres raised his voice in sinful anger, questioned Graham’s character without sufficient basis, or brought up a past failure to shame him, the difficulty of the original situation may explain the circumstances. It does not excuse the sin. Graham’s conduct may have made the conversation difficult; it did not give Pastor Torres permission to respond sinfully.

Explanation is not exoneration.

Matthew 7:3–5 is especially important here. Jesus does not instruct a person to ignore his brother’s sin. He commands him to address the log in his own eye so that he can see clearly to help his brother. Graham’s sin does not excuse Pastor Torres’s sin, and Pastor Torres’s sin does not excuse Graham’s. Both men are accountable to Christ.

The pastor must neither confess sin he did not commit nor defend sin he did commit. If he made an unwise but nonsinful decision, he may still need to acknowledge its effects and correct it. If he sinned, he needs to confess that sin plainly. Neither response requires him to pretend Graham’s original conduct was acceptable.

Repentance Must Name What Happened

Suppose Pastor Torres begins to recognize that Graham’s account contains truth. He remembers raising his voice. He recalls bringing up an old failure that had already been addressed. He recognizes that he treated Graham’s disagreement as a personal challenge rather than examining it fairly. He may still believe that removing Graham from the worship team was necessary, but he now has sin of his own to confess.

An apology that speaks only about Graham’s feelings would avoid the matter. Graham did not merely come to report that he felt bad. He came to describe conduct he believes was wrong. If Pastor Torres recognizes that he sinned, he should name what he did rather than ask Graham to accept a vague expression of regret.

“Graham, I still believe I needed to remove you from the team. But I was angry when I spoke to you. I brought up a past failure that I had no reason to use against you, and I treated you as though you were no longer worth my time. That was wrong. I sinned against you, and I’m asking you to forgive me.”

Such a confession does not excuse Graham’s conduct or reverse the ministry decision. It identifies what belongs to Pastor Torres. It also allows Graham to hear something he has needed to know: his own wrongdoing did not make him deserving of sinful treatment.

Second Corinthians 7:10–11 distinguishes godly sorrow from sorrow that does not produce repentance. In its context, Paul describes an earnest response to wrongdoing. The passage should not become a checklist by which Graham must immediately judge Pastor Torres’s heart, but its principle matters. Repentance does not consist merely of feeling distressed that a conversation went badly. It takes sin seriously and produces a response consistent with that acknowledgment.

For Pastor Torres, that may mean confessing his sin, seeking forgiveness, correcting what he communicated to others, and accepting the help or accountability needed to change his conduct. Repentance is not made less genuine because Graham needs time to receive it, and Graham should not be required to reassure his pastor before the pastor is willing to do what is right.

An Apology Is a Beginning, Not a Demand for Trust

Graham listens to Pastor Torres’s confession. He is relieved to hear the pastor acknowledge what happened. For the first time in weeks, he feels that his pastor understands at least part of what he has been carrying. But he does not suddenly feel comfortable approaching him again.

For six weeks, Graham has worried that Pastor Torres regards him as a problem to be managed rather than a person to be shepherded. One conversation may begin to change that understanding, but it cannot erase the weeks that preceded it. Graham may forgive his pastor sincerely and still feel anxious when he sees him at church the following Sunday.

Pastor Torres may be tempted to ask whether they can now put the matter behind them. He may want Graham to reassure him that everything is settled, especially if confessing his sin has been difficult. But forgiveness, reconciliation, and restored trust are related without being identical. Graham may forgive Pastor Torres while still needing time, care, and evidence of change before trusting him again.

The pastor must be careful not to turn his own repentance into another demand placed upon Graham. He may ask for forgiveness; he cannot require Graham to restore his confidence on the pastor’s timetable. Nor should Graham be pressured to return immediately to a pastoral relationship that still feels unsafe merely to demonstrate that he has forgiven. Depending on what occurred, care from another elder may be appropriate while the matter is addressed. If the conduct was serious or part of a pattern, additional accountability may be necessary regardless of whether Graham personally forgives Pastor Torres.

Love does not give Pastor Torres control over the outcome of reconciliation. It calls him to be faithful with his own responsibilities while treating Graham with patience and dignity.

Repair May Require More Than a Private Conversation

As the meeting continues, Graham tells Pastor Torres something else. A friend on the worship team asked whether he had been removed because he was unwilling to submit to leadership. Graham does not know what others have been told, but he fears that his reputation has been damaged. He has avoided asking because he does not want to make the situation worse.

Pastor Torres now has to consider whether his conduct caused harm beyond their private meeting. If he misrepresented Graham to others, he needs to correct what he said with appropriate care for confidentiality. If he removed Graham’s responsibilities for legitimate reasons but communicated the decision carelessly, he may need to clarify the facts. If his conduct made Graham afraid to seek pastoral help, he may need to arrange for another elder to care for Graham while trust is being rebuilt.

Repair should correspond to the sin and its consequences. It should not become a public spectacle, nor should it expose Graham to further embarrassment in the name of transparency. But neither should the pastor expect a private apology to repair harm that he caused in a wider circle. Graham should not have to spend months correcting an inaccurate impression that his pastor has the responsibility and ability to address.

There is also an important limit to what Pastor Torres should manage himself. If Graham’s concern involves serious pastoral misconduct, an established pattern, or conduct that requires formal review, the pastor should not control the examination of his own actions. Appropriate elder oversight—and, where warranted, independent involvement—protects the integrity of the process and the people involved.

Pastor Torres is not being asked to surrender his office to Graham’s preferences. He is being called to exercise his office under the authority of Christ, including when that means allowing others to examine his conduct.

The Other Elders Must Shepherd Too

What if Pastor Torres does not listen? Suppose he insists that Graham is refusing to accept correction, treats the complaint as disloyalty, or ends the meeting by warning Graham not to discuss it with anyone else. Graham may leave more distressed than when he arrived, now believing that asking for help will only make matters worse.

In a church governed by a plurality of elders, Graham’s access to pastoral care and a fair hearing should not depend entirely on the pastor whose conduct he is questioning. The other elders share responsibility for the congregation and, within the church’s polity, for appropriate accountability among elders. They must not assume that Graham’s account is correct, but neither should they assume that the pastor’s account is complete simply because he holds office.

Proverbs 18:17 applies to their work as well. A fair process listens to the relevant accounts and tests them rather than accepting whichever account comes from the person with greater authority. The elders should examine the facts carefully, act justly toward Pastor Torres, protect appropriate confidentiality, and ensure that Graham can raise his concern without being punished for doing so.

Their responsibility is not to protect the pastor from the discomfort of correction. It is to seek the truth and shepherd the people under their care, including the pastor when he needs correction. A pastor who has sinned needs brothers who love him enough to tell him the truth, not colleagues who confuse loyalty with silence.

The church belongs to Christ. Its shepherds are accountable to Him for how they care for His people, and their shared responsibility becomes particularly important when one of those shepherds is the subject of a complaint.

The Responsibility Belongs to All of Us

Pastor Torres’s responsibility is particularly weighty because he is a shepherd called to care for God’s people. But the temptation he faces is familiar to all of us. When someone tells us that we have hurt them, we may immediately remember what they did first, why we responded as we did, and how much of the situation they seem to have forgotten. We may become so concerned to establish that we were right about the original problem that we fail to examine whether we sinned in our response.

A parent may have been right to discipline a child but wrong to humiliate him. An employer may have been right to address poor performance but wrong to speak with contempt. A husband or wife may have raised a legitimate concern but used the other person’s failure as permission to speak cruelly. A friend may have needed to confront sin but allowed frustration to turn correction into punishment. In each case, the original issue still matters, and accountability does not disappear because the person delivering it has also sinned. But neither does the original offense excuse our response.

Jesus’ instruction to remove the log from our own eye before addressing the speck in our brother’s eye applies to every one of us (Matthew 7:3–5). Those who hold authority must be especially watchful because their words and decisions can carry consequences that others cannot easily escape. Yet none of us needs an office or title to wound another person, and none of us is exempt from the responsibility to repent when we do.

When someone tells us, “You hurt me,” we do not have to agree immediately with every part of their account. We do have to be willing to hear them, examine ourselves honestly before God, and take responsibility for whatever sin is ours. If we have not sinned, we can still respond with patience and care. If we have sinned, our explanation of what happened must not become a substitute for repentance.

Being right about what someone else did does not make us right in how we treat them.

The Shepherd’s Response Is Part of the Shepherding

Graham has said what he came to say. He has acknowledged his own wrongdoing, described the pain he has carried, and asked his pastor to hear him. He does not know whether their relationship will ever feel the same. He does know that he was afraid to come, and that coming mattered.

Pastor Torres cannot change the conversation that took place six weeks earlier. He cannot undo every consequence of his words, and he cannot make Graham trust him again simply by deciding that the matter should be settled. But he can listen carefully, examine his conduct in the light of Scripture, and distinguish a justified decision from sinful treatment. Where he has sinned, he can confess it without disguising it as a misunderstanding, pursue appropriate repair, and welcome the involvement of other elders where it is needed.

And he can continue caring for Graham even if the relationship takes time to heal.

The question is no longer merely whether Pastor Torres made the right decision about the worship team. It is whether he will shepherd Graham faithfully when Graham tells him that the shepherd himself has caused him pain.

A pastor’s responsibility to care does not end when he believes he was right. When someone tells him, “You hurt me,” he must be willing to hear the truth, repent of his own sin where it occurred, and continue the work of shepherding.

[If the shepherd is not willing to confess the sin, that elevates this to a whole new level. And article!]

---

Five Coaching Questions

1. When someone tells me that I have hurt them, do I first seek to understand what happened, or do I begin explaining why my original decision was justified?
2. Have I ever used another person’s sin, poor judgment, or difficult behavior to excuse sinful words or conduct of my own? What would honest repentance require of me?
3. If I hold authority over someone, have I made it safe for that person to raise a concern about my conduct without fearing retaliation, embarrassment, or the loss of further responsibilities?
4. Where I have sinned against someone, have I named my sin and considered its consequences, or have I expected an apology to restore trust and settle the matter immediately?
5. Who has the freedom to correct me—and, when correction comes, what would it look like for me to receive it as an opportunity to submit more faithfully to Christ?

---

Endnotes

1. Galatians 6:1; Proverbs 18:13, 17; Psalm 141:5; Matthew 7:3–5; James 1:19–20. These passages establish the responsibilities of gentle correction, careful hearing, fair examination, willingness to receive reproof, and self-examination. They do not require a pastor to accept every allegation as true; they require him to examine his own conduct honestly.
2. Ezekiel 34:1–10; 1 Peter 5:2–3. Ezekiel addresses the Lord’s condemnation of unfaithful shepherds who neglect and mistreat the flock. Peter instructs elders to shepherd God’s people without domineering. Their settings differ, but both place the shepherd’s conduct under God’s authority.
3. 2 Corinthians 7:10–11. Paul describes godly sorrow and the earnest response it produces. The passage supports the distinction between regret over a difficult outcome and repentance that addresses actual sin.
4. Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, Part III, on Christian humility. Edwards connects genuine humility with a teachable disposition and a willingness to receive correction. His discussion informs the section on a pastor’s response when his own conduct is questioned. Christian Classics Ethereal Library+1
5. John Newton, “On Controversy,” and Tim Keller’s counsel on receiving criticism. Newton warns against defending truth in a spirit that contradicts it. Keller applies related counsel to the temptation to dismiss criticism because the critic is partly wrong. ligonier.org+1

---