"The House of the Lord"

This is Part 1 of a 12-Part Series on Church Hurt

As a general rule of thumb, I don't use AI, but in searching for a good definition of "Church Hurt" (which is a fairly contemporary expression), I thought this AI Overview captured it fairly well:

"the emotional, psychological, and spiritual harm caused by experiences within a church setting, whether intentional or unintentional. This harm can stem from the actions or inactions of church leaders, members, or even from the church's overall culture and practices. It often involves feelings of betrayal, disappointment, or being let down."

While the term "Church Hurt" may be a relatively new one, the problem has existed probably as long as "churches" have. In this series, we're going to explore one of the first documented cases of "church hurt" - the story of Hannah in the Book of 1 Samuel.

In Judeo-Christian history, a place of worship would have initially been referred to as "the tabernacle" or "the sanctuary", later as "the temple", and current day as "the synagogue" or "the church". Our story takes place around 1100 BC/BCE, and at that time, their place of worship would have been called "The Tabernacle"; translated from Hebrew as "The House of the Lord" or the "Temple of the Lord". For the sake of simplicity, in this series, I am typically just going to refer to any place of worship as a "church".

Regardless of what you call it, there is no perfect "church"! ... Just like there is no perfect family, no perfect school, no perfect place of employment, and no perfect political party or government. Why? Because there are no perfect people! So if you are looking for a church that does not have some degree of "drama" or "issues", I guarantee you will not find one!

But unlike the other communities or entities in our list, a church is supposed to be a place where people believe in and follow God, so there is an expectation, especially upon the leadership, that they will be held to a higher standard. Leadership, in any capacity, carries a great deal of responsibility, so there are moral qualities we should be looking for in all of our leaders, but especially in our spiritual leaders. Throughout Scripture, Levites and Nazarites were designated as spiritual leaders, and some of them would have served as priests or rabbis. In the New Testament and/or in the Christian community, those called as spiritual leaders were/are referred to as "priests", "rabbis", "pastors", "ministers", "preachers", "teachers", "deacons", and "elders". So Scripture outlines different requirements for each of them and standards they must meet in order to serve in such a capacity.

There are 3 priests mentioned by name at the beginning of 1 Samuel: Eli, and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Hophni and Phinehas were "scoundrels"; their sins were described as "evil", "wicked", "bad", "harmful". They had "no respect for the Lord or for their duties as priests" (1 Samuel 2:12 NLT). And, unfortunately, that caused Eli to fall into some sin of his own. Not coincidentally, the 3 areas in which these 3 men struggled are the same areas we frequently see churches and church leaders struggling with today, and all are abuses of power in some way, shape, or form.

The first had to do with resources. When the people were bringing their tithes and offerings to the church, Hophni and Phinehas were skimming some off the top for themselves - way beyond what they were entitled to! (1 Samuel 2:13-17) Those who served the Lord were supposed to make their living by serving God, and the people who benefitted from their services were supposed to support them with their resources, so this did not necessarily mean living a life of poverty. The first and best of the people's resources were supposed to be given as an offering to God and those who serve Him; not the leftover scraps! But there were strict rules that priests were to follow as to what they were allowed to take for themselves, and Hophni and Phinehas were abusing their power to take more than what they were entitled to.

The second abuse of power had to do with sex. Eli's sons "seduced" the women who were volunteering at the church! (1 Samuel 2:22 NLT) Unlike today, though, no one was blaming the women (which I'll address in another post)! Regardless of the marital status, age, what they were wearing, or even consent on the part of the women involved, the priests were abusing their position of power and authority in the church to "seduce" the women, and the responsibility rested squarely on their shoulders. They were supposed to be of the highest moral character and integrity, and because of the positions they held, there was no shifting the blame! They would be held to the highest of standards.

The third sin was not on the part of the "scoundrels", Hophni and Phinehas. The third sin fell on the shoulders of the "good guy", their father, Eli. And it was nothing Eli did, but rather, what he failed to do. There is a tendency among church leadership to overlook certain offenses - even grievous ones - especially when they are committed by certain people, particularly fellow leaders within the church. Eli failed to hold his sons accountable, and in God's eyes, failing to hold other spiritual leaders accountable - especially when there were clearly some "red flags" - amounted to compliance ... and God wasn't about to overlook it. He sent several prophets to warn Eli that he had better address these issues, but Eli didn't have the courage to follow through with any real consequences for his sons, and he allowed them to continue in their roles as priests, enabling their grievous behavior to continue. (1 Samuel 3:13)

There are many parallels between this Biblical scandal and the church scandals that we frequently either experience firsthand or read about in the news today. And just like in this situation, there is a tendency within the church to overlook these things - especially when the people involved are deeply beloved church "family" or when you have a very charismatic leader who is bringing in plenty of people and money.

Regardless of whether or not these church leaders were ever held accountable by fellow human beings, they were definitely going to be held accountable by God. He imposed severe supernatural consequences for all 3 of these men, and He did so in such a way that it would send a very clear message to everyone that He was behind it; that the supernatural consequences were not just a "coincidence". (1 Samuel 2:30-36)(1 Samuel 4:12-22)

When we think of "church hurt", these are typically the first types of issues that come to mind, but they really represent a very small minority of churches and leaders. The vast majority take their roles very seriously, and are typically doing their very best to serve God in the best way they know how. As I said at the beginning, though, there are no perfect churches and no perfect leaders ... because there are no perfect people. Frequently, the most common types of "church hurt" are typically far more subtle and very unintentional. As we can see from the life of Eli, you can believe in Him, love Him, serve Him, and even preach and teach about Him, and still publicly or privately, intentionally or unintentionally, subtlely or not so subtlely, disrespect Him.

© I Lift My Voice, 2025

---

FOOTNOTE: The situation described in this post involves sexual (and/or spiritual) abuse with adult women; it goes without saying that this situation (and God's perspective on it) would apply to adult men who are victimized as well. And God puts offenses against children, who are particularly naive and vulnerable and subject to the authority figures in their lives, in a completely different category of sin! (Matthew 18:1-6)

Click Here to Read Part 2 in This 12-Part Series on Church Hurt