Anointing Is Not Immunity

Nearly three and a half years have passed since the March 2023 disclosure concerning former overseer Dean Bruer became the catalyst that brought decades of alleged child sexual abuse and institutional concealment within the 2×2 Church into public view. 

Since then, survivors and advocates have written letters, documented accounts, organized meetings, contacted authorities, proposed safeguards, and repeatedly appealed to overseers for truth, accountability, and meaningful change. 

The resulting allegations became extensive enough to prompt an ongoing FBI investigation. Yet awareness, public statements, training, and scattered policy changes are not the same as transformation. There has still been no collective, transparent, independently verifiable accounting from 2×2 overseers of who knew what, when they knew it, how reports were handled, and what consequences followed. In fact, the Associated Press reported that some overseers declined recommended child-protection policies and that members continued to be warned against criticizing the fellowship.

ABC7 later reported that ministry leaders questioned whether the FBI investigation was even necessary. Meanwhile, advocates asking legitimate questions have too often been accused of bearing false witness, creating division, attacking the ministry, or “disrespecting God’s anointed.” 

This does not resemble biblical repentance. It reverses responsibility—placing scrutiny on those exposing harm instead of on those entrusted with preventing it. True transformation requires more than condemning abuse in general; it requires confessing specific failures, submitting to independent accountability, repairing harm, and producing visible fruit worthy of repentance.

Within the 2×2 fellowship, people asking difficult questions about child sexual abuse, institutional failures, and leadership decisions have sometimes been warned not to criticize or “touch” those regarded as God’s servants. The message may be stated in different ways, but its effect is often the same: overseers and workers are treated as though their spiritual position places them beyond meaningful scrutiny by the people affected by their decisions.

That claim deserves to be tested by Scripture.

Does the Bible teach that a leader who is “anointed” cannot be questioned, investigated, corrected, reported to civil authorities, or removed from responsibility? Does respect for ministry require silence when children have been harmed or when leaders may have failed to respond appropriately?

The biblical answer is no.

Scripture does not create a protected class of religious leaders who are answerable only to themselves. It repeatedly confronts kings, prophets, priests, apostles, elders, and shepherds. The greater the spiritual responsibility, the greater the duty to protect the vulnerable, tell the truth, welcome examination, and give an account.

Editorial note: Bridging the GAP on CSA distinguishes among allegations, witness or survivor reports, documented facts, and legal findings. This article addresses the theological claim that spiritual authority creates immunity from accountability. It does not determine the criminal guilt of any individual.

What “Touch Not Mine Anointed” Actually Means

The familiar phrase appears in Psalm 105:14–15 and 1 Chronicles 16:21–22:

“He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.”

Read in context, Psalm 105 is recounting God’s protection of the patriarchs while they were few in number, wandering among nations and vulnerable before powerful kings. “Mine anointed” is plural. The passage is about God preventing powerful rulers from harming the people He was protecting. It is not a command forbidding believers from examining the conduct of religious leaders.

The story of David and Saul is also frequently invoked. David refused to kill Saul and seize the throne because Saul was “the LORD’S anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6; 26:9–11). Yet David did not remain silent about Saul’s conduct. He confronted Saul, described the injustice, defended his own innocence, and appealed for judgment between them (1 Samuel 24:9–15; 26:18–20).

David’s refusal to murder Saul cannot reasonably be transformed into a rule that says, “Never question spiritual leadership.” Refusing violence and requiring accountability are not opposites.

“I will not kill the Lord’s anointed” does not mean “You may not question an overseer.”

Believers Are Told to Test—Not Blindly Trust

The New Testament does not describe Christians as passive followers who must accept every claim made by a spiritual leader.

The Bereans were called noble because they received Paul’s message willingly and then searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether what he taught was true (Acts 17:11). Paul instructed believers, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). John similarly warned Christians not to believe every spirit, but to test them (1 John 4:1).

Even Hebrews 13:17, a passage often used to emphasize obedience to leaders, says those leaders “watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” Biblical leadership is therefore never self-authenticating or self-exempting. Leaders remain accountable to God, to Scripture, to the people entrusted to their care, and—when laws may have been broken—to the proper civil authorities.

Respect does not require unquestioning compliance. Discernment is not rebellion. Asking whether leaders have acted truthfully, lawfully, and in the best interests of children is not an attack upon God.

God Confronted His Anointed King

David was unquestionably God’s anointed king. Yet after his wrongdoing involving Bathsheba and Uriah, God did not send Nathan to protect David’s reputation or preserve public confidence in the monarchy.

God sent Nathan to confront him.

“Thou art the man.” —2 Samuel 12:7

Nathan did not suggest that exposing David’s actions would “bring reproach” upon God’s kingdom. He brought the wrongdoing into the light and named it plainly.

David’s response is equally instructive:

“I have sinned against the LORD.” —2 Samuel 12:13

David did not invoke his office, attack Nathan’s motives, or claim that only God could judge him. He confessed. Although he was forgiven, consequences remained. This is a biblical picture of authority meeting accountability with repentance rather than defensiveness.

Throughout Scripture, Samuel confronted Saul. Elijah confronted Ahab. The prophets confronted kings, priests, and shepherds. Jesus openly rebuked religious leaders whose hypocrisy and misuse of authority burdened others (Matthew 23).

If confronting leaders were inherently an attack upon God’s authority, much of the prophetic witness of Scripture would disappear.

The New Testament Requires Accountability for Elders

Paul’s instructions concerning elders provide both protection from reckless accusations and a process for addressing established wrongdoing:

“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” —1 Timothy 5:19–20

The balance matters. Leaders should not be condemned by rumor, malice, or unsupported allegations. Fairness and evidence matter.

But the passage does not end with protection for the elder. When wrongdoing is established, Scripture does not say to conceal it so people will not lose faith in the ministry. It says that sinning elders are to be rebuked “before all.” Whatever one’s interpretation of the precise audience in that phrase, the passage cannot honestly be used to support secrecy or immunity.

James adds a sober warning:

“My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” —James 3:1

In modern language, teachers will be judged more strictly. Spiritual authority raises the standard; it does not lower it.

Even Peter Was Not Untouchable

Peter walked with Jesus, witnessed the resurrection, and became one of the most influential leaders of the early church. Yet when Peter’s behavior compromised the truth of the gospel and harmed others, Paul wrote:

“I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” —Galatians 2:11

Peter’s apostleship did not make him immune from direct and public correction.

That leaves a question every Christian fellowship must answer:

If Peter could be confronted when his conduct was wrong, what biblical argument makes a modern worker or overseer untouchable?

There is none.

God Holds Shepherds Responsible for the Sheep

Ezekiel 34 is a sobering passage for anyone entrusted with spiritual care. God condemns Israel’s shepherds because they cared for themselves while neglecting the vulnerable:

“Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?” —Ezekiel 34:2

He continues:

“The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken…” —Ezekiel 34:4

Then God declares:

“Behold, I am against the shepherds.” —Ezekiel 34:10

God did not say, “They are My shepherds, so no one may question them.” He held the shepherds accountable for what happened to the sheep.

Whenever protecting a leader’s position or the ministry’s reputation becomes more important than protecting wounded people, the priorities of Scripture have been reversed. The shepherd becomes the person everyone is asked to protect, while the wounded sheep are expected to carry the cost of that protection.

That is not Christlike shepherding.

Children Must Come Before Institutional Reputation

Jesus used startlingly strong language concerning harm to “little ones”:

“Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck…” —Matthew 18:6

Interpreters may discuss the full scope of “little ones” in this passage, but no faithful reading permits indifference toward the sexual abuse of children. Jesus consistently moved toward the wounded, the powerless, and those whose voices were easily dismissed.

When credible concerns about child sexual abuse arise, the first question must not be, “How do we protect the ministry?” It must be, “How do we protect the child?”

After harm has occurred, faithful questions include:

• How do we care for survivors without pressuring them into silence or premature forgiveness?
• How do we protect other children from possible harm?
• How do we preserve evidence and cooperate with qualified investigators?
• How do we report suspected crimes to the appropriate authorities in accordance with the law?
• How do we examine the leadership decisions and systems that may have allowed danger to continue?

 

An internal church conversation is not a substitute for a lawful investigation. Reporting laws vary by jurisdiction, including the circumstances in which clergy are mandatory reporters. Spiritual titles do not place anyone outside those laws.

Bringing Darkness Into the Light Is Not Persecution

Ephesians 5:11 says:

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

People seeking accountability are sometimes characterized as attacking the church, creating division, acting from bitterness, or bringing reproach upon God’s people. But speaking truthfully about wrongdoing did not create the wrongdoing.

Reporting abuse did not create the abuse.

Survivors telling their stories did not create the crisis.

Those asking difficult questions did not create the need for accountability.

The harmful actions—and any failures to respond honestly and protectively—created the crisis. Bringing them into the light makes visible what was already there.

Biblical unity is not maintained by keeping darkness hidden. Proverbs 28:13 says:

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.”

The biblical movement is confession, forsaking, and mercy—not concealment, enforced silence, demanded forgiveness, and continued authority without accountability.

Silence Can Deepen the Harm

Scripture should carry the central argument, but trauma science helps explain why demands for silence can be so damaging.

Trauma—especially interpersonal trauma involving trusted people or authority figures—can leave a person’s threat-detection systems on high alert. Reminders of the original harm may trigger fear, anger, avoidance, shame, physical distress, or difficulty calming down even when the immediate danger has passed. Complex childhood trauma can also disrupt emotion regulation, trust, relationships, attention, and a developing sense of self.

Now add messages such as:

“Do not talk about it.”
“Forgive and move on.”
“Do not bring reproach.”
“Do not criticize God’s servants.”

For a survivor, the nervous system may receive a second message beneath those words:

Your experience is not safe to name.
Telling the truth could cost you belonging.
You must protect the group that did not protect you.

That conflict can intensify isolation and distress. Trauma-informed care emphasizes the opposite conditions: safety, trust, transparency, supportive relationships, collaboration, choice, and empowerment. Truthful acknowledgment does not erase trauma, but it can remove the added burden of denial and institutional betrayal.

This is not about reducing survivors to brain responses. It is about recognizing that many reactions once labeled as weakness, bitterness, or a lack of faith are actually understandable responses to overwhelming harm and continuing threat.

Accountability Is Not Condemnation

There is a profound difference between accountability and condemnation.

Condemnation says, “You are irredeemable.”

Accountability says, “What happened must be acknowledged. Those who were harmed matter. Responsibility must be accepted. Appropriate consequences must follow. Meaningful safeguards must be established.”

Christian accountability leaves room for redemption, but redemption does not require pretending that harm never occurred.

Grace does not require secrecy.

Forgiveness does not erase consequences.

Reconciliation cannot be demanded from survivors, and it cannot be manufactured without truth, safety, repentance, and change.

Nor does “God will judge them” end the conversation. Scripture presents divine accountability and human accountability together. Elders may be corrected, leaders may be removed, suspected crimes may be investigated by civil authorities, and communities may establish safeguards—all while ultimate judgment remains with God.

Repentance Must Bear Fruit

John the Baptist said:

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” —Matthew 3:8

Repentance produces evidence. Zacchaeus demonstrated this in Luke 19: his encounter with Christ changed how he dealt with the people he had harmed and led him toward restitution.

In a leadership context, the fruit of repentance should be visible in questions such as these:

• Has the complete truth been told?
• Have survivors been heard, their accounts documented and fairly investigated, and been treated with dignity?
• Have dangerous individuals been removed from access to children and vulnerable people?
• Have reports been made and records preserved as required by law?
• Have leaders cooperated fully with legitimate civil investigations?
• Have independent safeguarding professionals been given meaningful authority?
• Have apologies named specific failures without qualification, blame-shifting, or self-protection?
• Have responsible individuals accepted appropriate consequences?
• Has restitution or practical repair been attempted wherever possible?
• Can the community independently verify that meaningful safeguards now exist?

 

“We are sorry this happened” is not the same as:

“We sinned. We failed to protect you. Here is what we did and failed to do. Here is what we are doing now. Here is how independent people can verify it. And here is how you can hold us accountable.”

The Question Every Overseer Should Answer

If Nathan could confront David…

If Samuel could confront Saul…

If the prophets could confront Israel’s shepherds…

If Jesus could publicly confront religious leaders…

If Paul could confront Peter…

And if Timothy was instructed to address the sins of elders…

Where does Scripture teach that today’s overseers are exempt from accountability?

Not tradition.

Not hierarchy.

Not fear of bringing reproach.

Not “this is how we have always handled things.”

Not a claim to special spiritual status.

Where does Scripture teach it?

“Touch not mine anointed” cannot honestly be transformed into “Question not mine overseers.”

A Call Back to Biblical Leadership

The question is not whether leaders deserve hatred or whether anyone is beyond God’s power to redeem. The question is whether the church will follow the biblical pattern when serious harm and leadership failures are brought to light.

Seeking truth is not bitterness.

Supporting survivors is not an attack on Christ.

Reporting suspected abuse is not an attack on the church.

Requiring leaders to answer difficult questions is not rebellion.

Holding spiritual leaders accountable is not “touching God’s anointed.”

Sometimes the most faithful thing God’s people can do is stand in the light and say:

This happened.
It was wrong.
People were harmed.
The truth matters.
The wounded matter.
The children matter.
Repentance must bear fruit.

The goal of accountability should not be revenge. It should be truth, protection, repentance, justice, healing, and transformation.

That is not an attack on the church.

It is a call for the church to become what Christ intended it to be.

Trauma and Reporting Resources

• National Child Traumatic Stress Network, “Effects of Complex Trauma”: https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-types/complex-trauma/effects
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Trauma-Informed Approaches and Programs”: https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/trauma-violence/trauma-informed-approaches-programs
• Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect”: https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/clergy-mandatory-reporters-child-abuse-and-neglect/

 

If a child is in immediate danger, contact emergency services. To report suspected child abuse in the United States, contact the appropriate state or local child-protection or law-enforcement agency. Reporting requirements and procedures vary by jurisdiction.