Hi, Collin, and thanks for reading! The first point I want to address is your prediction that “sinful” men can corrupt the system — I wholeheartedly agree! But I think that healthy church structures recognize that even the best of leaders will, at times, act sinfully, and, barring that, still be subject to normal, non-sinful, human limitations that will need to be addressed for both the leader’s benefit and the church’s. So, even if a leader doesn’t have a track record of unrepentant, sinful behavior, they’ll still need to be held accountable from time to time. I think the health of the church is too important for this accountability to come from a leader’s peers — I think it needs to come from a person or group that is independent of that leader. Peers may understandably be more hesitant than higher authorities to address concerns — as I pointed out.

Your second point about trusting that God has placed someone in a higher position can only really be solved, I think, by some form of congregationalism, the understanding that the local church as a whole is tasked with acting as the independent authority over the leaders. Usually this authority is expressed through the election of an elder board that oversees the staff. Even in denominations, archbishops and bishops are often chosen through some type of vote that includes both clergy and laity. And this can, and has, and will be corrupted as well because we’re all sinners!

In terms of your own church, it might be eye-opening to ask if the pastors have job descriptions and requirements and how these requirements are evaluated, how often, and by whom.