Monthly Archives: August 2018

Liberty U: Slaves to Image [& $]

Posted on by
2

A friend of mine who suffered under abusive leadership recently said, “I have come to believe that it all comes down to money.”

It is said of Commissario Guido Brunetti,

He had also learned, during the years he had practised this profession of his, that the important trail to follow was the one left by money.1

Awfully cynical don’t you think?

Unfortunately, there is little doubt that many organizations, businesses, and churches have become toxic because of just that: money. 

The God Who created the universe and sent His Son to redeem it from the brokenness of sin talks a lot about money in His revelation to men and women. He would encourage us to get our sights off money!

The writer of Ecclesiastes had much wisdom. He said, “He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity.”

In the West we have largely bought into an economic view that idolizes anyone or anything that builds wealth. We believe that human development and flourishing is mostly about economics.

In fact, a little known law to most Americans states that a stockholder may sue the CEO of a corporation if he makes a decision that is not the most beneficial financially to the stockholder. Not community. Not employee. Not environment.

However, scripturally we are warned not to pursue wealth. Men and women have a real bent (sinful tendency) towards reliance on the creation (including money and things) rather than God Himself. He takes great pains to bring us to dependency on Him.

What is Our Purpose?

God created, sustains, and will bring to fruition. He wants us dependent on Him, not driven to gain wealth.

The Fall of Man (and woman) in the Garden of Eden did not change His purpose. God still creates, sustains, and promises to bring to fruition His good and holy will. This is our starting point. This needs to be at the forefront of our passions and actions.

We must ask ourselves if our passion is in serving God’s redemptive plan for this world or gaining wealth. There is a very distinct difference in motive and it will completely change the way a Christian organization or church operates.

If money is the goal, motivator, or assessment tool in our ministry and work, our ministry may be toxic.

You probably understand what I mean by “goal” and “motivator,” but be curious what I mean by “assessment.” Often we “assess” our ministry by our donor base. We may determine the validity or effectiveness of ministry by where people put their money. That can be through a donor list or tithing in the church.

Solution Through Marketing

Therefore, when the funding begins to slip the leader’s first reaction is to look for a marketing-type fix. He does not necessarily ask himself if the ministry is doing what God wants it to do, but asks what he can do to get those funds pouring in once again.

Using money for assessment often creates ministries that are image-driven rather than service-driven.

One particular example is Liberty University’s journalism debacle. As reported by World Magazine, Liberty is so caught up in their image they have gone to new lows to rid their campus of honest people. As Bruce Kirk, Dean of the School of Communication said to the school newspaper staff, “Your job is to keep the LU reputation and the image as it is.”

I must have missed something? I always thought an organization’s reputation and image should be built on truth-telling and how it serves people, not asking its stakeholders to coverup the ministry’s failures. Apparently, Jerry Falwell Jr. and I have differing views. It begins to smell a lot like a donor base to me as I read about the firing of student journalists.

Consider the ministries that have been propped up by leaders who were destructive, but to the media world were stars: Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, Jim Baker. The assessment of their ministries were in part conducted by the finance department. People flocked to them. People opened their checkbooks.

Therefore, the ministry leaders figured they must be blessed by God. And the rush was on to keep that image alive…to keep those finances flowing.

But, money is not fundamental to ministry.

Money is God’s Job

Continually, the pages of scripture tell us to get our sights off money as motivation, purpose, or goal. And get our sights on God’s provision.

Jesus was speaking to the crowds and challenging them with difficult sayings. He challenged his hearers to turn to the Lord rather than their own abilities. In Matthew 6:31-34 he says,

“Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

Wow! When taken in juxtaposition with other passages that command a good work ethic [Proverbs 12:14, Ephesians 4:28] it becomes apparent that men and women are called to work, as a part of seeking the kingdom of God. But, ultimately, they are to trust that God will provide for their economic needs. 

We need not worry about our ministry’s image…we need to trust in the Lord and do the job He has called us to do.

So What is Work For?

This article is not intended to provide a complete treatment on this subject. There is too much to say in answering this question.

However, I would suggest the big-picture-purpose of work is to make something of this earth. God gave man work when he was perfect…man was called to cultivate and tend the garden [Genesis 2:15]. As men and women were fruitful and multiplied they were to spread throughout the earth cultivating and tending. Work was not a result of sin but a good gift from God.

With the advent of sin, work became difficult [Genesis 3:16-19]. We were driven to depend on the Lord. It also became a means of reversing the curse the earth faced from the effects of the fall. The broken things (from sin) can to some degree be repaired. Weeds can be pulled. Wheelchairs can be created along with medications and prosthetics. And beautiful things can be made…buildings, art, music, patio furniture.

But, work is still good and has God’s original purpose. He did not withdraw that purpose.

Primarily, Work Provides for the Needs of People

This may sound antithetical to my comment that Money is God’s Job, but there is a distinction I want to make. Work provides for other people. My needs are secondary.

I serve others as I work. If my work has no purpose in cultivating and tending the needs of others, my work is likely all about me. Though my work provides income for my family, I must remember that it is God who is ultimately providing both the work and the income.

Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. [Deuteronomy 8:17-18 (ESV)]

God does not just provide the money, but the job for making the money, and the ability to have a job. 

When an organization or church moves away from this goal and focuses on its own needs primarily, it is slouching towards Gomorra. It will do all it can to build itself up…marketing, self-preservation, and image become the focus of the ministry.

Rather, it must keep its sights on the stakeholders the ministry serves and truly seek their good…

Not the ministry’s checkbook.

 

Notes

  1. Leon, Donna. Quietly in Their Sleep (Commissario Brunetti Book 6) (p. 30). (Function). Kindle Edition. ↩︎

Willow Creek: Loyalty & the Oppressed

Posted on by
1

Mark Galli, Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, wrote a piece entitled “The Healing of Willow Creek: Misguided loyalty harmed this historic congregation. True loyalty can redeem it.”

I appreciate his work to present God’s grace and a middle-ground step forward. However, I would make two suggestions: Evil needs to be called Evil and Abuse needs to be better understood by those writing about the Willow Creek disaster.

Evil Needs to be Called Evil

There is a distinction between the Elders of Willow Creek and Bill Hybels. There is a biblical difference in how the body of Christ treats unrepentant destructive leaders and those who are complicit, but repentant. As noted in another article, the Elders have repented (to the best of our knowledge of what repentance looks like). Hybels on the other hand has seemed to refuse to take real responsibility.

Galli’s article gives good advice to the church as he encourages Willow Creek members to be of help:

Who will be approaching any who have erred and sinned and have wreaked havoc? Is there anyone offering them prayer and support, inviting them out for coffee and conversation, being willing to listen to their story—all the while prodding them to deeper repentance and righteousness?

I would suggest this advice should be taken in response to the repentance by the Elders. The evil that Bill Hybels has perpetrated must be called out and approached as Paul and John did in the early church. As a leader in the church, he must not be coddled. He must understand that he has done great evil and wrought destruction in the Name of Christ. You are the man! as Nathaniel calls out King David after his horrific sins of adultery and murder [2 Samuel 12:11].

As unrepentant (after multiple confrontations) he is to be treated as an unbeliever:

Matthew 18:17 (ESV) If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

This does not mean he is an unbeliever, it simply challenges the church to proclaim the Gospel to him as if he is not. Jesus tells the church his lack of repentance points to his condemnation.

Evil must be called evil. And this was a great evil he committed.

Do You Understand Abuse?

When people make public statements about such devastation as the Willow Creek affair, and do not understand abuse, they often fall unwittingly into the hands of evil men.

Galli uses an unfortunate word in seeking to encourage the women abused by Hybels. He says they had “apparently been bullied or sexually harassed.” Apparently needs to be stripped from his article. Doubt as to the veracity of their claims needs to be stripped from the article. The trauma these women have faced cannot be minimized by suggesting for a moment they are lying.

To those who have studied and experienced abuse firsthand, there is no apparently about their claims. Though we are a society that holds to “innocent until proven guilty,” as we should, abuse can be more often than not unprovable. Rarely is there physical evidence unless it is physical abuse. [Abuse Myths 101]

Psychologists who have lived and breathed abuse will tell you an abuser knows exactly what he is doing and can easily leave no trace. The stories these women have told of Hybel’s manipulation are indicative of an abuser’s ability to leave no trace. 

However, to those who know the signs, language, and responses of abusers, it is not particularly difficult (though not to perfection) to know when abuse has happened. This is one of those times.

Recently, there have been several news stories of abusers killing their spouses. One pilot flew his company’s plane into his house in the middle of the night (while his wife and children were in the house). Another man murdered his wife and children after she returned from six weeks with her family.

In both cases, it was apparent the news reporters, neighbors, and law enforcement did not understand abuse.

One was at a loss as to why a reported abuser would fly his plane into his house?

Payson police Sgt. Noemi Sandoval said Monday that investigators believe Youd hit his house intentionally. From CBS News

Believe Youd hit his house intentionally? Sandoval just could not come out and say, “Youd’s motive was to kill his family by flying into his house.” How does someone miss power lines and fly a plane directly into their house unintentionally? Of course he intentionally hit his house!

And what could possibly be the motive of a man killing his wife after she had been away with family for six weeks?

I don’t know why he would want to kill her, the wife and the two kids,” said Joe Beach, a neighbor of the family in Aberdeen. “Like I said, the two kids were nice kids. I don’t know. To me, it’s a senseless murder, and she was looking forward to that third child. Because she was pregnant with a boy.  From ABC TV

“Why would he want to kill her?” The question almost suggests she must have done something to make him mad. Why was she away for six weeks with family? It is common for women to escape to family for long periods as they wrestle with leaving their abusers.

If you understand abuse, there are zero surprises in these accounts of violence.

Nor are there surprises in accounts of leadership abuse. Abusers are evil, manipulative, and clever. Their targets hide in shame, fear speaking up, act crazy at times (in their fear and shame), and they need our help.

Our Loyalty to the Oppressed

We need to stand unswervingly behind the survivors of these senseless acts of violence (whether in the form of emotional, physical, or spiritual abuse). God does not stand behind the unrepentant oppressor.

Ultimately, as Galli says, our loyalty is to Christ. And just so you know, Jesus’ loyalty is to the oppressed, not the unrepentant oppressor. We must stand with Him and that means standing loyally with those women.

See Abuse Myths so you are better equipped to interpret abusive events.

Witness: Calling the Church to Exposure

Posted on by
1

It seems that the body of Christ thinks our witness to a watching world must involve covering up our sin. Multiple scandals (including Willow Creek) would appear to prove my point.

We think that the exposure of toxic Christian leaders is a stain on our Christian witness. We think that, since we preach transformation of lives by the work of the Holy Spirit, we hurt the name of Christ when we expose our hypocrisy publicly.

Calling the Church to Exposure

I would like to call the church to exposure. Because that is actually our greatest witness of Christ’s love. You might call it truth in advertising.

I recently read an article that had many good things to say about the failure of leadership in the church. One of the recommendations made by the author was that the church refrain from airing out its dirty laundry (the sin of our leaders) on social media. The author’s focus was on the gracious handling of a brother in sin.

Normally I would agree with the author. Matthew 18 is a clear step-by-step action plan for confronting the brother who has sinned against you. It does not include publicizing the failure of a leader in the church to the general populace. In all three steps there is a limit as to the exposure the offender faces thereby protecting the sinner’s privacy, limiting his embarrassment, and ultimately limiting his defensiveness to hearing criticism. The process is intended to bring him to repentance.

However, Matthew 18 does not necessarily cover the complications of boss-subordinate relationships particularly when there is an abuser in the mix.

  • When a leader, who has the power to fire and effect your future job possibilities has sinned against you and has proven themselves to be toxic and abusive, it may be necessary to take a different approach.
  • And though it provides general direction, it does not speak specifically to a leader in the church. As one commentator argues, it is directed at two brothers (sisters) who are on “equal footing.”

I think the most important question is how does the church seek justice and the safety of those under the thumb of a toxic leader in the church or parachurch organization? 

In a recent firing of a pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, one of the pastor’s accusers (Jen Willems) went public with her criticisms when the church gave very limited information (and very slowly) to the public about the sexual predator.

Is it necessary at times for the church to be more public in our condemnation of a toxic Christian leader? Was Willems right? And can that exposure in itself be a witness to Christ’s kingdom?

I would agree with Willems (that it should be made public), but would like to suggest some principles for the airing out our dirty laundry to the watching world:

  • The Gospel is Our Starting, Middle & End: The Good News of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for the sins of the world must be the driving force behind every conflict resolution.

It is necessary that we recognize our sin had to be paid for by Christ. We are all failures in following Christ every day of our lives. That is why Jesus came. It was not to pay for our sins, then leave us to clean up our lives. Though He is continually transforming us into His likeness (making us more holy), we will not be holy until He comes again and completely transforms us.

The Gospel must affect how we think of ourselves (we are not self-righteousness), how we think of others (they will fail like we do), and therefore how we approach others (in humility).

And for the world to understand this Gospel, they must understand that Jesus Christ saves from sin, not our self-righteousness. The church, while humbly airing out its dirty laundry, is simply pointing to Christ saying, we are failures and will continue to fail. We are not holier than thou…this is why Jesus came. There is forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

When we hide that sin from the world, we are not giving Christ a good name but suggesting that we are saved by our holy deeds.

We do not share the failure of our leaders, despicable as they may be, without the caveat that we are righteous only because of Christ’s imputation, not our own sanctified living.

  • God calls leaders to accountability: Leaders, when confronted, have two choices – humble themselves and seek forgiveness from those against whom they have sinned or face the biblical consequences.

It might surprise many Christians to know that grace can be embodied in consequence. We often believe grace means overlooking (ignoring) the sin of a brother. Some elder or organization boards believe that “covering the sin” of their leader is the “gracious” or “loving” thing to do.

However, when it comes to leaders in the church (and Christian organizations), they are to be held accountable for their rejection of the pearls of the Gospel according to scripture. And whatever scripture instructs God’s people is loving.

Paul gives instruction to Timothy that elders – leaders in the church – are to be publicly confronted when they reject the counsel of their brothers.

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.  

[1 Timothy 5:19-20 (ESV)]

This, to some, may seem ungracious. However, note that others will recognize the importance of leaders taking responsibility for their sin. So, not only is it challenging the leader, but others are being scared straight. I would add, it also gives vindication to the targets of their sinful behavior.

The Apostle John weighs in on leaders in his little letter to his “beloved Gaius.” He says,

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.

[3 John 1:9-10 (ESV)]

Diotrephes was surely a toxic leader…acting like a dictator and wounding the church. He was most likely hurting the witness of the church to the watching world. John makes clear to the church that the church is not to put up with such a one. And he outed Diotrephes to readers in many churches in the first century and in society for centuries to come.

Notice how Paul calls Peter out publicly. The Apostle Peter (Cephas) was being unduly influenced by his fear of what his fellow Jews would think when he was eating with Gentiles. In that Jewish culture, they were expected to stay away from Gentiles.

But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

[Galatians 2:11-14 (ESV)]

Paul saw the horrible witness to the Gospel Peter was being and it says he called him out in front of everyone. Peter was being a hypocrite and Paul made clear to all that was not acceptable.

Again, this may seem harsh and we may be tempted to explain it away somehow, but there is an important principle: The effect leaders have on their flock and the watching world calls for greater accountability than for the average congregant member. 

  • Calling out Leaders is a Witness to the Unbelieving World: Our witness to the world involves admitting and expressing sorrow for our hypocrisy.

It is interesting that the world seems to give greater leeway to leaders and the church, in general, does as well. Why else would the Roman Catholic Church leadership continue to hide and simply transfer their pedophile clergy? Why have numerous Protestant church leaders, like Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Church), been protected by other leaders?

But, one of the most devastating charges the unbelieving world levels against the church is that we consider ourselves “holier than thou.” They see the church covering up sin and attribute it to hypocrisy…and that is exactly what it is.

Though we may enjoy saying the church is full of hypocrites in a general way, we often become very defensive when we are challenged for specific hypocrisies. 

Rather than showing the world we cannot admit wrongs and disguise it as giving grace to the sinner, why are we not rather being the first to admit the wrongs done in Jesus’ name? Why must our leaders get caught first and plastered on the front pages of newspapers and Facebook? Why are we not bringing them to account publicly like Paul and John did?

Boz Tchividjian, a former sex crimes prosecutor who leads GRACE, an organization that works with victims of abuse in Christian institutions, was quoted in the NY Times on Sunday, “So many victims within the evangelical world stay silent because they feel, if they step forward, they’ll damage this man’s ministry, and God won’t be able to accomplish the things he’s doing through this man.”1

It has taken four years for Bill Hybels to be called out. Meanwhile, his targets have been suffering shame and fear. So often it takes the secular news to air it out, giving even more credence to the unbelieving world’s view that Christians are just a fraud. Instead of admitting their sinfulness, for which Jesus died, they are more interested in covering it up.

  • If you are a leader, you must be shaking in your boots by now: Who can stand up to this kind of scrutiny?

Each of the confrontations we have seen in the passages above have been a bit different. And the circumstances are a bit different as well.

Paul, in 1st Timothy 5, tells the church to publicly confront elders who fail. But, that happens only after the elder refuses to admit wrong. This elder has likely been confronted more than once and given the chance to repent and seek forgiveness, but has refused. It is time to bring an end to his influence in the church and the hurt he is causing.

John, in 3rd John, tells the church to get rid of a leader. But, again his transgressions are many including rejecting the authority of the Apostles which involves rejecting the Word of God. His actions are hurtful to other people and he is not taking responsibility for those actions. It is time to bring an end to his “nonsense” and save others from his meanness.

Paul, in Galatians 2, calls out Peter publicly. Peter’s sin was having a very evident impact on the new Jewish believers, Barnabas, and the Gentile believers. Paul confronts him immediately that it might be clear it was not acceptable behavior. Peter is hurting the witness of Christ at that moment, and it needs to stop.

Remember the Gospel

Leadership is not a walk in the park and should not be taken on lightly. But, this article is not calling on the church to publicly denounce every sinful action a leader takes. Circumstances and the leader’s response to confrontation determines when and how public a leader’s sin is made.

Grace brings accountability – it protects others from a leader’s sin – but, it also provides forgiveness and healing. A leader who genuinely seeks repentance and forgiveness should not live in fear of those who would make his sin public (unless of course, they have broken the laws of the state).

But, leader’s unrepentant sin should not be covered up. It should be exposed. And the leaders who coverup, beware.

NOTES:

  1. Laurie Goodstein, “He’s a Superstar Pastor. She Worked for Him and Says He Groped Her Repeatedly.,” The New York Times, August 5, 2018, sec. U.S., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/bill-hybels-willow-creek-pat-baranowski.html.

Creating a Compliant Mega Church: Mark’s Story of Abusive Pastoral Leadership

Posted on by
2

Mark was a church planter, establishing an off-site satellite campus. He was hired by a large, multi-campus ministry to resurrect a church with less than twenty members, all in their elderly years.

When interviewed for the job by the senior pastor and the offsite coordinator, he was told he would be starting to lead services that same week. He described the Senior Pastor as autocratic.

They started with approximately 200 in the service that week, including members of the main campus with whom Mark and his wife were friends. Beginning in the second week of worship, the numbers settled around 50 per week for a few months.

One week before Thanksgiving, after their first year of ministry, Mark was invited to a meeting with the Chief Operating Officer (COO). He told Mark he was fired, though they wanted him to stay on until they found someone to replace him. And he was not to tell anyone he was leaving.

Mark described the COO as breathing heavily and tearing up as he told Mark he was fired.

There are a few things that make Mark’s story all the more discouraging:

  • Within the first year of ministry, extensive follow-up plans for visitors had been implemented. Mark was seeing fruit come from their attention to welcoming new people.
  • There were multiple baptisms, new professions of faith, and new members during the year.
  • A Small Group Bible study was developed on Sunday morning.
  • A Worship Leader was hired.
  • The church had grown to nearly 100 in average attendance.
  • A summer VBS reached 90 children that summer.

Yet, Mark had received no communication from his boss for nearly six months prior to being fired.

Mark was never told why he was fired. Incredibly, he stayed on with the church for nearly six months until he was offered a position with a major international mission. At that time, the COO told him, “We didn’t expect you to get a job so soon!“

However, he asked Mark to train the new pastor when he was hired. As it turned out, the worship leader was hired soon after. His severance package included a gag order – he could not say anything about the ministry when he left.

There Were Signs

Mark said there were signs of toxicity he should have seen before he signed on. A worship leader was sent from the main campus to lead each week when they started. However, Mark never knew who it would be and for several months it changed from Sunday to Sunday. He had no choice in the matter.

In the weekly off-site leadership meetings at the main campus, Mark noticed that there was no discussion. The Senior Pastor, well-known globally, would “instruct” the leadership team – tell them what to do and when to do it.

Mark’s wife attended one meeting with the off-site coordinator to discuss reaching young families of which they had few in the church. His wife is an experienced children’s ministry director and had a plan for a Saturday carnival for families in the neighborhood. When presented with the idea, the OC said, “No!” and suggested another event that had little hope of drawing families.

Mark said his firing was not uncommon. There seemed to be frequent firings and other employees were unhappy with how those firings took place. But, no one spoke up about it. Mark attributed that to good salaries and their desire to keep their jobs. It was necessary for the staff to keep their heads down and stay out of “trouble.”

He was told not say anything about the Senior Pastor’s family who were highly integrated in the ministry. He was also told later no one should ever challenge the Senior Pastor, a mistake Mark apparently made when seeking encouragement in his planting efforts. According to one of his fellow pastoral staff members, the Senior Pastor expected them to be tough and not need any help.

The Tools in Ministry

When I asked Mark what biblical principles he focused on in the middle of his agony, he passed on the advice he had received from a mentor when he first was called to pastoral ministry:

There are two ways to do ministry: Use or Train People.

He pointed out that using people as a tool for ministry normally results in a trail of broken people. The focus is on the ministry image. Is the lawn mowed nicely? Are we getting good publicity? Do we have a strong donor base? How do we look?

But, if the ministry is used as a tool for developing people, the people grow to do the works of ministry and train others (Ephesians 4:11-12). The ministry invests in people rather than uses them.

As a mega-church ministry, there is a great temptation to prop up the ministry by any means necessary. Mark believed the ministry leader(s) were using people as tools to continually build the ministry rather than seeking to invest in their staff and leaders so that they might minister to people.

I found this a particularly helpful perspective as we experienced people being used as tools in one of our ministry organizations. The leaders treated the employees, whether missionaries or nationals, like mules to take care of the ministry’s image rather than doing what the organization marketed: training future leaders.

Taking the Moral High Ground

As Mark told me his story, he frequently said he and his wife wanted to, “Take the moral high ground.” I asked him what that meant when in the fire of his experience.

He gave the following standards he sought to live by:

  • They would not attack those who attacked him.
  • They would not “rally troops to go against the leadership.”
  • He would not defend himself.
  • He would not leave attempting to overthrow leadership – he would leave voluntarily.
  • He would leave protecting those to whom he ministered and not try to turn them against the church.

Mark did meet with a board member while with another ministry to discuss the toxic issues in that organization. He is not against challenging the organization at some level, but clearly determined to keep relationships in tack where he can.

Advice from Experience

I asked Mark what advice he would give to someone under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. He had some very helpful advice:

  • It is important if you are considering going into cross-cultural ministry to do some self-evaluation: Am I able to self-feed? Am I actively spending time learning from the Word, praying, and in fellowship? There will always be toxic leaders and co-workers…am I prepared to go to the Lord when the going gets tough?
  • Go back to your calling – did God call me to this work?
  • It is imperative to have a support system in place where you can freely vent and receive encouragement. Sometimes mission agencies (or churches and organizations) fail to provide any real support. Make sure you do not leave home without it.

Though Mark has been hurt more than once by toxic leadership, it is evident that the Lord has worked through him in those settings both for his own personal growth and in aiding those around him. The grace he exhibits to others, including the toxic leaders, is an excellent example and witness to Christ.

One of the last pieces of advice Mark shared with me was to remember Proverbs 14:4 – An empty stable stays clean, but there’s no income from an empty stable. In ministry you are dealing with real people and it gets messy. There is no growth, nor ministry to others that does not involve the messiness of a broken world.

If the stable is clean and tidy, you have to wonder if any real ministry is actually going on.