Monthly Archives: September 2019

Margo’s Story: Playing Second Fiddle to a Wolf

Posted on by
1

Timothy Witmer said, “The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care.”[1] It is unfortunate when those in authority fail to consider that little detail.

The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.

A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”

On the other hand, the picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord,” says Richard Rardin, author of The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.[3]

Rardin adds that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4]

This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.

Scripture instructs the sheep to consider the shepherds “worthy of double honor.”[5] Witmer argues that God has called congregant members to live in submission to church authorities, specifically those called as “teaching” pastors. He goes on to say that the arrangement of a leader who dies to self and a congregation giving a “willing response of obedience” is an “advantage to all” involved.[6]

That is in the perfect world.

But church members are very vulnerable to those leaders who would take advantage of their weakness as those under authority. The prophet Ezekiel warned the leaders in Israel in the seventh century B.C.,

“You have not taken care of the weak. You have not tended the sick or bound up the injured. You have not gone looking for those who have wandered away and are lost. Instead, you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty. So my sheep have been scattered without a shepherd, and they are easy prey for any wild animal.”[7]

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The people of God are “easy prey” for wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus refers to false prophets. They may look like sheep, meek and mild, but behind the façade of harmless sheep they are “ravenous wolves”.[8] As the sheep, the nation of Israel, was scattered by the “harshness and cruelty” of the leaders, so church members are at times scattered by autocratic pastors and elders in local congregations.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of pastor’s assistants who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral care position).

The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” [drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra who perform under the “first chair” player] must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.

This becomes treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd. I have been fortunate to serve under a humble and empowering pastor, something not all assistants enjoy.

Margo’s Story

“Margo” served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members and has a Masters of Divinity. She served in a pastoral role under the supervision of the Senior Pastor of the congregation who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

Margo was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks. In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.

Margo resigned from her position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Mission Trip

Margo told me of a time that she was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to a southern African nation. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a group of African churches through short-term trips.

Pastor Pete gave Margo much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization in Colorado, through which they would operate.

As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team. He explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to Eastern Africa, a trip neither Margo, nor her committee, had heard about.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told this, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete. In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had gotten his “feelings hurt.”

After the elder challenged the pastor for his lack of consideration, the pastor continued to laugh at him.

Making Matters Worse

Following the trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the southern African churches in which they ministered.

However, at the close of the service, Pastor Pete gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier. It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and team that had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the southern African churches by Pastor Pete.

The Real Power

Margo’s church had an elder board that had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of pastoral control and poor decision-making.[9]

The practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.

Because strong, authoritative leaders can be perceived as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat.

Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership is destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

Coping

As Margo pressed on towards her goal of ministering to the congregation, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.

She was concerned that sharing her struggles with others in the congregation would be gossiping and missing the point of Matthew 18 where much of the focus is on one-on-one confrontation and reconciliation.

So, Margo focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful for those who are bullied to receive encouragement and, possibly, biblical advice from those removed from the situation.[10]

However, the real problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what the assistant is facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the assistant’s emotions is limited.

The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Margo’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire her and was under no real authority of elders. And Margo was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip.

Two to Tango

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” Like in the experience of many who have faced domestic violence, a well-meaning brother may suggest that since both individuals involved are sinful, they are both responsible for the broken relationship. This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor.

This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.

Having said that, the emotional response of those caught in less than optimal ministry environments must be understood and moderated by principles of self-differentiation. It was clear in my interview with Margo that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success.

Responding to the Situation

Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.

Margo took submissive postures with her supervising pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.”

It also provided helpful lessons to Margo to work under Pastor Peter.

She was forced to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gave opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God was sovereign over the future of her ministry. This was true to Margo whether she remained in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or went somewhere else.

NOTES:

“Margo” is not her real name.

[1] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 89.

[2] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 50:6.

[3] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.

[4] Ibid., 102–103.

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Timothy 5:17.

[6] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 92.

[7] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4–5.

[8] Ibid., v. Matthew 7:15.

[9] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.

[10] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2

Posted on by
1

This is the second part in a series on the experience of Jim and Mary [not their real names] as they navigated the stormy seas of pastoral abuse. Jim was hired as a youth pastor in a medium-size Midwestern church. The youth program grew significantly, but the pastor, who was also newly hired, continually sought to discredit and discourage Jim’s ministry. See Part One before reading this.

Near the end of three years, the Pastor Carl preached a message on Psalm 34. Jim said,

“He preached on how the wicked person would soon be removed! It was clearly targeted at me.”

Jim said after preaching the sermon, Pastor Carl just walked out of pulpit and “left the church angry.”

By this time, there were over 100 students attending youth group on Wednesday evenings. Jim had made the church youth center available to the kids after school until youth group began in the evening. Many did not have good homes to go home to.

One church Deacon, who was a farmer and very “insurance-minded,” expressed worry that a “majority of the students were non-white…new to church.” Pastor Carl told him, “We’re going to get sued” if one of the kids knives someone.

It became policy that youth were not allowed in the church between school dismissal and 5:30 p.m.

And then they appointed Jim to stand guard outside the building and force kids to leave the property.

“The church was their only place to go besides the parking lot of a nearby McDonalds or a row of abandoned storefronts next to the church.” Jim said the after-school ministry went “from three adults supervising 30 students to nothing.”

Finally, Pastor Carl gave the church leadership an ultimatum: if Jim does not go, he would. Jim was offered a severance package to leave but he felt he needed to defend himself so did not resign.

One day Jim was standing outside the church and thought to himself, “This is getting nastier and nastier each time. If I go to youth camp and a student makes a bad decision, it is going to be on my neck.” He felt that at that point Pastor Carl would use anything possible against him.

He finally had complete peace about leaving. Jim went to a deacon that had been ill (like Jim) because of all the conflict and asked him, “Are you okay with giving me a severance?” Jim had three children and was living in a parsonage so would lose everything when he left.

Loss

The day Jim left the church was his hardest day of ministry.

On that Sunday, lots of students were there. It was announced that morning that he was resigning.

The pastor was trying to control the situation – he asked visitors to leave before he announced Jim’s resignation. Jim said, “[Pastor Carl] was excited, shaking hands, smiling.” But the “energy was sucked out of the room” when he made the announcement.

Jim described the horror and loss:

“The majority of the church didn’t have a clue. Everyone was crying in youth group. During the worship one of the members of a church council came to me and said he could fight it. He said, ‘Will you let us fight for you?’ But I had peace about leaving…It was going to be framed as youth pastor against pastor – it was the youth pastor who was insubordinate and angry at the pastor.”

Jim felt he needed to move on so the church could deal with Pastor Carl.

Take Aways

As I heard Jim and Mary’s story, I continually recognized elements in their own story that related to the stories of so many others I have interviewed. There can be comfort in knowing that what you are going through is not new under the sun.

Like those who face spousal abuse, men and women caught in toxic ministry and organizational settings can begin to think they are crazy or their situation is unique and they must just live with it.

But our situations are not unique and below are identifying toxic leadership similarities that stand out in Jim and Mary’s story.

Demanded Authority

It is common in toxic work environments that leadership is authoritarian.

Many people want to follow a “strong” leader. They want someone who will go before, make decisions decisively, and give vision to the ministry.

Jean Lipma-Blumen, author of “The Allure of Toxic Leaders,” said,

“When our freedom unnerves us, we tend to gravitate toward any leader who will make us feel safe, protected, and good about ourselves. Toxic leaders, who promise security and assure us that we are special or ‘chosen,’ become particularly powerful magnets for our unmoored egos.”1

The difficulty is that these kinds of leaders will frequently run rough-shod over the gifts and skills of those under his or her authority. He will tend to make all the decisions. And he will tend to expect others to toe the line.

He will demand authority rather than seek to earn the respect and submission of his subordinates.

We shoudl be suspicious when we hear individuals talk about someone being a “strong” leader. They may indeed be strong in the right ways:

  • Helping subordinates use their gifts, encouraging them to grow in their skills.
  • Sharing authority with those who have leadership potential.
  • Giving voice to those who may disagree with his own views and vision.

But it is all too frequent that they are simply authoritarian…and destructive to the organization, her employees, and its witness to Christ’s love.

Isolating

Domestic abuse is often marked by an abuser who isolates his target.

In like ways, a toxic boss pockets his target’s fellow workers by schmoozing and seeming to be the reasonable one. I have seen multiple abusive husbands become very chummy with their pastor. One even lived in the basement of his pastor’s home for several months. I have observed abusive husbands win over his target’s family leaving her estranged from them.

In doing so, they then enlistist the aid of those whom they have pocketed to stand up for them and spy for them. The target is traumatized even more by well-meaning people who do not understand or identify abuse, but only want to “help the relationship be reconciled.“

In the case of Jim and Mary, Pastor Carl had much of the congregation bamboozeled by his “strong leadership” and sought the aid of the babysitters and chaperone in spying out the lay of the land in order to control Jim.

Another common isolation tactic is for the toxic leader to suggest that “everyone” is against you. Pastor Carl drew on this age-old tool with Jim and Mary arguing that nobody thought he was doing a good job.

Do not be bamboozeled!

One-Ups-Manship

Narcissism is not necessarily part of being an abusive leader, but often is a driving force. Those who are narcissistic in their personality will do everything in their power to keep on top of their subordinates. Jim said,

Pastor Carl was continually spiritually troubled! He was obsessively trying to control his image. Always trying to control perception of the church in the community. Not concerned with evangelism as much as recruiting influential people.

If the subordinate is doing well, he must do better. If the subordinate comes up with a good idea, he must either squash it or take credit for it. Jim said whenever he had success it would “result in a blowup in the office or attempt to get me out.“

The goal of the abusive leader is to be the “big man.” And he will do whatever is in his power to gain and hold that power.

Unfortunately, Jim and Mary learned the hard way.

God Bless the Oppressed

Jim’s understanding of ministry was formed through the poor leadership of Pastor Carl. As we talked he led me to Ephesians 5 where he said scripture gives direction for the “balanced” ministry.

He noted that the pastor is not called to be a CEO or “bully,” but to

  • Feed the sheep [training]
  • Lead the sheep [define direction for church]
  • and Care for the sheep [pastoral care]

He said this “undermines” the CEO view of church leadership.

In the end, Jim realized that Proverbs 19:19 spoke directly to their situation.

A man of great wrath will pay the penalty,
for if you deliver him, you will only have to do it again.

He realized that he had rescued Pastor Carl many times by staying and by leaving the church, “[Pastor Carl] was exposed and it gave him the rope to hang himself.” The pastor left the church a few months later under a cloud.

Forgiveness

It was a long time for Jim to forgive, but he considered it an absolute necessity.

Jim said he needed to “release the things that [Pastor Carl] did that messed” with their lives. Though he noted, forgiving others is not necessary for salvation for the Christian, it is a need and a command.

He said he had experienced forgiveness from the Lord and therefore, like the servant in Matthew 18, he needed to turn around and forgive others.

But it was not a once and done deal. He realized it would take time and the old feelings of anger would resurface. Talking about the situation with others helped in that healing process.

A woman who ministered to children in a Native boarding school nearby shared with Jim while he was in the midst of the battle. The woman’s husband abused her and she understood Jim’s situation.

She gave Jim a book that was a parable on Saul and David’s relationship. Saul and David’s relationship now makes sense to Jim after this experience. The toxic environment Saul created illumines Jim’s understanding of his own life under Pastor Carl.

Jim ended our discussion by saying, “Forgiveness is the most healing thing.”

Do you have a story of abusive leadership? Please contact Pearls And Swine Site so that others may gain from your experience and wisdom learned.

NOTES:

  1. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them (p. 35). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. ↩︎

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 1

Posted on by
2

Jim was contacted to apply for a position as Youth Director at a medium-size church in the Midwest. He and Mary, his wife, were excited. They were moving out in ministry. Jim had been praying for more opportunity to reach into the community with the Gospel.

The position appeared to be a God-given break.

This is Their Story

At the same time one committee was hiring Jim, another committee at the church was hiring the new pastor, Carl. A lot of change for the church. Jim had a vision for the ministry and was ready to tackle the new position with gusto.

He looked forward to working with the pastor who came on a month after he did. Jim believed he could get along with anyone, particularly, he told himself, someone “who was a spiritual leader.“

But it was not long for the trouble to begin.

Big Plans

The church was realing from its former pastor’s leadership.

But they were moving forward. The pastoral search committee was headed up by a strong leader, and his vision for a pastor who would lead and teach with authority held sway over the other members.

He wanted a pastor that would “command authority.” A sort of “CEO style” of leadership, Jim said.

Jim shared that the initial conversations with the pastor were a little “awkward.” Jim “expressed enthusiasm,” but did not get much “positive feedback” from Pastor Carl.

After a short time, Jim suggested instituting weekly staff meetings, something that had been very helpful to him for planning in the church he had recently served. It was welcomed by the staff, but he noticed that when they talked about the youth ministry and any difficulties he was having Pastor Carl was taking copious notes.

Approximately five months later, the personnel committee called Jim to a special meeting. He figured it was a “job evaluation” kind of meeting. Everyone on the committee was upbeat when Jim arrived except the chairman…the same chairman from the pastoral search committee.

When the meeting began the chairman opened a file folder of notes that the pastor had taken during the staff meetings.

He began to systematically go through the notes and one-by-one turn it into an “indictment of [Jim’s] character.”

After the meeting several of the members came up to Jim and said, “I don’t know what that was about. I think you are doing a good job. I am going to find out what is going on.”

It seemed to end there however. Nothing more was said and ministry went on.

They Will Come

There was a new facility for the youth that was not really being used.

It kind of a harkened back to the “if you build it they will come” idea. One of the church leaders asked him cynically early on, “Will we ever fill this place?“

Jim looked forward to the day they would fill it with youth and began reaching into the Native American community that had been largely ignored in the past by the church. After three years of faithful ministry, God was beginning to fill the building. They had gone from just a few teens attending mid-week youth meetings to over 100, many of whom were from the Native community.

But of course, every cloud with a silver lining also dumps a boatload of rain.

In the midst of this excitement, Jim was driving home one night from a youth meeting and received a call to come back to the church for a meeting. He still had his basketball clothes on and was sweaty. When he arrived it was evident to him that the meeting had been planned for sometime, though he was not told until he would have no choice but to walk in late.

In attendance were Pastor Carl and a few Deacons who were favorable to the pastor’s views. The pastor proceeded to make statement after statement that implied Jim was doing a poor job and that “nobody liked” what he was doing.

The youth leaders were “very upset so they banded together in a Wednesday night prayer meeting and brought it to the surface. They didn’t understand why there was relational conflict.” Jim said, “People would come up and ask ‘why do you have such a hard time with the pastor.’ Like I had a personal grievence with the pastor.“

Jim was careful not to be derogatory in any way in response and following the prayer meeting things calmed down for a season.

Mission Control

As summer approached, Jim wanted to take a mission trip with the students.

He was thinking a sports camp or VBS. He proposed the idea to Pastor Carl and, to Jim’s surprise, the pastor said it would be acceptable.

Jim had heard of a Colorado church planter looking for a sports camp. He made contact and began arranging for his students to lead the camp. However, soon after Jim began planning, the pastor organized a trip with the church planter for an adult group from the church. It appeared to Jim “it was an ego thing. Like he needed to have a trip if I was.“

Before Jim left on the mission trip, Pastor Carl called him to his office and told him he did not feel Jim was responsible or qualified enough to lead the trip and so he “was going to appoint a chaperone.” Jim knew the man chosen and had a good relationship with him, but would not have appointed him because he had alcohol and abuse issues.

Jim said, “[The chaperone] would often talk about his anger issues…he was jailed as a minor for beating someone almost to death. Kind of proud that it didn’t show up in his criminal record because he was a minor.” Jim also noted he made girls feel uncomfortable to be with him. “On the trip he made lots of comments about women’s bodies and what he liked,” Jim explained.

Used Against Him

It seemed to be a common tactic of Pastor Carl to use things against Jim that would never have been considered negative in the first place or were of little consequence.

On the mission trip, Jim drove the entire trip to Colorado because the chaperone had bragged about his “dangerous driving.” Later the pastor suggested Jim was being dangerous by not allowing the chaperone to help drive the long trip.

After the prayer meeting ordeal one of the leaders suggested that Jim and Pastor Carl go through mediation. The denominational leadership suggested they go through individual counseling first.

So, Jim made arrangements for counseling figuring the pastor would as well. He said, “After a couple visits, the counselor said I don’t know why you need to be here.” Jim fulfilled his commitment and then found out the pastor did not attend any counseling.

But later Pastor Carl said Jim had psychological issues because he had gone to counseling.

The pastor also used people against Jim and Mary.

After Jim had left the church, the chaperone of the mission trip came to him and apologized. He said he was glad to have a friendship with Jim. Apparently, Pastor Carl had asked the chaperone lots of questions about Jim after the trip, but the chaperone had nothing bad to say about Jim’s leadership.

The chaperone felt badly that the pastor had used him.

A new woman began coming to the church and applied to be a nursery worker. Jim and Mary got to know her and enjoyed her friendship. She asked if she could help with Jim and Mary’s kids. One night she babysat for them and when Jim and Mary returned from their date she stuck around talking with them. She asked them many questions about their “thoughts on the pastor.” They said very little.

They realized later she was being used by him to determine if they were against Pastor Carl.

Another couple offered to watch their kids and later were “bad-mouthing” Jim’s ministry behind his back despite their sweetness to Jim and Mary.

Final Straws

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2.