It is a hard topic for Christians to wrap their heads around. Interpretations of these prayers for destruction abound.
In this article I am looking at Nehemiah’s imprecatory prayer. The ESV Strong’s Bible translation says in its introduction to the book of Nehemiah:
In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. With Nehemiah went the third wave of returning Jewish exiles. There was intense opposition from the other peoples in the land and disunity within Jerusalem. Despite this opposition, Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the walls.
ESV Strongs Bible
That “intense opposition” made many fear for their lives as they worked to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem. Nehemiah, as the leader of the Jews who sought to see the Covenant God had made with His people Israel re-established, gave instructions to the people to take protective measures. “Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:18)
And so they built. With their weapons handy.
The Imprecatory Prayer of Nehemiah
What was particularly interesting to me is found in chapter 4 of the historical account.
Sanballat, of whom we know very little, was a Horonite (possibly from Samaria). He was apparently the leader of those who opposed the rebuilding of the wall. He and his ilk ridiculed the Jews and sought to stop them.
They shamed and humiliated Nehemiah and the Jews. The language in the text is strikingly similar to how those who are under abusive leadership describe their taunters. Toxic leaders in the home, workplace, and church torment their targets with words that belittle, debase, and humiliate. Often those words are coupled with religious language that creates a greater depth of shame and humiliation in the target (spiritual abuse).
Nehemiah responded in prayer . . . just as he had done before approaching King Artaxerxes to request returning to Jerusalem to build the wall (Nehemiah 1). In his prayer here in chapter 4, Nehemiah expressed his desire that the Jews’ tormentors be destroyed.
Nehemiah prays,
Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders.
Nehemiah 4:4-5
No Qualifying
When I normally speak of “imprecatory praying” I give qualifications. Before praying, “Destroy my enemies,” I will pray, “Lord change their heart . . . “
Then I go on with asking the Lord to stop the abusive individual in whatever way the Lord, in His wisdom, wills. I try not to be too specific.
But Nehemiah, in a display of raw emotion, simply asks the Lord to destroy this enemy of God’s people.
Fundamental to his prayer is the understanding that his enemies are enemies of God. Nehemiah was confident of God’s anger at Sanballat. There appears to be no doubt in his mind that Sanballat, and those following him, were evil and that God was opposed to them.
And his prayer is not self-centered. Nehemiah is not praying against someone who simply disagrees with him. He is praying that an enemy of God and one who seeks the destruction of God’s people be stopped.
Dead. In his tracks. No redemption.
That is hard stuff.
But it is the hard stuff from which imprecatory praying grows. Imprecatory prayers are made for those who see no out from the destruction at the hands of evil men. They are the prayers of deeply wounded and hurting people . . . because of the unjust, wicked, and damaging treatment of others.
Forgiveness?
In addition, I want to point out that Nehemiah is not unforgiving as some might think in praying this prayer.
In praying, Nehemiah turns over the judgment upon his (and God’s) enemy, Sanballat to God. This is fundamental to forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean there is no judgment. But rather, as some theologians suggest, it is turning over that judgment to the Lord; releasing our own judgment into the hands of God.
Nehemiah prays for God to judge. Afterall, it is God’s place to judge.
It’s Just So Uncomfortable
There are a significant number of imprecatory prayers in Scripture. So often we gloss over them because they make us uncomfortable.
Because we have so often been taught that a good Christian would never ask the Lord to judge someone, we cannot reconcile the imprecatory prayers found throughout the Psalms and here in Nehemiah with that training.
But those who have suffered abuse may not have as much difficulty understanding why they are in Scripture. Imprecatory prayers are actually a balm to those for whom the Lord continually stands up. We have God’s own word that He despises those who oppress others. And these prayers are a means of turning over the judgment we feel is so needed to the Lord Who judges perfectly.
Why should we not join Nehemiah in asking the the Lord to do what He has promised He will do?
The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. 10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.
Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1
His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“
In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.
Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.
It is our job.
So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.
There are Good Pastors
The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.
“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”
And so, the author says,
“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”
I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?
Greater Accountability
In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.
But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:
Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous
A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.
The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.
Judged with Greater Strictness
James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”
Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.
This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”
On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.
Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.
Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:
“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“
Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)
The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.
Diagnose and Expose
As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:
“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”
Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.
The author goes on,
“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“
I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.
The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.
I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.
And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.
A Critique
The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.
I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.
I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:
Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.
But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.
Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebukeabusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).
Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).
I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.
Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).
Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.
Being confronted in your sin is not abuse (1 Timothy 5:20)
It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.
Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.
I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?
True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.
Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.
This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?
Summary
Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”
Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.
And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.
I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.
But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.
Those who make themselves complicit with toxic leadership will often do so due to fear of loss of prominence or privilage. These are the middle-managers in Christian organizations, businesses, and churches.
One of the most captivating stories in Scripture is the book of Esther. In ten chapters of moving narrative, Esther provides the plot of an epic drama. The twists and turns of God’s sovereign reign in care of His people even while having exiled them for their idolatry, always keeps me fixated to the end.
The story also captures a common problem with toxic leadership.
So often those who lead under the oversight of toxic leaders are complicit with their leader. For a number of reasons they do evil right alongside the head of their organization, business, or church.
An Object for Display
In Esther’s story, Memucan, a manager in King Ahasuerus’s government, saw Queen Vasthti refuse to come like a slave to the king when he commanded her presence. The king wanted her to come “in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at (Esther 1:11).”
Memucan realized his own power and position may be in jeopardy with the Queen’s refusal to obey King Ahasuerus’s making of her an object and display to his subordinates.
King Ahasuerus asked his subordinates who were present,
“According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?”
Esther 1:15
Memucan told the king:
“Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.”
Esther 1:16b-18
Can you imagine that? Other women will see her unwillingness to be treated as property and think it is okay to refuse authoritarianism. In the end, others who have authority, like Memucan, will lose that authority to boss and abuse their own wives.
Analogous with Toxic Complicity
This is an analogy of complicity with toxic leadership, not just poor marital behavior.
There are a variety of reasons why those who act as “middle-managers” in the workplace will refuse to seek accountability for their boss and become complicit in their abuse.
Loss of Prestige for Boards: Members of boards fear the loss of prestige if their leader is the focus of a public scandal. So, they cover it up.
Access to the Leader and Power: Managers fear a loss of access to a leader, from whom they have been empowered, if they report / whistleblow abusive leadership.
Donor Support: Fundraisers may fear being caught supporting a badly run organization and so would rather just keep it quiet . . . continually praising the health of the organization.
Bad Witness: Assistant Pastors may continue to support a wicked Senior Pastor because suggesting he is broken and unworthy of leadership will be a bad witness to the world.
Common Goal: One particular church leader “was picked with the goal of growing the congregation,” and so the “main goal was to keep him as pastor.”1
“Image management” may create difficulty for subordinates to see the leader for who he or she really is. “Weick (1988) and Maitlis and Sonehnshein (2010) found that strong, optimistic statements and justifications produce blind spots that keep organizations from seeing contradictory cues and pieces of evidence. Followers also feel as if they must be bound to those positive outlooks.”2 In other words, subordinates struggle to keep clear sight when their leader has brainwashed them with positive think.
No Access: A close cousin to this positive think is subordinates being continually fed the leader’s narrative and never considering the victims’. Boards are notorious for this kind of mismanagement, as the board of our own mission was. They willingly allowed themselves to be kept from access to the stories of the missionaries and nationals who were being mistreated by the leaders of the mission.
And there are other reasons.
Most, if not all of them are bad.
It is not worth it to be complicit in these ways with abusive leadership. The organizational damage will be much worse because more lives will be broken and damaged by the leader the longer he or she remains at the helm.
