Author Archives: pearlsandswinesite

About pearlsandswinesite

I spent 21 years as a college professor and have since spent several years ministering in the church. I experienced swine in a mission organization I served for several years. I loved my ministry, but my family left that mission field beaten and scared by abusive leadership. When I began research for my doctoral dissertation, I determined to synthesize the social sciences, business management, and biblical theology on abuse. I am currently the Director of an overseas mission and work in the church. If you have interest in more information regarding toxic leadership, please use the Contact page.

What is the Place of Church Leaders in Determining Repentance in Marital Abuse?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Years ago, in my seminary ethics course, my professor (Dr. David Clyde-Jones) delved into foundational biblical grounds for divorce.

He noted that the specific grounds for divorce, clearly taught in Scripture, are adultery and desertion. But he went on to explain that the biblical foundation of those two grounds is that they are a “radical breach of the marriage covenant.”

A “radical breach” is not some disagreements or “we have just grown apart.”

When there has been a great betrayal by the spouse such as an adulterous relationship or a pattern of failure to love and care for one’s spouse (Exodus 21:7-11), the marriage covenant has been radically broken and God, in His mercy, says the offended spouse may make the radically broken covenant legal through divorce.

Going beyond the book

Unfortunately, as church leaders seek to help marriages in their congregations, they sometimes begin making extra rules, going beyond what Scripture says. A common version is suggesting—often requiring—a victim to remain in a marriage where the spouse has committed adultery and, in the leaders’ eyes, has seemingly repented.

I say this is an extra rule because Scripture says the offended spouse has every right to divorce for adultery no matter the appearance of repentance (Matthew 19:9) or even the forgiveness granted by the victim. It is the victim’s choice whether to remain in the marriage or not.

The damage has been done to what was intended to be a trusting and loving relationship.

I can only guess that God allows divorce in these cases because He knows how much of an uphill battle it is to build trust once again after such a great betrayal of trust. It can take years for the offended spouse to trust their spouse again. We even have the example of God, Himself, “divorcing” his people and sending them out into exile because of their metaphorical adultery (idolatry—Jeremiah 3:6-8).

Arguing from the lesser to the greater, how much more difficult is it for humans to simply go on in a relationship that is so badly broken than for the perfect, loving God of the universe to say enough is enough in His relationship with His bride?

Church leaders should place themselves in the place of the one whose spouse has become intimate with another.

What about repentance?

In addition, no leader in the church can know the heart of the offender.

As leaders look on, they may see a seemingly contrite offender. In their eyes they may believe that the victim should forgive and forget the evil done to them, welcoming the betrayer back with open arms.

However, be warned: it is extraordinary how contrite a person can act, and yet, have no such remorse.

The adulterer has taken all the steps of turning from their spouse, deserting them for another lover. Repentance means to turn 180 degrees from your sin. It means to be fully contrite, recognizing the sin, and turning from doing it again.

What leader can truly know that a parishioner has genuinely repented of their sin?

Trusting the victim

Abuse in marriage (physical or emotional) is also a radical breach in the covenant of marriage in that it goes against everything taught in Scripture about how a marital partner should treat their spouse (Ephesians 5:25-32). In treating his or her spouse with complete disdain, dishonor, and in fact, hatred the partner has separated themself from and deserted the spouse. They have not cared for their partner as Scripture dictates.

Again, a spouse who has radically broken the marriage covenant through patterns of abusive behavior may easily manipulate church leaders into thinking he/she is repentant, convincing them they should put pressure on the victim to let him/her back into the marriage.

I would suggest that church leaders hold to this principal: Trust the victim of abuse with the decision whether to stay or leave just as they should for those who have suffered from a spouse’s adulterous betrayal.

Church leaders do not know the heart of the offender nor usually see the abuse that happens. Most abuse takes place behind closed doors in a very targeted way. Therefore, leaders cannot make judgments about the repentance of the abuser either.

Leaders need to trust the victim’s judgment on whether it is safe to return to the abuser.

I have heard many stories of “repentant” abusers who put on the sad face for church leaders, yet continued to control, manipulate, and demean their spouses in the dark. The church leaders must look to the victim to determine if repentance is truly happening.

But, even more importantly, repentance is not a determining factor in abuse cases just as it is not in adultery cases.

The offended party needs to make the decision to stay or leave. Repentance does not overcome the damage done by adultery or abuse. For some, apparent repentance may bring reconciliation (in the sense of remaining married).

However, the Lord does not require this. He simply says where there is a radical breach in the covenant relationship (ie. abuse) there is grounds for divorce . . . no ifs, ands, or buts. Going back to an abusive spouse is a choice that only the victim can make.

Forgiveness and reconciliation

Though the Lord calls the offended party in any of these cases to forgive the offender (in time), we also need to understand that forgiveness does not necessarily bring reconciliation to the relationship. Forgiveness does not create trust and a relationship must involve trust to be . . . a relationship.

There is a distinction between forgiving someone before the Lord (as described here) and there being true repentance (on the offender’s part). Trust develops in the light of repentance matched with forgiveness.

As evidence of repentance builds over time—and it can be a long time in coming, particularly in cases of abuse—then trust can slowly develop.

Leaders in the church cannot trust the perpetrator for th e target of that abuse. That is neither their responsibility or in their wheelhouse of duties as leaders in the church.

Just as described in this blog, a leader, who is basically unaffected by the horrible sin of abuse in a congregant’s marriage, cannot forgive that abuser on behalf of the target of that abuse. Nor can he demand reconciliation when he knows little to nothing about whether behind closed doors that abuser is actively, genuinely repenting.

This is a great evil

This is a great evil as the writer of Ecclesiastes says (Eccl. 2:21). Those who are ignorant and arrogant enough to stand as judges of the repentance of an abuser in the stead of the victim are failing in the way of the book of James:

There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
James 4:12 (ESV)

Leader, you are not the all-seeing one—in fact, if you judge the repentance of the abuser you are being a blind guide to the victim. You cannot judge the repentance of abusers.

Leader, you must trust those who are actually affected by the spouse’s great betrayal in adultery or abuse. They are the ones able to make these judgements based on real sight.

Kissing Up: Abusive Middle Managers

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Ahhh, the debt we have been forgiven.

It is an extraordinary thing what the God of the universe has done on our behalf. It is written all over the Bible and experienced by millions upon millions through the millennia.

The Middle-Manager

Jesus illustrated this reality in Matthew 18 when he told a parable (or story) of a middle-manager (MM), his boss, and a subordinate of his own. It is told in the language of a kingdom:

“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.”
Matthew 18:23-25

Typical of that time was the practice of enslaving those who owed money to another. Once it was worked off, they would be free again.

However, in this situation, the story makes this an extreme case. 10,000 talents was worth approximately 6 to 13 billion dollars in wages in today’s economy. This “servant” was not going anywhere, anytime soon. He would be working a very long time to pay that off.

And yet, this is what happened:

So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
Matthew 18:26-27

That is some kind of pity. It is meant to illustrate the kindness of God (the king) to his people as they turn to Him in faith and repentance.

The story goes on:

But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.

Wow.

This is made particularly poignent because 100 denarii is worth only approximately100 days of ordinary wages (not CEO wages).

Yet, this MM, who had had the erasure of his debt of billions turns around and put his subordinate in prison for three months of wages.

However, there is justice:

When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Matthew 18:23-35

The Toxic Middle-Manager

What I want to point out, in the context of this blog, is the toxicity of this middle manager.

This isn’t actually an unusual stituation. It is common for those who abuse their power within organizations to completely snow their bosses—those who have authority over them—while beating up on their subordinates.

In Jesus’ parable, in the end the MM is found out as his fellow workers reported him to his “master” —boss. But that is often not what happens in the business or organizational setting.

Those who rise to the level of management normally have skills and abilities that make them attractive to management. But once they arrive, they must keep those who put them there convinced of their value and may manipulate the narrative quite effectively. The MM’s fellow workers or subordinates may report their toxicity, but the MM just spins the story to their advantage.

The MM’s boss simply thinks those under the MM are bitter or can’t stand the heat or are lazy or has authority issues . . . or whatever.

The toxic MM wins.

The Discerning Psychopath

Sometimes its that there is one or very few targets of the MM’s vile behavior.

They have chosen one individual—or a very few—of who to bully and create a workplace hell. Remember, abusive people are often rather discerning of who to pick on. The ones that are not are easily seen and move from job to job because their bosses recognize it. They are the ones who can’t get along with anyone.

But the discerning and manipulative ones are careful and often climb corporate (or church) ladders because of particular talents. These fool their bosses or boards and keep them solidly in their corner as the MM’s subordinates drag themselves into work each day to suffer the emotional violence of their toxic MM.

What’s the Remedy?

Firstly, depending on the manipulative ability of the toxic MM and the lack of understanding of their boss, there are more often than not NO remedies. There will continue to be departures of subordinates from the organization and church. It may be a slow trickle as the MM is very pointed in their attacks (few targets) making it difficult to identify, but in the long-term very destructive to the well-being of the organization.

On the other hand, there are a couple helpful, though not guaranteed, remedies for these toxic situations.

  • Bosses can be trained to identify toxic leadership.

Abuse is a different animal. Those who are abusers are different than others. But normally they don’t wear a different hat or wave a placard. We have to be trained to identify their behaviors and the behaviors of those who are responding to them.

Those behaviors are what provide the identifying characteristics of abuse, but are often mis-identified as common sin problems that take the common remedies such as confrontation, cajoling, and soft approach.

  • Subordinates may band together to bring reports.

Reports of abusive supervision can be ignored, minimized, and justified especially when there is a trickle of departures from the organization resulting in the “trickle” of reports.

Rather, it is helpful for subordinates in the know—those who have been targets or have been observant bystanders—to band together with either a large packet of individual reports or a common letter of complaint to management or HR. It is helpful for those with authority to see the common thread of abusive leadership.

This again, is not a guaranteed method for accountability. My own experience of more than 40 missionaries signing a letter asking for an investigation resulted initially in one missionary being called to come before the board which was handpicked by the abusive leader. You would think a letter like this would carrry more weight, however it was ten more years for real change to be made by the agency.

Much the same happened to David Rowe with Habitat for Humanity back in the 1980s. Despite 20 women coming forward to complain of sexual abuse by the founder, Millard Fuller, and three important ministry leaders confronting Fuller, the board was ultimately swayed by someone with greater influence in the organization—President Jimmy Carter—to overlook Fuller’s evil.

Courage

But these examples should not discourage those who wish to seek accountability for their abusive bosses. It can work and can be worth trying.

Be courageous.

MMs are likely to become the big cheese if they are not stopped in the middle position. Justice is important for all who will suffer under them in the future if they are not stopped now.

A Word of Great Value: Pearls Before Swine

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

I sometimes get questions about this website: “Why is it called that?”

The more common reading from Matthew 7 is “pearls before swine” as Jesus tells his disciples there are people who shouldn’t be given beautiful pearls because they will be squandered.

The reason http://www.PearlsAndSwineSite.com is named that is availability. PearlsBeforeSwine just wasn’t available. And “site” was plugged on the end because PearlsAndSwine.com wasn’t available either. In fact, if you follow that internet URL you will have the opportunity to shop for British clothing. Pretty weird, huh?

But, this blog isn’t about that.

This blog is about Matthew 7.

What Does it Mean?

Pearls are beautiful jewels that are not easy to come by having been created in the shell of an oyster. They are valuable and sought after.

In Matthew 7:6 Jesus uses the pearl analogy to point to the value of the Gospel, or good news. In chapter 13 He is teaching using various parables and in one, uses the pearl. There he says:

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.”
Matthew 13:45-46 (ESV)

The pearl is an analogy of great worth—kingdom of heaven in this case—that is worth doing all we can to attain.

My use of this concept for this website comes from Matthew 7 where that value is rejected and scorned by those who could gain much from it.

The Mission: Our Experience

My family and I had been working in Africa with an American mission agency for seven years when a friend shared this passage with us to help us understand how to respond to the mission leadership.

The leaders had lied, harshly criticized, and shown over and over their racist and arrogant character. The CEO was known to communicate primarily through in-person meetings, not talk face-to-face in a positive way, but stay away from any written records of his deceptions.

Pre-Order a Print Copy Today at your favorite online bookstore.

Our friend pointed out this verse to us as we were responding to the CEO’s request (command) that we meet with him following our resignation from the mission. The idea was that we should refrain from giving pearls—exhortation to the leader—to him as he would “turn and attack” us.

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
Matthew 7:6 (ESV)

The CEO was known to use people’s words to turn on them. He would simply lie and justify and blame shift when exhorted.

We were concerned that he would simply kick us off the mission then and there and we would be stuck half way around the world from our home. Our children were in their last two months of class time in the mission school.

Yet the CEO said he wanted to hear why we were leaving.

To us it was asking us to stick our necks out with the possibility of being chopped off.

Some Analysis

The “pearl” in its Greek meaning includes “word of great value” according to Strongs Concordance.

That is the point of an exhortation. Exhorting means to seek the repentance of another. It is to help them see their sin and turn from it. And in turning, there is great blessing (Deuteronomy 32).

Exhortation is a “word of great value” because it is intended to right a relationship of its recipient with the Lord of the universe.

It is foolish to refuse an exhortation—that is accurate and right—as blessing comes by seeking forgiveness and turning from sin. And so it is a pearl of great price.

Shattering

Unfortunately, there are people who not only “trample [those pearls] underfoot,” —in essence just rejecting them—but they “turn to attack you” when you share them.

This was the eye-opening reading of this passage that caught us off guard when our friend shared the passage with us. We had always read the passage going as far as trampling underfoot, but had not really thought much about the “turn and attack” part. And, I had always put it in the context of evangelism, not exhortation.

That is the context of the verse.

It follows the encouragement Jesus gives to seek the repentance of a fellow believer with these words:

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:5 (ESV)

Jesus tells his disciples to humbly approach a brother who has sinned. This should “soften” the exhortation and make it more receivable by the sinner.

Some of the English words that Strongs uses to define the Greek words ῥήσσω and ῥήγνυμι—the words used by Jesus translated “attack” —are:

  • Break
  • Crack
  • Wreck
  • Shattering to minute fragments
  • Lacerate
  • Rend
  • Tear

Pretty strong terms.

Pretty Strong Terms

How often have you seen someone act this way following an exhortation?

It really isn’t common. Maybe they listen and then ignore your words. Maybe they take your words to heart. But rarely—I would guess—do they turn and attack you.

Keep in mind that 7:6 follows on the heals of verses that tell you how to exhort someone who has sinned against you. Humbly and graciously.

Some people are attacked because they have gone on the attack in the first place with their exhortation. Part of loving your neighbor is following 7:1-5 in exhortation. Consider your own sin and treat your brother as you would want to be treated when you have sinned . . . not with an angry and bitter attack.

So, “throwing your pearls before the swine” is Jesus’ way of saying there are times when we are not required to challenge someone who has sinned against us—as He instructs in Matthew 18:15.

Because they are swine-like in their character. They will turn and attack you maliciously. They will not listen and take it to heart but rather cause you greater harm.

Take the Advice

We took the advice of this passage and kept our mouths shut as our CEO grilled us. In the end, he instructed us to be off the mission following the closing of our childrens’ classes (and ours as college faculty) and before he left for the summer.

In the months that followed we continued to learn about abusive leadership and how Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:6 spoke volumns into our lives and those who suffer under toxic leadership.

Do not throw your pearls before pigs.

An added note on the Website: Because of my upcoming book, “Toxic Leadership: Power, Abuse, and Healing in Christian Organizations,” I have created a new web address for this site as the author — http://www.KellyDehnert.com.

Jesus Was Given All Authority: So . . .

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

The king sat down to his royal feast with some of his closest advisers. His power was felt by all who sat with him. Yet, the king knew that he was going to be betrayed by one of those advisers. His security service had uncovered the plot. He knew an overthrow of his kingdom was at hand.

So, what was he to do?

We know what we would do. We know what a “worldly” leader would do.

We would do everything possible to strengthen our claim to the throne. We would put down the rebellion before it had any chance to gain a foothold, knowing the traitor and his intent.

But Jesus . . .

But Jesus teaches leadership in a very different way by actions that are crazy by worldly standards. He took action and did the unthinkable.

This is what is said of Jesus on the last night he spent with his followers:

Go to Book Release: Toxic Leadership

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 rose from supper.
John 13:1-4a

At this point are you thinking, “Jesus summoned his followers to overwhelm Judas to stop his betrayal?” Put down the rebellion Jesus. Don’t allow this traitor to interfer with the good work you are doing.

But rather,

But rather, He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
John 13:4b-5

Washing the feet of his disciples was the pinnacle of serving them in that culture. Washing feet loses its importance in our culture where we wear socks and shoes everywhere and everything is paved or concrete. But in that culture, it was a continual task to keep feet clean where there weren’t shoes, but rather sandals, and there was dirt everywhere.

And feet cleaning was a messy task that was relegated to the lowest servants in the home (or palace).

What about you?

What does this say to you as a leader? Can you just sit with that story for a little bit and let it sink in.

Jesus is showing them that his way is the path of humble service not privileged greatness.

How can you serve your followers . . . rather than exercise authority over them like the world?
[Lection 365—August 4, 2026]

Verse 1 says, “He loved them to the end.” This was love. And Jesus loved until he was betrayed. Until they arrested Him. Until they found Him guilty of nothing. Until they beat Him.

Until He was hung on a cross—the most excrutiating punishment in the ancient world.

Because that was His goal and intent. His Kingdom was built through love and service and dying to self. Not through power and control. God’s absolute power and control has a purpose and that is in service to His Kingdom—His world. For His glory.

Crazy Making and Abusive Leadership: Who is Crazy Here?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

These thoughts came out of a very helpful discussion I had recently with some friends. I wanted to just get them down on paper—or at least 0s and 1s. Therefore this is pretty short . . .

As my friends and I discussed John 11, I was struck by verses 47 and 48. These couple of sentences are so appropriate for those who have faced abuse in any setting.

The term “Crazy-Making” is often used to describe this infuriating experience.

Jesus has just raised his friend, Lazarus from the dead—not your basic healing from a cold (though that is wonderful as well). Everyone knew Lazarus was dead and believed, apparently that Jesus could, or would have healed Lazarus when he was sick. But, are then distraught when Jesus didn’t come along at the right time.

However, Jesus proves without a doubt his diety and power and love through the raising of Lazarus from the dead. As the people noted in the passage, Lazarus was definately dead—he stunk. It was an incredible miracle.

And yet, this is what the chief priests and Pharisees said:

“What are we going to do since this man is doing many signs? If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him.”

Well . . . yeah? Doesn’t it make sense that they would? And maybe you should too, religious leaders?

Making Crazy

What was discussed with my friends was that abusive leaders are just like this. They are stuck in their thinking. They are seemingly oblivious to truth . . . or intentionally so. When they are presented with the truth, they simply reject it and make crazy!

It makes those who suffer under their foolishness feel crazy. They are continually asking how the leaders could possibly reject the truth when it is so evident.

But, even worse, at some point, the victim of the leader’s attacks begins to wonder if they read it wrong, saw it wrong, or just got the whole situation wrong.

“Maybe, just maybe, the leader is just fine, but I am making this up?”

Crazy-making is very damaging to the emotional and spiritual health of the victim. The impact on their future ability to make decisions and thinking process is well-documented. Enough being told you are crazy or stupid or unable and you begin to believe it.

Feeling inadequate and expressing that sense of inadequacy by apologizing for each idea or statement is evidence of these experiences. Second-guessing every thought. Feeling like you cannot have a good plan or belief, because, well . . . you are crazy.

These experiences are important for both the advocate and victim to keep in mind as they navigate post (or even during) abusive leadership life. Knowing this is part of gaining back voice—being able to present ideas and plans and thoughts. It is part of gaining agency once again.

Victims—remember, you aren’t crazy. You do have good ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. They are val

Making a Difference: Research that is Boots on the Ground in Dracula’s Neighborhood

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Spending time with researchers on “bad leadership” from around the world this past week was a helpful, eye-opening, and an enjoyable experience.

Anders Örtenblad and Horia Moașa gathered us from nearly 20 countries to discuss and present research findings on bad leadership. The gathering— “The Dracula Conference on Bad Leadership” —was held at the University of Transylvania (yes, there is a real place called that) in Brașov, Romania.

“Dracula” —given that name by Irish novelist Bram Stoker—was actually Vlad the Impaler, a former ruler in the Transylvania region of Romania, a picturesque location in the mountains of Romania.

Count Dracula & Grey Leadership

Vlad was actually a hero to Romanians as a law and order guy who also repelled the Ottoman army from the Romanian homeland. He was also rather ruthless.

This distinction was a model to some researchers who are looking at bad leadership from the subjective eye-of-the-beholder perspective. Some see Vlad as evil (mostly those of us who only know him from Irish novelist Stoker’s vantage point—Dracula the blood-sucking vampire), but others see him as a hero.

Therefore, Dracula (or Vlad) is the perfect model for the “grey” leader (vs. dark) for some researchers.

These researchers see bad leaders as having redeemable qualities.

However, as one well-known researcher who has been at the forefront of bullying in the workplace research for 30 years or more (in Norway), noted to me as we gazed up at Dracula’s castle on an outing, “This is a dangerous perspective.” This perspective can end up giving a free pass to leaders because they do “some good.”

I have watched destructive or toxic leadership consistently end badly.

This runs counter to seeing bad leaders as being both good and bad. Maybe we can see the “good” they have done whether in policies put in place or actions taken, but suggest, “I know he isn’t a good person.” We may be hesitant to classify any leader as truly toxic. We don’t want to stigmatize leaders.

I understand this view and appreciate the optimism.

But truly toxic leadership always ends badly.

This is a type of leadership distinguished by a lack of humility to see and respond to their own failings. Yes, there are “grey” leaders who might be too harsh or somewhere along the line of narcisissm, but they respond to confrontation with thoughtfulness and a willingness to work on their leadership skills. We need the research in this area, because real change can be made.

But “toxic leadership” does not possess this humility and is a different animal. So we need to be able to discern between the two.

Toxic leader’s destruction of relationships, near and far, is too great to ignore. I can (almost) guarantee through empirical evidence, and a large range of research, that leadership that is not humble or responsive to confrontation for mistakes made by them will end in greater destruction than any positive outcomes their compliant followers attribute to them.

Boots on the Ground

This brings me to the “boots on the ground” part of this blog’s title.

It was suggested that we pay attention to the practitioners of toxic leadership—those who are living in the spaces where toxic leadership takes place and are learning from empirical evidence, maybe more so than from written research.

Much of what I have learned about toxic leadership has been in the area of abuse in the home (domestic violence) from engagement with those who have suffered from it.

When I shared with one new friend at the conference that my entry to this field was through a combination of domestic violence and leadership abuse they noted that researcher Bennet Tepper made the same connection nearly 30 years ago. There was pushback at that time, according to this researcher, because Tepper had not made the connection (through research) clear between domestic violence and leadership abuse dynamics. He largely took it for granted supposedly.

In my 10 years of interviews and research, there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a very clear connection between the dynamics and psychology of abuse in the home and workplace. It is for that reason that I nearly always connect the two in my own writing. Much of my early research was specifically in domestic violence as I sought to understand what and why toxic leaders were thinking and acting the way they did.

This connection is not to say that an abuser in the home also abuses in the workplace. That is not the connection I am making. It is that the intent of the leader in the workplace and the abuser in the home is the same: (S)he believes (s)he is entitled to be at the top of the pecking order and controls others in order to maintain that position.

The tactics these abusive individuals use may be different at home and in the workplace, but those tactics have the same goal. Therefore, it is helpful to study domestic violence to understand workplace abuse.

It is Wicked

Getting back to the earlier part of this blog, the abusive partner or leader’s perspective is wicked and evil. It is self-centered, selfish, and oppressive to those under their thumb.

If you spend any time with boots on the ground or have spent any time as the target of an abusive leader, you will at least to some degree understand how truly wicked it is. The stories of illnesses—physical, emotional, and spiritual—created by these leaders should stop anyone from making light of it or suggesting toxic leadership is in any way “grey.”

We must make a distinction between these types of leadership.

Leadership Wisdom and Humility: God Chose What is Foolish in the World to Shame the Wise

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

1st Corinthians 1 says so many things to leaders as well as subordinates in Christian organizations.

It speaks of calling and of wisdom and of foolishness and of power and of weakness and of arrogance—all of it which are related to leadership and those who follow.

First, 1:26 says that we are all “called” to be something different than what our world around us says we are. And that something is in a place of humility—

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.

Wisdom to the world around is about power and self-satisfaction. But our calling from the God Who rules over the universe is one of humility. Our wisdom is not found in our worldly birth such as place of importance in an important family or corporation or any other worldly place of power.

Rather we are called to wisdom found in recognizing our humble place before God and man.

The Apostle Paul goes on to say that God does not call us because of those worldly standards of importance—strength, position of power, standing in our community. In fact, He shames those who think they are wise by the world’s standards through His “foolish” actions according to those same world’s standards.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.

This is exemplified in particular through Jesus Christ who, despite being the One true Ruler, was willing to place Himself in those “powerful rulers” to be murdered. How foolhardy is that?

But because God has all the wisdom knew what that meant for His creation—a renewal so far reaching we cannot fathom it. He used what was seemingly foolish to bring about the greatest project of wisdom ever: the saving of His people and of His creation.

All of this getting up in the face of an arrogant world is intended to show that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

Leadership?

What does that have to say to your leadership?

Wisdom to lead well must be found in God’s principles. This is why I write this blog. I want to continually challenge all who think leadership is a matter of power and worldly wisdom.

The true wisdom that is found in psychology, business management, or any leadership training text is wisdom that is fundamentally exemplified in the LORD. And there are many, many principles that are indeed found in those areas of study that have their place in Scriptural leadership. In fact, those principles are sometimes more clearly deliniated in those halls of academia than in some churches.

Because, sometimes the church falls hook, line, and sinker for worldly wisdom that has no power.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 (ESV) For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

How Good Leaders are Chosen: Moses and the Exodus

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

What makes a leader good is not that he simply rejects prevailing political approaches, speaks his mind, displays power, or brings wealth and fortune to an organization.

Though many of us would never base our standards on such things, deep, deep down we probably hold one or more of these standards as “self-evident.”

Some are very attracted to the rebellious; those who reject conventional engagement and “call it like it is.” Or maybe the man—or woman—who expresses particular strength of will.

However, what is fundamental to good leadership is someone who has skills, humility, and cares for the needs of others, particularly the vulnerable. That is biblical leadership.

An example of leadership development and selection can be found in the first three chapters of Exodus. There, we see the story of how Moses is born, miraculously saved, grows in convictions, and is chosen by the Lord to stand up against oppressive leadership.

Part of the Establishment, Yet . . .

The story begins by introducing Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh is oppressing the Israelites, who had been welcomed into Egypt 400 years earlier. They had moved in those 400 years from being given lavish treatment—due to Joseph’s wisdom and service to the Pharaoh at that time—to becoming slaves to the Egyptians. They were treated horribly and at one point Pharaoh orders that male babies be killed by the Hebrew (Israelite) midwives.

Moses was born to an Israelite and hidden. He then was miraculously saved by Pharaoh’s daughter who took him into her family, though asking Moses’ mother (not knowing she was his mother) to nurse the child.

Moses grew up as part of the establishment.

Yet, it seems the Lord had kept him responsive to the needs of those who were oppressed.

As he went out one day he saw an Egyptian treating an Israelite slave horribly. Moses stepped in and killed the Egyptian. Though I believe this should be classified as murder—we don’t know exactly what was happening and if it was justified killing—we do see a man (Moses) who has convictions to care for the oppressed.

Running

Because of his fear of punishment (Pharaoh had heard and wanted to kill Moses), Moses runs away to Midian. And once again, Moses’ care for the oppressed shines as he saves some shepherdesses from some shepherds who were driving them away from their water source.

Moses continually cares for those suffering under those with the power to crush others.

Time passes, Moses marries in Midian, the Pharaoh dies, and the people of Israel cry out to the the Lord because of the mistreatment they are facing at the hands of their slave masters.

The Lord now calls Moses out of his relative comfort in Midian to lead a revolt of sorts in Egypt.

Moses Has Been Prepared

Moses has been prepared for this.

He has proven that he stands by his convictions to care for those under oppression. And Moses becomes one of the most important prophets in Israel, being referred to constantly throughout the Bible as one of the most important men in Israel’s history.

The Lord sends Moses to this new Pharaoh to “request” the release of God’s people (Israel).

Moses’ response is typical of a humble leader—one who knows his own abilities are not adequate:

“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?”

Exodus 3:11 (ESV)

The Lord answers that He will be with Moses.

Take Away

There are many lessons in Exodus 1 through 3, but I want to simply point out that leaders should be chosen out of humility, and yet we must remember that they can still become drunk with power as Moses did on one occasion (striking the rock in Numbers 20) —which is a whole ‘nother story.

But the starting place is humility and care. Has the person shown a real care for others? A real interest in their well-being? Is he/she giving and gracious?

Then, does s/he have the skills to do the job? In a sense, I suggest this comes last. Skills can be developed . . . humility and care are attitudes that have been developing probably since childhood as the Lord has sanctified. And being placed in leadership does nothing to help humility and care when those deep-seated attitudes are not already present.

Some people seem to be made for leadership as they take the reigns of control naturally and easily.

However, if they lack humility and care for those under their power, pass them by and keep looking.

Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership

Featured

Posted on by
1

Nearly a year and a half ago, Anders Örtenblad (Professor of Working Life Sciences at Agdar University in Norway) reached out to me because he was interested in the doctoral research I had completed back in 2017 on toxic leadership in Christian organizations. Anders was in the process of gathering researchers to write chapters in the forthcoming “Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership” published by Oxford University Press.

We had a enjoyable first Zoom discussion and it was determined that I would write a chapter specifically on the problems experienced by Christians who suffer under toxic leadership in their organizations. Anders had recognized that there were unique challenges faced by Christians and I was thrilled to be able to research this more in depth for a broader audience.

The “Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership” is written by researchers from around the world. South Africa, India, Poland, Britain, Norway, US, Chile, Australia, Kenya, Turkey, Romania, UAE, Germany, and several other countries are represented by the authors. Most come from universities where they are regularly researching the problems of bad leadership of all sorts.

My focus in my blogs has been consistently on very bad leadership, leadership that rejects accountability and humility. However, this work also delves into leadership that can be described as “grey” which basically means it is not “evil” per se but inefective.

The Toxic Triangle

My chapter engages with a very helpful bit of research by scholars Art Padilla, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser called, “The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.” Their research focuses on three—thus a triangle—aspects of toxic leadership: the leader, follower, and environment.

In my chapter I discuss the “environmnet” that makes it difficult for Christians to determine from a biblical perspective whether to submit, confront, or leave organizations led by toxic leaders. Just as we had struggled with these questions biblically when under toxic leadership, so do many Christians. (These questions will also be considered in my own book coming out later in the year)

The research and writing of it was a roller-coaster ride as I spent five months working with Anders to very carefully craft it to be helpful not just to Christians but to others of different religious—or even non-religious—beliefs. His guidance through it all was invaluable.

In addition, after finishing my chapter, Anders asked me to co-author a chapter on auto-ethnographic writing. This means using your own story for the basis of your research. Both of us have an interest in this as both of us have faced toxic leadership ourselves. We discuss ethical questions of using our own story for empirical evidence. It was good research for me as I have not been doing academic research for several years.

The Handbook

The book is really a research work that, because of its price tag (150 GBP), is more intended for researchers who are seeking indepth analysis in this area of study.

The description on the website says:

The Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership defines bad leadership as unethical or ineffective, or both. Broad in scope, the volume provides an overview of the study of bad leadership and recommendations for future research. Some chapters help establish a mainstream perspective on bad leadership, while others problematize and suggest alternatives to the standard research approach. The Handbook classifies common ways of studying bad leadership as the preparation approach, the personality approach, the follower-centered approach, and the role-expectancy approach. Additionally, the volume proposes the circumstantial approach and the systemic approach. Altogether, this framework helps researchers to develop their studies of bad leadership.

The Handbook offers insights into how bad leadership manifests and can be handled in a variety of contexts, such as higher education, Christian organizations, and remote work. The Handbook also critically examines commonly suggested remedies. To prevent and mitigate bad leadership, stakeholders cannot assume that the actors around the leader—such as the leaders’ leaders, human resources, and the organization at large—are benign. Providing both an overview of this dynamic research area and a host of nuanced perspectives, this Handbook serves as a key resource especially for readers interested in understanding and studying bad leadership, but also for identifying, addressing, and preventing bad leadership in the future.

Örtenblad, Anders, and Anders Örtenblad (2026), The Oxford Handbook of Bad Leadership (Oxford, New York).

The Handbook will be in print early (hopefully) this fall.

NOTES

Go here for the Table of Contents

REVIEWS

“This remarkable book is a landmark in the field of the study and practice of leadership. If, like me you have been puzzled by the abundance of sunny-side up leadership texts in airport bookshops or the disembodied austerity and faux objectivity of many ‘scientific’ contributions to the field, whilst every day we witness more and more examples of amoral, corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest leaders, this is the book you have been waiting for. The chapters within are fastidiously researched and stylishly communicated, making a complex and often contradictory phenomenon fresh and accessible. An essential resource for any serious leadership researcher, it will also prove a very useful one for many managers and professionals who are appalled by current leadership failures.” – Stephen A. Linstead, Emeritus Professor of Management Humanities, School for Business and Society, University of York

“In an era of declining institutional trust and increasingly visible abuses of power, this book is timely and essential. Spanning industries, cultures, and theoretical traditions, the chapters move beyond simplistic notions of incompetence to examine how destructive leadership is constructed, sustained, and rationalized within complex systems. Particularly compelling is its treatment of higher education at a moment when academic institutions face mounting political, financial, and cultural pressures. By confronting the dark side of academic leadership alongside other sectors, the volume underscores how urgently this conversation is needed across our most trusted institutions. It will shape conversations about power, accountability, and ethical responsibility for years to come.” – Michelle C. Bligh, PhD, President, Claremont Graduate University

Facing a Terrifying Leader: Choosing When to Leave and When to Stay

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

To some this is just old news.

But to a significant number of Christians, the choice of whether to stay under a toxic leader in the home, workplace, or organization is not a question.

These folks might consider leaving, but the go-to is a belief that God has called them to suffer for Christ’s sake. And it is not because they have no good reason to believe this.

The Example of Paul

Early in the church’s history, the Apostle Paul was traveling on his third missionary journey. He was traveling through Macedonia and Greece visiting churches he and others had founded seeking to strengthen them. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem to share in the annual Feast of the Passover. It was an important festival in the life of any Jew with any historical, biblical, or cultural perspective.

However, Paul was headed head-long into a trap you might say.

In Acts 21, the story is narrated by Luke:

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”

[Acts 21:7-14 (ESV)]

It is a poignant moment in the early church. It was a warning apparently from the Lord in the form of a prophecy—acted out as was common in that time—and then heartily rejected by Paul.

Notice it is not a rejection of the content—Paul did not suggest it was a “false prophecy” —but rather a rejection of fear based on it.

Paul, in rejecting what those who were present wanted him to do, was readying himself to face some of the most toxic leaders of his time—the Jewish religious leaders. These leaders would seek his death, as the story goes, at the hands of the non-Jews.

Paul told the crowd that he was prepared “even to die” for a very high purpose—the “name of the Lord Jesus.”

Even to Die

Paul’s response has caused no small amount of guilt in the hearts of those who have faced off against toxic people. These feel that they are refusing God’s command to hang in there, even when the going gets tough.

However, I want to lay those fears to rest while not giving anyone too much ease of mind. My reason is simply that Scripture gives us several directions in these cases and Paul chose an honorable one of those directions.

But not the only honorable one.

It might help to show you how Paul responded to a somewhat similar situation:

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Acts 9:23-25

Those who understand that narratives in Scripture do not necessarily provide imperatives to be lived by may suggest that Acts 9:25 is not necessarily “normative” for the church. I would agree, just as I would suggest that Acts 21 is as a narrative not normative as well.

Evasion or Courage?

As such, it is important to note that neither passage suggests Paul was commanded to take the action—evasive in one case and courageous in the other.

There is however, one distinction in that Paul says in Acts 20 he is “constrained by the Spirit” to go while not knowing fully what would be the result. But then again, there is conflict found in the passage in that the disciples are said to be telling him not to go “through the Spirit.”

Who was right?

I believe both were right. Paul believed that, in the persecution from toxic leaders awaiting him in Jerusalem, was an opportunity to be an extraordinary witness to Jesus. Whereas the disciples saw it as an end to his ministry to the churches if he was dead.

And both likely happened. Paul’s ministry was both expansive and cut short by likely martyrdom.

Binding the Conscience

What we need to see is that Scripture does not bind our consciences when it comes to staying or leaving toxic leadership.

There are many considerations in determining what is best for each individual person:

  • By staying in a toxic organization, will I be able to use the gifts God has given me for the expansion of His kingdom through good work for a good end?
  • Will mine or my family’s mental, spiritual, or physical health be affected negatively making it impossible to do that work? Toxic leaders do cause traumatic reactions.
  • Will my staying show agreement with an evil leader? And in turn be a negative witness to others?
  • Will my leaving leave others—fellow employees—lacking the support that is needed in their personal or work lives?
  • Am I giving up too soon? I hesitate to put this in as most hang in too long and are horribly traumatized by it. But there are those who can have an important impact on the organization by staying.

There are other questions that need to be asked. But then it comes down to your own conscience.

But do not let it be bound by an ill-conceived perspective on Paul’s actions in Acts 21.