Category Archives: Abuse Response

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.

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.

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.

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.

Flesh and Blood and Spiritual Forces

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Perspective.

How do we view the world around us? And more specifically, how do we view our “enemies”, particularly those who have abused their authority and deeply wounded those who work under their authority?

Perspective makes a significant difference in how we think about and how we act towards these bosses.

I mostly write about how we understand abusive leadership and periodically write about followership. This blog is going with another . . . well, perspective.

Perspective: How Important?

Biblically, how we view—or think of—others is as important as how we treat others; in part because our actions are understood to come out of a heart that is evil or good. Therefore, Jesus continually challenged his followers to look deep inside (as did James and others).

So, I want to take a look at what Paul suggests should be our perspective of toxic leaders with whom we struggle.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:11-12 (ESV)

In the verses preceding this passage, Paul has been challenging both those in authority and those who are followers. He has sought to exhort followers—of even wicked leadership (specifically slaves)—to take on a particular perspective.

Each follower that Paul mentions is called to serve his/her “master” as he would serve Christ. His/her perspective is to be heavenly rather than on the good or evil of the leader.

His/her service is not from loyalty to the leader. It is a heavenly, God-ward perspective that should mold their work.

In fact, the slave is called to view his work as for the Lord specifically and not for man. Because if it were for man, it would be incredibly difficult for the slave. It would make his/her life all the more unbearable if his perspective was that his work was for the wicked master.

It would likely feel like selling his soul.

Where Evil Originates

And so Paul comes down to the summary statement above from Ephesians 6:11-12. When faced with an abusive leader, what should be our perspective?

Rather than focusing on the evil of the leader’s actions, he directs our attention elsewhere. That elsewhere is where the evil originates. Behind every evil leader are the “cosmic powers” of “spiritual forces” that drive them. “The Devil made me do it” is partially correct. However, the “made me” is off-base.

Man is fully responsible for his own evil actions in this life.

He is culpable for his anger, entitlement, and coercive control. However, that evil goes all the way back to the garden when Satan tempted Adam and Eve. It was there that man said “yes” to those spiritual forces.

The Conflict

At this point you may be in conflict. How do I suggest in blog after blog that toxic leaders must be held accountable and in this blog suggest that we aren’t really wrestling with the toxic leader, but rather some ethereal something or other behind him/her?

It is, however, no conflict. It is not easy. But it is no conflict.

Accountability: Just as Adam was responsible in the Garden for his turning away from God, so too the toxic leaders is responsible for turning away from God. And biblically, he/she will be judged for his arrogance.

Perspective: However, as I go about seeking accountability for the toxic leader’s actions, I can fulfill Paul’s exhortations such as—

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 (ESV)

Or . . .

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1 (ESV)

Or . . .

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

1 Peter 3:14-16 (ESV)

We can graciously bring accountability knowing that “they know not what they are doing” in a sense (Luke 23:341). We can have an attitude of winning the brother if he will be won (Mathew 18:152). Let gentleness and kindness rule in our hearts.

Also, know that the likelihood of an abuser changing his approach to leadership is as likely as a leopard changing his spots—there is significant research to prove that. So, if you confront go with your eyes wide-open. And keep in mind, confronting someone as dangerous as your boss can be a fool’s errand.

But, by all means bring accountability because ultimately this is kindness to the erring brother.

NOTES

  1. Luke 23:34 (ESV) And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” ↩︎
  2. Matthew 18:15 (ESV) “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ↩︎

Bowing the Knee to Pharisaism: It Never Goes Well

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Recently I came across a passage in the history of the early church.

Acts 21 in the Bible presents Luke’s story of his and his companions—including Paul—arrival in Jerusalem.

All along the way, as they stopped off in various communities, there were those in the churches who prophesied that Paul would be put “in chains” if he went to Jerusalem.

And so it goes.

Zealous for the Law

When Paul, Luke, and their other fellow travelers arrive, there is a joyful reunion with the church. As they all shared together what God had been doing through the various ministries of those present, they “glorified God.”

So far so good.

However, something struck me for the first time the other day after many readings of this passage over the last 45 years. Immediately, on the heals of Paul sharing the incredible, earth-shaking news that many of those outside the Jewish religion were turning to Jesus Christ, there is an immediate damper.

I am sure Paul was very excited to share his news. But there is no sense in Scripture that there is any reveling in God’s amazing grace as they heard the news. Instead, there is a bit of a one-ups-man-ship among the other believers there. Hear their response:

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Acts 21:20-22

First they note that “many thousands” of Jews had come to believe in Christ. Then they note they are “zealous for the law.”

Zealousness for the law is okay if it means we love the holiness of God and how he has expressed that holiness through His law. However, what seems apparent is that the zealotry is more Pharisaic than the Psalm 119 kind of joy in the law.

Notice that these church leaders follow up the “I can do one better with thousands of Jews” comment with YOU ARE THE MAN who is causing trouble here. Paul’s teaching—which was coming from a reformed Pharisee, mind you—was it was unnecessary to be circumcised to be a follower of Jesus. Paul worked exceptionally hard at teaching the church to not add rules to Scripture. His old way was to hold legalistically to the law and the addition of many interpretations of the law that had become law in themselves—Pharisaism.

Forsaking Moses meant these Jews thought Paul cared nothing for Old Testament Judaism—which is certainly not true. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament law, but also explained how the Pharisees—and other Jewish groups—had taught the law as a means to be saved rather than as a guide to recognizing their need for a Savior. That was never the intent of the law.

So, “What then is to be done?”

Giving In

After reading all that has gone before in the various villages they had visited, you get the sense that these brothers are hoping to keep Paul from being chained—even by fellow believers who were angry about his teaching on the law.

So they suggest:

We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

Acts 21:23-24

Paul is to fulfill this Pharisaical practice of the law in order to please these folks who continue to think these things are necessary to make God happy.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

Paul is a big believer in that idea. Whereas it is not breaking God’s law, he was happy to do as others do in order to reach them with the Gospel.

But, what we find here is that Pharisees—whether as members in the group or simply of heart—are never satisfied.

Paul did what they called him to do but it didn’t matter. Paul is reviled and seized by these Jews: “

‘Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place’ . . . Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple.”

It Cannot be Mollified

Pharisaism cannot be mollified. Paul, nor Jesus, ever makes excuses for it. Though Paul, in this instance, appears to have tried to calm the anxiety created by the Pharisees, he didn’t succeed.

Pharisaic teaching and practice are destructive. Paul continually fought against it (see Galatians 3:1f; Colossians 2:20-23). He called out, by name, those who were leading the fledgling church astray by its legalistic teaching (see the whole book of Galatians).

I believe I can safely say that some form of modern Phariseeism is behind a huge percentage of the church leadership abuse cases of which I have had contact.

In these cases, leaders held unswervingly to a belief or practice that was either outright unbiblical or based on an interpretation that was not clearly biblical. It is that interpretation that is blown up into an absolute that so often gets the leader in trouble.

A leader may take a view of pro-marriage and create a law unto itself without recognizing the principles behind the biblical authors’ writings that provide the heart and soul of marriage: a loving committed covenant between two people. And just as God “divorced” his people, so too those who have been rejected by their spouse through abuse are allowed to divorce—the abuser’s actions are called desertion in biblical terms.

A leader may consider those who question his wisdom as being unsubmissive to authority. But he is only looking at the parts of the verses that call on those under man’s authority to submit (Romans 13:1). He does not pay any attention to the meaning of “for he is God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4) or the verses calling him to account for his leadership failures (1 Peter 3:7).

So, these leaders run with their incomplete interpretations of Scripture and make a ruin of lives.

One look at the Gospels and you will recognize the abuse heaped upon God’s people by the Pharisees. The church must reject the modern-day Pharisees wherever they find them.

NOTE:

As a closing note, it is helpful to see that Paul’s end goal in walking towards the toxic leaders resulted in accomplishing the goal he had. Paul, writing to the Philippians church from prison:

I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

Philippians 1:12-14 (ESV)

Followership: Obedience to Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
2

Scripture is full of twists and turns that help us navigate the complexities of our world.

Some would call them inconsistencies. Or in need of complicated justifications. However, I would call it God’s wisdom in speaking to our ever complex circumstances.

One such twist is how Scripture handles “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). It is not uncommon to hear sermons and Bible studies based on the idea that as Christians we should be doormats. It is part of teaching on submission in the Bible.

Twists and Turns

However, there are also turns in Scripture that throw us off guard. This is because Scripture was written not to give us a specific law for every eventuality in which we find ourselves. As the author of the “Divorce and Domestic Abuse” section in the DASA Report, Shane Waldron, notes,

[I]f we interpret Scripture through the lens of modern law, we will most likely arrive at a very different answer than if we read it as law from the Ancient Near East.

Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault for the Presbyterian Church in America, Attachment 11

Our American viewpoint on law is just not the same as Scripture’s. They understood laws in a “principled” way. The big picture is given in the Bible in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and then given hands and feet in principles through case laws that are found throughout. These “case laws” help us understand the complexities of our situations.

For example, the Ten Commandments tell us we cannot murder. But, murder must be defined more carefully. So, the case law notes that killing someone in self-defense is not punishable as murder (Exodus 22:2). There are other defining characteristics as to what “murder” should be considered.

Turning the Other Cheek

So, too we need to be careful in what we expect of people when it comes to submission to evil. What I mean by that is how we determine when we should turn the other cheek to those who do harm.

A curious defining moment for those under toxic leadership comes in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian church. He says,

Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!

2 Corinthians 11:18-21 (ESV)

Paul’s writing reeks of sarcasm here as it does in other places. The Corinthian church had gone far astray since Paul brought the Gospel to Corinth around 50 AD. He wrote the words above around 4-6 years later. There were some pretty serious problems that had popped up in that time.

There were those who were abusing their authority in the church, teaching contrary to Paul’s apostolic authority. In this passage, Paul’s sarcasm is directed at the followers. He is calling them to action.

Submission That is Not God’s Desire

When it comes to those who are abusing their authority, Paul would suggest that submission is not the desire of God. Here submission is to God who overrules wicked authority.

Paul describes it as bearing “with fools, being wise yourselves!” Putting up with wicked authority is no godly. When doing so, followers are allowing the leader(s) to “make slaves of you, or [devour] you, or [take] advantage of you.”

Paul, in his writing, can be harsh. But that harshness is intended to relieve those oppressed by that which God despises. God despises leaders who take advantage and oppress their subjects (Ezekiel 34). Paul, though sarcastic towards these followers in Corinth, is particularly looking out for the flock there.

This is not a call to be overly critical of leaders in Christian organizations.

Scripture still makes it evident that the default position of those under various authorities to recognize and submit to those authorities as God-given.

However, this perspective must also be balanced with Scripture’s continual call to leaders to lead under the direction of their LORD and for followers to hold leaders accountable to that same standard.

The Heart of [Abusive] Leadership: Becoming leaders with a desire for the good and the capacity to carry it out

Posted on by
Reply

The abuse of leadership does not just appear out of the blue.

It has roots and a heart.

When we talk about abuse, we talk about patterns of behavior—coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors. But we do not stop there.

The Difficulty of Transformation

It is rooted deeply in the heart. Behaviors are simple outward manifestations of something much deeper.

Therefore, the way to transformation is through the heart; not a five-, ten-, or fifteen-step program of changed behavior.

When seeking change in an abusive leader, it must be kept in mind that he or she is deeply deceived.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

And this is why abuse advocates have so little confidence in the abusive leader to change.

Have you ever confronted an abuser? Did you see a humble recognition of their wicked heart? Did you see the dawning light in their eyes as they recognized their controlling heart and mean spirit? Did they even two days later come back to you and confess their thoughts of control and domination and ask forgiveness?

I know the answer to those rhetorical questions. At least 99% of the time.

Moral Concern for Others

So, how can transformation take place? How can an abusive leader be changed?

In a recent article by Kevin Brown in “The Dispatch“, the writer hit the nail on the head. Change is not through “thinly constituted reasoning”, as Brown puts it, but through “a story that shapes our moral imagination and directs our lives toward others.”

Brown says,

The Christian tradition has a word for this: discipleship. A call not merely to know what is right, but to become the kind of people who do the right thing. That is, both a desire for the good and the capacity to carry it out.

Real Virtue Has Roots by Kevin Brown

He noted that change in mankind—for good—comes through “discipleship”.

Brown says,

It is our day-to-day roots, not abstract reason, that will cultivate the virtuous life and our moral concern for others.

But discipleship means there is a “follower” who desires to learn from the one discipling him. And this again can be a nail in the coffin of transformation—most abusers don’t see it and so don’t think they need transformation. Why would they seek out discipleship?

The Ultimate Transformer

This is where Christ comes in . . . though He has been there all the time, mind you.

If Christ resurrected, this changes everything. All the maps have been redrawn. The world is upside down. Things are not as they seem. The truth of this story demands, says the hymnist, “my soul, my life, my all.”

Real Virtue Has Roots by Kevin Brown

It is only through Christ that a leader can even develop the desire to seek to know oneself; to know the sin that lies deeply hidden in his soul. To become a disciple.

This is the ultimate way that a leader will change his spots.

Yes, there are ways of seeking accountability: bringing pressure from boards; confrontations; firings; required batterer intervention programs. We have seen leaders seek heart change as a result of these accountability measures.

But ultimately, these only work when Christ chooses to bring pressure, confront, and bring consequences in order to discipline the toxic leader.

For if, because of [Adam’s] trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:17 (ESV)

We must rely upon Christ. Ultimately, transformation is His gift from Jesus Christ to the leader and organization and even the world around the leader.

Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD,
and whom you teach out of your law.

Psalms 94:12 (ESV)

REFERENCE

Brown, Kevin, and Michael Reneau. “Real Virtue Has Roots.” The Dispatch, August 11, 2025. https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-faith/virtue-morality-peter-singer-jemel-dunn/.

Ted’s Story: A Band of Brothers

Posted on by
Reply
https://open.spotify.com/episode/79gAD3m7ZXb8FliZuCW7H4?si=1fb702a7d75b4b1e

Ted’s story is hard to even start the telling. His story is a call to the church to be the church.

The brokenness of leadership in his denomination is so overwhelming that you begin to wonder if there is any real church left. Jesus’ church is redeemed and beautiful to Him, yet she so often acts as if she would have nothing to do with Him.

Jesus surely loves His bride, but at times I find that surprising.

Ted’s Story

It began several years ago when a committee was formed in Ted’s denomination’s regional leadership to investigate charges of sexual harassment against one of the pastors.

The committee, that acts a bit like a Grand Jury in the regional grouping of churches, presented a one-page summation of their investigation. They said they found no reason to move towards a trial as there were no strong reasons to suggest the pastor was guilty.

Ted found it strange that the summation said there was no guilt, but the committee provided “pastoral corrections” in the summation due to his “sexual misconduct.” He thought, “If there is no guilt, why would there be corrections to be made in his ministry?”

Ted and others asked for the full report—which was four pages long—but were refused. However, they discovered there had been one woman who acted as an “advisor” to the committee and she had published a “minority opinion.”

That sounded suspicious.

Ted began to speak with others, including women who were connected in some way to the case. In time, he determined he should stand up and be counted, filing a complaint with the regional leadership seeking justice for the women (multiple) who had reported the sexual misconduct.

In addition, he found that there had been multiple reports of impropriety against the pastor for at least five years before.

At this point, he told his wife, Rebecca that three things were going to happen:

  • There was going to be a huge move to exonerate the pastor.
  • He would be accused of having an affair with one of the women the pastor sexually harrassed.
  • It would all end with Ted being charged with something.

The Pastor’s Power Play

Ted’s complaint was refused and so he took it to the “supreme court” of his denomination for a ruling. That “court” upheld his complaint and ordered that a new investigative committee be appointed by the regional leadership.

However, a group of pastors suggested that an independent organization be hired by the regional leadership to investigate the charges. If they followed through, Ted would need to drop his charges against the pastor. He willingly did so that the independent investigators would have a free hand.

However, the regional leadership allowed the acccused pastor to speak at length and he convinced the leadership that the independent organization recommended was untrustworthy. His reason? He argued that they would support the victims.

He suggested that the regional leadership investigate and if they found guilt, then hire the independent group.

The pastor then convinced the leadership to appoint an investigative committee that had two lawyers on it. Then proceeded to convince them to put two lawyers on the committee whom he thought he had wrangled into his camp over the preceeding months.

In the end, his nearly hand-chosen committee found him guilty. But his personal lawyer, from one of the biggest law firms in the state, sought and obtained an immediate cease and desist order from the civil courts and stopped the process.

Contumacy

Men in the regional leadership then suggested bringing the pastor up on charges for his refusal to heed the ruling of the committee called “contumacy” (stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority). In the rulebook of the denomination it states that a pastor who is found to be guilty of contumacy by the denominational “courts” must repent or be excommunicated.

The pastor wrote a letter that he was amending his lawsuit against parties in the denomination but that he was “not admitting guilt.” Ted stood before the leadership and asked if this was not a clear sign he was unrepentant.

Others rose to suggest that “repentance does not always involve admitting to sin.”

Really?

Ted was livid and suggested that the regional leadership organization be disolved and that their group of churches be melded into another regional grouping of churches because he said, “We will never, ever conduct a fair trial.” He wondered what the use of their regional leadership was if they could not judge fairly.

In the end, the highest court heard the case against the pastor and found him not guilty.

One of the parties involved in the case remarked, “This is a coverup and meant to send a message to the denomination that you never challenge a pastor.”

Band of Brothers

Ted shared with me the story of Mark, a pastor who had incredible influence in the regional leadership. He described him as one of the biggest narcissists he has ever seen. Twenty to thirty people have told him Mark was spiritually abusive.

When another pastor was brought up on charges Mark stood to support him, calling it an “injustice.” Ted was talking to him a year later and asked him about the pastor he had supported. Mark said the accused pastor was one of the worst pastors he had seen. He was “super legalistic, bad with people . . . Mark went on and on,” Ted said.

Ted asked, “Why did you fight his firing?”

Mark told him, “He is a pastor. We can’t allow elders in the churches to rule.”

But, Ted pressed, “He was abusive.” Mark replied, “Oh, I don’t doubt that at all. But we have to protect the regional leadership of pastors. It is a ‘band of brothers,'” referring to the movie by that name.

Ted told me he can point to at least four other cases of charges brought against pastors where the reaction was always to defend the pastor “even when indefensible.”

What Can We Say?

Ted said he has been re-reading “To Kill a Mockingbird” and is finding that someone who seeks justice in his denomination for those under pastoral abuse experience something akin to African Americans in the 50s.

It begins to look like Jesus before the Sanhedrin where the highest Jewish court repeatedly broke their own rules due to their own bias and blindness. Finding an innocent Jesus guilty; while drowning in His blood.

Or the leaders of Israel during the time of Ezekiel when the Lord calls them to account for their wicked leadership:

The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered. . . Ezekiel 34:4-5 (ESV)

The sheep are scattering. Much like Aaron’s warning.

When the leadership of God’s people reject His unmistakeable teaching to humbly serve His children, there will be unmeasurable harm done to the Church.

Ted’s story should be a clarion call to church leadership:

Repent or suffer the fate that you so desperately are trying to stave off—the scattering of God’s people.

How in the World

I asked Ted how in the world he has stood strong in the midst of all the attacks he has faced.

Ted noted that all three of the predictions he made to Rebecca have proven true.

  • As noted above, there was a huge movement to protect the erring pastor.
  • Ted was indeed accused of having an affair with one of the women who came forward to report the pastor’s sexual misconduct—even though Ted has only actually see her and the other women who reported maybe five times.
  • And charges have been filed against him in the church courts that he is currently battling.

Ted told me he has found solace and strength in three things:

  • Ted said his wife has been amazing. She has been his support and encouragement all along.
  • He enjoys a cohort of other pastors and Ted said they “have been rock solid friends through it all.” They have helped him write complaints, checked in on him periodically, and prayed with him often.
  • He sought out a Christian counselor. At one particular point the counselor suggested two things:
    1. Find an EMDR counselor as soon as possible. Ted said, “That has been huge.” This type of treatment for trauma has been incredibly helpful to many victims of abuse. See Bessel van der Kolk’s book here.
    2. And surprisingly the counselor suggested he find a Brazilian jiu jitsu gym. Ted said, “It was the greatest thing I have done.” He was amazed that the others in the club were so supportive of each other. He noted, “When there is a new guy, the advanced one’s job is to help him by submitting to him in the wrestling, showing him how to win.” He added, “If you try to hurt others, you will be kicked out of the gym immediately.”

I really was amazed by Ted’s mental and spiritual health despite all he has gone through.

Quite frankly, I cannot imagine being where he is if I had suffered all he has to advocate for victims of such horrendous leadership.

Change Agents: Who Will Stand Up?

Posted on by
Reply
https://spotifycreators-web.app.link/e/54sGV3RANQb

In John 9 Jesus healed a man who was blind from birth and the religious leaders, who were deeply intimidated by Jesus, wanted to squash the Lord’s ministry. They demean both Jesus—saying he is a sinner—and the man, accusing him of following an outlier—not Moses whom they followed.

The leaders ridiculed the man by saying, “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man [Jesus], we do not know where he comes from.” As the big men—respected leaders—this statement was intended to marginalize the healed man, placing him outside their camp. They were in effect saying that the blind man’s healer was not worthy even of their notice.

But the healed man is quick on his feet and answered them, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.” He did not allow himself to be made insignificant in their eyes.

The man went on to reason quite effectively with these leaders showing he was not intimidated by them. Psychologists call this self-differentiation, a term that sums up Jesus’ own approach to his people—compassionate and empathic towards them but not controlled by them.

The Difference between the Man and His Parents

However, there is a distinct difference between the man born blind and his parents. Where he was unwilling to be intimidated by the religious leaders, his parents were clearly frightened by them. The Jews, when they heard about this miracle at the hands of Jesus, went to his parents and asked them about Jesus. The Jews did not believe a miracle had taken place.

Scripture tells us his parents answered them saying:

“We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22 (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.)

John 9:20-23 (ESV)

Fear of Loss

This is the story of so many who are intimidated by leaders. Followers who fear loss can be easily manipulated. It is how toxic leaders retain their authority over others.

Where a good and godly leader—who respects his subordinates and wisely encourages their talents and skills—will gain the respect and honor from subordinates, a toxic leader will use his followers’ fears to control them for his own ends.

The only way for toxic leaders—who bring destruction on churches, organizations, governments, and businesses—to be eradicated is by people like the man born blind. These are the people who recognize that they are made in the image of God and therefore of much greater value than the leader acknowledges.

These change agents are the ones who refuse to fear consequences that may indeed come. The consequences of standing up to powerful people can be devastating. They know that in standing up they might lose their job, their respect in the community, family, or financial support.

But, to these change agents, these things are not worth the coddling of a wicked leader.

I am Not that Man

I say this like I am that man. But I am most certainly not that man.

When we left our mission agency, we waited until we were half way around the world to write to the board of directors. We had left our job; our children were free from their school; we had gotten clear of their ability to do any real damage.

Others may actually have much greater courage. In this writing I want to encourage them. They are the true change agents.