Category Archives: Abuse Response

Jeanie’s Story: Shepherding Abuse Survivors Takes Wisdom

Posted on by
Reply
https://spotifycreators-web.app.link/e/6Ff6rDlaIPb

It wasn’t long after the honeymoon that Jeanie began suffering from her husband Richard’s lack of care for his family and she suffered for nearly thirteen years from sexual abuse in their bedroom.

Richard, for the full length of their nearly 20 year marriage, refused to help with either childrearing or household needs. Over the years, Jeanie said she began to only ask for help when it was something she was unable to do. Then, in time, she began asking friends and neighbors when it was too hard for her because he would rarely respond to her requests at all.

Basically, my husband’s duty around the house became little more than to go to his regular job and bring home a paycheck and if I relied on him for more than that, it was overwhelming to him and anxiety producing for me.

Jeanie

She accounted for Richard’s bedroom manner—and her response—to teaching in the church that created an unhealthy sexual relationship. She said they both believed that the husband’s “sexual satisfaction” was primary and her needs were of no real consequence.

This view is not uncommon and comes from a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

1 Corinthians 7 is often misunderstood as explaining that the wife must give the husband sexual pleasure whenever he wants it. But, that is not what it says.

If you understand it within the context of mutual love and submission that is taught throughout Scripture, choices in the bedroom—like in every area of life as a family—should be made selflessly. That includes the husband whose desires may be driven by his own selfish desires with no interest in serving his wife’s—who may or may not have the “drive” he has.

Note how Paul makes it very clear that both spouses have authority over the other’s body. It is not one-sided and the husband has just as much responsibility to respond to the wife’s desires as she to his. 

After so many years of neglect and abuse, Jeanie said, “I began to struggle heavily with guilt, anxiety, insomnia, migraines and memory loss.” She had sought over the years to “win him without a word” but her “lived experience was that was completely ineffective.”

1 Peter 3:1 is helpful in some marital situations: It specifically speaks to marriage to an unbelieving husband. But it is not helpful in cases of abuse. An abusive husband does not have the humility to see the evil of their actions—he will justify and shift the blame. A wife’s humble submission simply means he has control and can do anything he wants with her.

The marriage had been so traumatizing to her, she knew she needed to get help and possibly a divorce.

Richard had refused counseling over and over and so she had gone by herself. He was not interested in making changes for the good of the marriage.

Elder Failures

Jeanie sought out the help of friends and her pastors’ wives. Their advice was consistently that she just give Richard more sex.

Jeanie had joined a support group and described hers and Richard’s sexual encounters. “The trauma counselor and other group members immediately began telling me I had been sexually abused.” She was beginning to understand that Richard’s forcing of sex was abusive and she was not willing to allow that.

She finally reached out to the Senior Pastor, Andy. The board of elders and pastors were going to discuss their “case” and she wrote to Andy explaining,

I, a woman who has been sexually traumatized, will be discussed by a room full of men, many of whom I do not or barely know, and they will consider the most intimate and hurtful events of my life, so that they can judge whether or not I have a right to be free from that. And what if they decide I don’t? Worse, what if they decide Richard is the one with grounds? Then I am being told that my needs don’t matter and that my feelings are illegitimate. I know that is not your intention, but it is sadly what my broken heart will hear, and I will feel violated all over again.

Jeanie

One elder contacted Richard—a common approach to marital difficulties but a horrible response in cases of abuse if the victim has not given permission—and was both manipulated by Richard and caused a ramping up of Richard’s abusive behavior at home.

Jeanie encouraged the elders to get training in abuse because, though they showed some compassion and kindness to start with, their handling of her years of suffering was wholly inadequate. However, they did not see the need.

Strange Response

The elders, instead of seeking to understand abuse and respond in ways that would be helpful and shepherding instead disciplined Jeanie.

After meeting, the elders told Jeanie that she should refrain from taking Communion and step down from her position on the music worship team for six months. There was nothing written down, it was not explained, and after about five months the restrictions were raised with no explanation of what had been accomplished.

As Jeanie and I talked, it became evident that the elders’ actions amounted to “disciplining” Jeanie and yet nothing was ever done to bring accountability to Richard. At some point one elder told Jeanie that they had sought to “disciple” —meet to train and encourage—Richard, but he never completed the assignments given to him.

He was not interested in caring for his family or Jeanie . . . only getting what he could in the bedroom.

But Jeanie was told she was the sinner by the elder board’s actions—she needed to refrain from the means of grace in the church (communion) and stop using her gifts for the edification of the body.

Jeanie told me, “I am probably seen as a trouble maker. They think I went off the deep end and divorced my husband. They criticized me for having a crisis of faith and I wouldn’t have if they had not done the things they did.”

Divorce

Secondly, the board of elders believed they needed to investigate and determine the legitimacy of her seeking a divorce. She was warned that if they did not approve of it, she would be unable to marry again—at least in that church.

The perspective that the elders have this kind of power is not an uncommon view in many denominations. However, there are some biblical questions in regards to this view.

In 1 Timothy 5 there are extended instructions for Timothy, a young elder in Ephesus. Here Paul gives Timothy directions for both the elders and congregation in relation to elders. At no point does he suggest that the elders are called to rule in such a way as to bind the consciences of congregant members.

There is a distinct emphasis in New Testament eldership on teaching and Gospel proclamation. It emphasizes careful teaching that does not go beyond the clarity of the Word. The elders are responsible to be good and gracious shepherds, not authoritarian, power-hungry rulers.

  • The congregation in Antioch sent financial aid to the Judean elders (because of a famine that was foretold) by the hands of the Apostles (Acts 11:29-30)
  • In Acts 15, the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem debated the issue of circumcision for new Gentile believers. They sent a letter saying, “Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28-29) This was a very careful and limited response that pulled back from legalistic proclamations.
  • The Apostles went from city to city to provide instructions to the congregations. (Acts 16:4)
  • Paul tells the Ephesian elders: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:27-28)
  • After giving the personal qualifications for an elder, Paul says to Titus, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9) Note “sound doctrine”, not legalistic control.

In Jeanie’s case, the elders, who refused to learn about the dynamics of the sin of abuse, overstepped their calling in Scripture by “disciplining” Jeanie and failed by omission to call Richard to living the Gospel in his marriage and family.

A Proposal

I understand the perspective that Jeanie’s elders have. I am part of a similar elder board.

However, just as an elder board should, without hesitation, provide “permission” —in the form of teaching and individual direction—for the offended spouse to divorce in the case of adultery without laying shame upon the victim in anyway for taking that step, so should they give that permission in the cases of desertion (1 Cor. 7:15).

Considering the instructions in the case law of the Old Testament (Ex. 21:10-11), the victim in an abusive marriage should be given every bit of leeway for physical and emotional provision. Our Lord despises oppressive behavior of any sort and elder boards must be found by the Lord on the side of oppressed.

In addition, it is helpful for an elder board to remember that their congregation is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and that as the elders instruct, they must rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach and convince their hearers of truth—in humility recognizing they could be wrong in their application of Scripture. The binding of a congregant’s conscience is a very serious thing. Laying undue burdens on the sheep was the practice of the Pharisees—who are roundly condemned by Jesus—and for which modern day cults are notorious (Luke 11:46).

Recommendations

After seeing cases like Jeanie’s over and over, I would make the following recommendations to elder boards and church leadership:

  • Get trained in responding to abuse. There are a number of organizations who can provide this training including Refuge Ministries of North America—see the organization’s website in Resources.
  • Receive the complaint of an abusive marriage, believing the victim.
    • Recognize that investigating abuse can be dangerous to the victim—the offender may become more abusive and dangerous as he is challenged.
    • And abusive individuals are often very manipulative and can confuse investigators and completely fool them.
  • Help the complainant understand the Scripture’s teaching on divorce—allowed for adultery (Matt. 5:32) and desertion (1 Cor. 7:15—in principle when a spouse neglects his family or is abusive).
  • Give support and permission to the reporting victim for his or her decision regarding seeking a divorce.

I do not consider these absolutes, but elder boards often are black and white in their thinking and shepherding practices whereas Scripture is not. Shepherding is difficult and takes a significant amount of wisdom.

If you are a leader in the church, please consider seeking training to be a safe place for those who are vulnerable and oppressed.

Self-Differentiation and the Use of Gifts

Posted on by
Reply

I have written quite a lot about “self-differentiation” ever since my doctoral study [see here]. At that time, my research advisor was pressing me to focus on this psychological concept—also biblical—in my dissertation about toxic leadership.

The term basically means to remain free from the psychological control of other people. Christian writers like Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken the idea and brought Scripture to bear on it.1 They point to Jesus as the ultimate self-differentiated individual as he engaged with others in a deep, empathetic way while not being controlled by them.

Jesus is an example to us.

There is another man in Scripture who, though deeply broken, was a “type of Christ” in the Old Testament—Jesus’ forefather King David.

The story of David, a rapist (2 Sam. 11:4) and murderer (2 Sam. 11:15), gives hope to every man, woman, and child that in our wickedness we can be redeemed. In 1 Samuel 17 the story of David and Goliath is told. It provides for us a picture of self-differentiation.

David Shows Up

David, the youngest of his brothers, would go back and forth to the battle lines where his older brothers were engaged in a war with the Philistines. He would bring food and supplies from his family to them.

One day David showed up and heard the giant of a man, Goliath, taunting the Israelite army. As David spoke with various soldiers about it, his oldest brother said,

“Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.”

1 Samuel 17:28

I don’t know what was in David’s heart but his response is certainly self-differentiated:

“What have I done now? Was it not but a word?” And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.

1 Samuel 17:29-30

It is a bit defensive— “What have I done now?” — but he does not allow Eliab (brother) to deter him from gaining more information about Goliath.

What I want to get at is that victims of toxic leadership normally shut down. As they are critisized by their boss, ridiculed by a manager, or demoted because they don’t practice image-control as their bosses require of them, they turn inward, keep their head down, and sort of do their jobs.

Who wants to be criticized? Who wants to face ostracization?

We want to keep our jobs. We want to please our bosses and supervisors.

All normal and all understandable.

But not always self-differentiated.

David’s Self-Differentiation

Rather than sulk away as I did many times under a toxic boss, David went to the big boss—King Saul—when Saul called for him. David told Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail because of [Goliath]. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”

So, David goes out to meet the giant and there meets further scorn:

“Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.”

1 Samuel 17:43-44

I love David’s response. It could sound arrogant, except that it is a testimony to dependence on the LORD. And dependence on the LORD is fundamental to Christian self-differentiation.

Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the LORD’S, and he will give you into our hand.”

1 Samuel 17:45-47 (ESV)

Sunday School materials are full of applications culled from this passage that tell children to stand up to their greatest fears. Sometimes those applications are ridiculed, but that interpretation is not far off.

What can be missing is that it wasn’t in David mustering the strength from deep within, but in his dependence and belief that God had his back and he was doing the right thing in response to God’s calling.

So to trust God alone is self-differentiation for the Christian.

Jesus’ Self-Differentiation

I believe the most apropos passage for defining self-differentiation is when, after Jesus did many signs and wonders, many “believed” in him. John says,

But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

John 2:24-25 (ESV)

Jesus knew what was in man. So too, David knew not to trust in man’s confident assertions (Goliath’s or his brothers’) but in God Himself.

Self-differentiation is just this: Not allowing the anxiety of others to control our own trust in Jesus. It frees us to stand up to toxic leaders where others cower. It frees us to leave the toxic workplace when others fear leaving. It allows us to reject the arrows of our antagonists whether they are a boss, fellow employee, or church leader.

Give your trust to Jesus, not to any other man.

NOTES

  1. Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. ↩︎

Saul’s False Apology: Seeking Repentance from an Abuser

Posted on by
Reply
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Sauls-False-Apology-Seeking-Repentance-from-an-Abuser-e2lv4gg

Recently, a survivor of domestic violence shared an apology letter her abuser had written to her. It sounded pretty good.

But, as most who have dealt with an abuser, she was not taken in by the carefully chosen sweet words.

In 1st Samuel 26 we see a false apology by King Saul.

Then Saul said, “I have sinned. Return, my son David, for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes this day. Behold, I have acted foolishly, and have made a great mistake.”

1 Samuel 26:21

Saul had been chasing David seeking to kill him. In this passage, David has snuck up on King Saul, giving David the opportunity to end the chase by killing Saul. But rather than killing Saul, he gave him opportunity to repent of his evil.

Saul seems deeply moved by David’s grace and admits he acted foolishly.

Sounds good, but it is a much harder thing to say, “I envied you, David. I had hatred in my heart for you. I desired your death.”

Each of the italicized words are heart words. They are the spring from which grow the evil fruit we all produce. These come from the heart; and what I mean by heart is the whole of the inner man—cognitive and emotive.

But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Matthew 15:18-19 (ESV)

Out of the depths of man come the evil we act upon.

So, when an apology is made for actions that have crushed others, it is appropriate for the apology to give attention to from where that evil action came. “I was chasing you, David because I was envious and hateful.”

“I was harsh with my Assistant Pastor because I envied his skills.”

The Difficulty of Real Apologies

The reason we don’t hear real apologies is because it is very hard to give them.

To bring our inner evil to light just takes too much humility and self-awareness. Imagine an abusive leader whose entitlement and power is so much of their substance and identity; how can they humbly admit to such wickedness?

It is difficult for the average Joe. Just imagine how difficult it is for the one who is so unwilling to dive deeply into his own heart and air out the stench contained there.

It is interesting, as you read on in 1st Samuel; David is not taken in by Saul’s apology. The text goes on to record David’s thoughts:

“Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than that I should escape to the land of the Philistines.”

1 Samuel 27:1

There is more than one place where David shows his insight to Saul’s wickedness. I wrote earlier about how Jonathan—Saul’s son—was taken in by Saul’s apologies. But David is not.

What Are We to Do?

There is One Who is omniscient—the Lord God Almighty. He knows the heart—the whole inner being of man—and He knows whether or not an apology is truly from the heart.

Because of that, we must not make judgments beyond what is clearly evident. Though we make judgments of the heart on a regular basis—our laws are in part based on them (1st degree murder as opposed to manslaughter) —it is something we must do carefully and with good evidence in hand. Yes, we can logically assume when someone does great evil, that since great evil comes out of the heart, there is great evil intended.

Yet, because there can be unintended evil actions and therefore, not coming from evil intent, we cannot ultimately be perfect judges of inner character. We are not omniscient and do not fully see the inner man.

Give it Time

Therefore I recommend the following perspectives to those who have received apologies from their toxic leader:

  1. It might be true,
  2. or it might be false,
  3. we are not omniscient,
  4. so it does not change anything,
  5. and to know the answer to 1) or 2) it takes time for the fruit of repentance to be evident.

Numbers one, two, and three are obvious; it is only God who knows the heart and so we cannot ultimately—in this life—know if an apology is truly true or not. Though Scripture makes clear that Christians may make some judgments based on the outward works of others (Matt. 12:33-37), it also makes clear we must be very, very careful doing so (Jam. 4:12).

We must not claim omniscience.

So, an apology initially does not really change anything.

We do not know for certain that the abusive individual is truly confessing his sin or simply trying to manipulate his victims, those to whom they are accountable, and/or onlookers. So, we must continue to press forward with what we believe the LORD is calling us to do in the meantime.

Leaders should not be placed back on their platform until their apparent repentance becomes true repentance. That takes time; so give it time.

Because we do not know the heart of the abuser, and we have suffered great harm, it is acting responsibly to be wary of their confession. It is certainly reasonable to accept it as given, while unnecessary to proclaim they have repented and place ourselves under their control prematurally.

Get to a safe place, and give it time for the fruit of repentance to be evident—or not.

Fret Not for Vindication: Be Still and Wait Patiently

Posted on by
2

Those of us who have faced abusive leadership in the home or workplace know the ever-present desire for validation and vindication. We want others to stand beside us, seeing our hurt, and for the abusive individual to be judged—in either God’s court or human courts.

Like the writers of many of the psalms in Scripture, we can go a long time waiting for either of these outcomes.

King David knew the hatred of men. He spoke of a close friend whose

speech was smooth as butter,
yet war was in his heart;
his words were softer than oil,
yet they were drawn swords.

Psalms 55:21 (ESV)

That one who was intimate with him—he shared in “sweet counsel” with him—was deceptive and hateful.

I am sure that David wanted immediate wrath. He wanted justice done. And yet, he wrote a psalm that pushes pause.

Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him;
fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way,
over the man who carries out evil devices!
8 Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath!
Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.
9 For the evildoers shall be cut off,
but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land.

Psalms 37:7-9 (ESV)1

Be still.

Fret not.

Refrain from anger.

Wait for the LORD.

It is evident in the psalm that the victim of the wicked will have his day. “. . . there is a future for the man of peace.” But, “transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.”

Vindication will come, but now is a time of patience and stillness. We are called to refrain from the debilitating curse of stewing in anger and trust the LORD, who will judge with righteousness.

Not an Easy Task

But of course, saying it does not make it so.

Whoever wrote Psalm 119 knew this:

How long must your servant endure?
When will you judge those who persecute me?

Psalms 119:84 (ESV)

How long? When?

There is no need to beat yourself up over the feelings of hurt, distrust, and impatience. God’s people have from time past suffered the same feelings of dispair. Some of that hurt is encapsalated in God’s Word as an example to us.

Where to Turn

The same writer of Psalms 119 tells us in every verse (except one) that we turn to His Word—in New Testament fulfillment, Jesus—for the healing of those hurts and the patience to endure.

My soul melts away for sorrow;
strengthen me according to your word!

Psalms 119:28 (ESV)

I am melting. But I am God’s child. I am blessed with all the heavenly blessings (Eph. 1:3).

Though I do not feel it at the moment, I know it to be true because Jesus told me so. I can rest in His promise, though I cannot see ten feet in front of me.

Even though the board of directors ignores my plea to bring accountability to the CEO. Even though the church elders do not see the abuse the pastor is heaping upon his flock. Even though the judge fails to take into account the damage my husband has been inflicting upon my soul.

Jesus loves His little children . . . and His justice will prevail.

Be still.

Fret not.

Wait on the LORD.

For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land.

NOTES

  1. For those of you interested in further study in Psalm 37, this is a very good article on the Hebrew of Psalm 37 passed on by a friend of Pearls and Swine: https://tyndalehouse.com/explore/articles/reading-the-psalms-in-hebrew/ ↩︎

Job’s Counselors: The Misuse of Spiritual Influence

Posted on by
Reply

For many the book of Job in the Bible is a pandora’s box of interpretive difficulty.

If you are a black-and-white thinker, it is difficult to read, I imagine.

But Job is a very good place to go to understand more clearly how the counseling of victims of abuse in the home, workplace, or church has gone seriously wrong.

It is helpful to know the beginning and the end before wading into the middle.

In the story of Job—who was horribly tried by Satan at the approval of the LORD—moans in the agony of having lost all his children, his means of income, and is suffering terrible physical ailments.

In the end, his friends are called to account for their poor—sinful—counsel of Job.

So, now we wade into the middle. Because of Job’s suffering, his spiritual counselors are laying one guilt trip after another on him.

In their black-and-white thinking, they believe God blesses those who live righteously and curses those who break His laws. Because Job—who had been richly blessed prior to Satan’s destruction—is suffering horribly, his counselors think he must be cursed by God and therefore he must be living in sin.

Trial = Sin

This is not unfounded in Scripture and why some in their black-and-white beliefs grab and go with it in their thinking and counseling.

In Deuteronomy 28, Moses lays before God’s people the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.

For those who obey the LORD:

Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 6 Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out . . . etc.
Deuteronomy 28:3-6 (ESV)

For those who disobey:

Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl . . . etc.
Deuteronomy 28:16-17 (ESV)

It Isn’t So Clear

I use the terms “black-and-white” in a negative way, because when it comes to blessings and curses, Scripture is not as clear on this topic as Deuteronomy 28 would lead you to believe.

It is indeed true that those who reject the LORD in unbelief and arrogance are cursed. But that curse may largely be seen in the judgment they face at the end of life for their rejection of their Creator, not in the middle. This idea is apparent in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19f) and in multiple places in the Proverbs.

Jesus tells a parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus:

“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”

Luke 16:19-23 (ESV)

Notice that the rich man, who rejected his God, lived a life of sumptuous feasting every day. On the other hand, Lazarus was a poor man. Yet, the rich man ends up in Hell and Lazarus in Heaven.

We see in Proverbs:

Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity
than a rich man who is crooked in his ways.
Proverbs 28:6 (ESV)

Deuteronomy would lead us to believe—if we don’t look anywhere else—that the “poor” —therefore the suffering—is walking in sin rather than “integrity,” yet Proverbs 28 suggests that it is the “rich man” who is “crooked” —living in sin. How did he get “blessed” if he was disobedient?

But that is the flow of Scripture. There are proverbial statements that in this life are generally true, but the end of the story is where it all leads. The wicked, unbelieving rich man will end up in torment when his life is ended, but torment will possibly only be when that end of life judgment comes.

And conversely, the poor—unblessed in the world’s eyes—will face many trials in this life but in his faithfulness to the LORD be blessed abundently in the judgment. His poverty is not necessarily because of disobedience as we consider the whole of Scripture.

This brings me to Job’s counselors.

Worm Theology

At one point, Bildad, one of Job’s “friends” who was counseling him when he in torment, explained to Job that in his sin, man is a “maggot” or a “worm.”

4 How then can man be in the right before God?
How can he who is born of woman be pure?
5 Behold, even the moon is not bright,
and the stars are not pure in his eyes;
6 how much less man, who is a maggot,
and the son of man, who is a worm!”
Job 25:4-6

In the sense that we are deeply depraved as sinful human beings, wandering about in rebellion and foolishness, Bildad was right. Some complain about “worm theology” but there is biblical truth in it when considering our deep brokenness. Romans 3:9-13 confirms this understanding of man’s depravity.

However, Job’s counselors—not just Bildad—came at Job from a Deuteronomy 28 theology, not a full-on-biblical theology of suffering. This is how many counselors of abuse victims approach those victims. They look for the “fault” in the victim that brought the horrible treatment. They seek to “help” the victim see their own sin and turn from it. They can’t believe a Christian leader could be so sinful as to lie, manipulate, and intentionally crush those under their care.

Abuse is Never the Fault of the Abused

However, these judgments are beyond the purview of biblical counseling.

First of all, abuse victims are never at fault. If the counselor understands the roots of abuse, they will understand that victims never bring it on, but rather the abuser will simply abuse because it is in his heart.

In addition, there are professing Christians who are very depraved and cause incredible destruction.

They will coerce and control in order to fulfill their entitlement in this life. Often they get away with it like the rich man who got his wealth through evil. It seems like they can’t lose, especially to the victim as she sits helplessly by watching the abusive leader convince the board, friends, and stakeholders that he is the good guy in this scenario.

When you receive reports of abuse from a friend, co-worker, or congregant member listen carefully. Stay clear of Christian platitudes like, “You need to give grace. We are all worms and he needs grace just like you do.”

Abuse is not normal relational conflict between husband and wife, boss and subordinate, pastor and deacon, or teacher and student. The conflict is in the heart of the abuser. And never because of the victim’s sin.

Lazarus Must Die: When Image Control Takes No Prisoners

Posted on by
Reply

Jesus miraculously raised his friend named Lazarus from the dead.

Because of that increadible feat, many began to follow Him. And those in power, the chief priests and Pharisees, could not allow their control and authority to slip away.

Jesus had consistently challenged these religious-political leaders of his day. They were abusive leaders, using Scripture and their positions of authority to crush and oppress others rather than as good shepherds (Ezekiel 34).

Their power was slipping with each man, woman, or child who dared follow Jesus, rejecting their false teaching.

So, they had to get rid of the problem. After all they had their image to protect.

Of course, they planned and plotted to destroy Jesus . . . both physically and in carefully worded debates (Luke 20:19-20).

The Tactics

One of the more common tactics for abusive leaders is to destroy, justify, or coverup the evidence of the light that is shown on their abuse.

They sought to kill Lazarus. Destroy the evidence of Jesus’ truth and light and beauty.

“When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.”

John 12:9-11 (ESV)

Maybe it is physical evidence that makes them look bad and their victim good that needs to be destroyed? Emails, letters, recordings, or worse yet, witnesses. One missionary told me that his ministry leader rarely communicated on email. When accused of his abusive leadership, it was a “he said, she said” argument. No one had any evidence.

Maybe it is explaining away the evidence? “I didn’t really mean that. I would never have said that. It is out of context.” I watched as one mission director told his subordinate he “would never say such a thing.” The subordinate looked like the crazy one in the conversation.

Or maybe it is finding a way to discredit the evidence by shifting the focus? “He is taking it too personally. She isn’t submissive enough to authority. He has a spirit of division. She just has an attitude problem.” I have been amazed by how often a leadership team has, rather than investigate and consider carefully the reports of abusive leadership, turned on the whisteblower and resorted to name-calling. I was even complicit with a toxic leader at one time, suggesting those who were struggling with the leader were just “hard to get along with.”

Whatever tactic it may be, Lazarus must die that their image remains intact.

DARVO

Common tactics for those who abuse their authority include DARVO. These are effective means for keeping the main thing (report of abuse) NOT the main thing.

  • Deny,
  • Attack,
  • and Reverse Victim and Offender

Do Not Cover Their Guilt: Imprecatory Praying

Posted on by
Reply 
Editor's Note: The timing of this blog is not intentional. Middle-Eastern events did not play any part in my interest or writing of this article.

I have written multiple times on imprecatory prayers:

It is a hard topic for Christians to wrap their heads around. Interpretations of these prayers for destruction abound.

In this article I am looking at Nehemiah’s imprecatory prayer. The ESV Strong’s Bible translation says in its introduction to the book of Nehemiah:

In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. With Nehemiah went the third wave of returning Jewish exiles. There was intense opposition from the other peoples in the land and disunity within Jerusalem. Despite this opposition, Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the walls.

ESV Strongs Bible

That “intense opposition” made many fear for their lives as they worked to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem. Nehemiah, as the leader of the Jews who sought to see the Covenant God had made with His people Israel re-established, gave instructions to the people to take protective measures. “Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:18)

And so they built. With their weapons handy.

The Imprecatory Prayer of Nehemiah

What was particularly interesting to me is found in chapter 4 of the historical account.

Sanballat, of whom we know very little, was a Horonite (possibly from Samaria). He was apparently the leader of those who opposed the rebuilding of the wall. He and his ilk ridiculed the Jews and sought to stop them.

They shamed and humiliated Nehemiah and the Jews. The language in the text is strikingly similar to how those who are under abusive leadership describe their taunters. Toxic leaders in the home, workplace, and church torment their targets with words that belittle, debase, and humiliate. Often those words are coupled with religious language that creates a greater depth of shame and humiliation in the target (spiritual abuse).

Nehemiah responded in prayer . . . just as he had done before approaching King Artaxerxes to request returning to Jerusalem to build the wall (Nehemiah 1). In his prayer here in chapter 4, Nehemiah expressed his desire that the Jews’ tormentors be destroyed.

Nehemiah prays,

Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders.

Nehemiah 4:4-5

No Qualifying

When I normally speak of “imprecatory praying” I give qualifications. Before praying, “Destroy my enemies,” I will pray, “Lord change their heart . . . “

Then I go on with asking the Lord to stop the abusive individual in whatever way the Lord, in His wisdom, wills. I try not to be too specific.

But Nehemiah, in a display of raw emotion, simply asks the Lord to destroy this enemy of God’s people.

Fundamental to his prayer is the understanding that his enemies are enemies of God. Nehemiah was confident of God’s anger at Sanballat. There appears to be no doubt in his mind that Sanballat, and those following him, were evil and that God was opposed to them.

And his prayer is not self-centered. Nehemiah is not praying against someone who simply disagrees with him. He is praying that an enemy of God and one who seeks the destruction of God’s people be stopped.

Dead. In his tracks. No redemption.

That is hard stuff.

But it is the hard stuff from which imprecatory praying grows. Imprecatory prayers are made for those who see no out from the destruction at the hands of evil men. They are the prayers of deeply wounded and hurting people . . . because of the unjust, wicked, and damaging treatment of others.

Forgiveness?

In addition, I want to point out that Nehemiah is not unforgiving as some might think in praying this prayer.

In praying, Nehemiah turns over the judgment upon his (and God’s) enemy, Sanballat to God. This is fundamental to forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean there is no judgment. But rather, as some theologians suggest, it is turning over that judgment to the Lord; releasing our own judgment into the hands of God.

Nehemiah prays for God to judge. Afterall, it is God’s place to judge.

It’s Just So Uncomfortable

There are a significant number of imprecatory prayers in Scripture. So often we gloss over them because they make us uncomfortable.

Because we have so often been taught that a good Christian would never ask the Lord to judge someone, we cannot reconcile the imprecatory prayers found throughout the Psalms and here in Nehemiah with that training.

But those who have suffered abuse may not have as much difficulty understanding why they are in Scripture. Imprecatory prayers are actually a balm to those for whom the Lord continually stands up. We have God’s own word that He despises those who oppress others. And these prayers are a means of turning over the judgment we feel is so needed to the Lord Who judges perfectly.

Why should we not join Nehemiah in asking the the Lord to do what He has promised He will do?

The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed,
a stronghold in times of trouble.
10 And those who know your name put their trust in you,
for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.

Psalm 9:9-10 (ESV)

Do not cover their guilt, Lord.

Making Too Much of Toxic Church Leadership?

Posted on by
1

Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.

Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1

His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“

In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.

Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.

It is our job.

So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.

There are Good Pastors

The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.

“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”

And so, the author says,

“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”

I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?

Greater Accountability

In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.

But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:

Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous

A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.

The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.

Judged with Greater Strictness

James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”

Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.

This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”

On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.

Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.

Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:

“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“

Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)

The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.

Diagnose and Expose

As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:

“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”

Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.

The author goes on,

“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“

I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.

The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.

I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.

And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.

A Critique

The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.

I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.

I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:

Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.

But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.

Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebuke abusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).

  • Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).

I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.

  • Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).

Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.

It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.

  • Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).

“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.

I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?

True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.

  • Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.

This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?

Summary

Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”

Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.

And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.

I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.

But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.

Footnote

  1. https://www.reformation21.org/blog/you-probably-have-a-good-pastor ↩︎

Individual Responsibility: But I was raised that way!

Posted on by
1

He was trained to think of the boss as all powerful. He was even nurtured at his father’s knee to be a manly man who took charge and recognized his entitled place in society.

How do we view the abusive leader of the home or workplace who has seen no other way of relating to people since childhood?

For many of us, we have a certain empathic response to these kinds of situations. Though we may not put it in words, we have given these abusive individuals at least a temporary pass for their wicked behavior.

In the backs of our minds we think, “They cannot help their sin.”

No Pass

However, the Lord, though always compassionate, does not give abusers a pass.

Though ultimately we may be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ in the end, those of us who continue in the sins of our raising will be held responsible for that sin. [see footnote]

We do not get a get out of jail free card.

Ezekiel was a prophet and priest and was exiled to Babylon in 597 B.C. He spoke fearlessly and forcefully to a people who had turned from the Lord. And he spoke with compassion to those who would turn from their sin though raised on the knee of wickedness.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live.”

Ezekiel 18:21-22

However, Ezekiel also explained to those who would give others or themselves a pass because they learned to abuse others from their parents (or shall I add business or church leadership models) that they are responsible for their own sin. And the one who rejects those role models will be received as righteous.

“Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise: 15 he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, 16 does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17 withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.”

Ezekiel 18:14-18

Ezekiel says, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Responsible

The individual is held responsible for their own sin whether they learned it well from others or not.

As we interact with abusive authority, we need to remember these words. The underlying principles that we can learn are that God does not allow our empathy to give a pass to the horrible wickedness of oppression even if the leader has been taught it from others.

He is responsible for his abuse. He is responsible for turning from it.

His or her only recourse is to fall before the Lord and confess the sin and walk away from it in new life.

Footnote: Those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, dying for man’s sins, as necessary for their eternal salvation do indeed get a “get out of jail free” card. However, the assurance of God’s forgiveness is for those who hate their sin and seek to turn from it (repentance). Abusive people must recognize, confess, and repent of their sins of entitlement and control as a means of oppressing others.

Rachel’s Story: Tenacious Pursuit of Justice

Posted on by
Reply

When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.

All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.

Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.

It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”

But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.

The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.

Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.  

Happy Place

Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”

Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.” 

“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”

Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.

She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”

Are Women a Problem?

Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.

The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work. 

Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”

No Complaints

There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack. 

One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.

The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said, 

“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”

The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.

Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.” 

She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.

Last Legs

The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.

Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM. 

Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.” 

According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”

Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”

Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”

But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”

Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.

Ending in Isolation

Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims. 

She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.” 

Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.

Dr. Judith Harmon says, 

“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“

Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)

In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.

Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”

Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.

Some Encouragement

There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her. 

The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years. 

Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.

The Abuse Ramps Up

Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”

So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.

Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.

Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”

After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”

She had never heard a thing.

It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.

Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list. 

The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.” 

In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s. 

Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.

Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.

The Fallout

It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption. 

The Clerk of the church board has left the church. 

All of the worship team has left.

The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.

One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.

Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years. 

Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”

She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.

When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church. 

Depression. Anger. Bitterness. 

This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.