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 orabuse. 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.
These thoughts came out of a very helpful discussion I had recently with some friends. I wanted to just get them down on paper—or at least 0s and 1s. Therefore this is pretty short . . .
As my friends and I discussed John 11, I was struck by verses 47 and 48. These couple of sentences are so appropriate for those who have faced abuse in any setting.
The term “Crazy-Making” is often used to describe this infuriating experience.
Jesus has just raised his friend, Lazarus from the dead—not your basic healing from a cold (though that is wonderful as well). Everyone knew Lazarus was dead and believed, apparently that Jesus could, or would have healed Lazarus when he was sick. But, are then distraught when Jesus didn’t come along at the right time.
However, Jesus proves without a doubt his diety and power and love through the raising of Lazarus from the dead. As the people noted in the passage, Lazarus was definately dead—he stunk. It was an incredible miracle.
And yet, this is what the chief priests and Pharisees said:
“What are we going to do since this man is doing many signs? If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him.”
Well . . . yeah? Doesn’t it make sense that they would? And maybe you should too, religious leaders?
Making Crazy
What was discussed with my friends was that abusive leaders are just like this. They are stuck in their thinking. They are seemingly oblivious to truth . . . or intentionally so. When they are presented with the truth, they simply reject it and make crazy!
It makes those who suffer under their foolishness feel crazy. They are continually asking how the leaders could possibly reject the truth when it is so evident.
But, even worse, at some point, the victim of the leader’s attacks begins to wonder if they read it wrong, saw it wrong, or just got the whole situation wrong.
“Maybe, just maybe, the leader is just fine, but I am making this up?”
Crazy-making is very damaging to the emotional and spiritual health of the victim. The impact on their future ability to make decisions and thinking process is well-documented. Enough being told you are crazy or stupid or unable and you begin to believe it.
Feeling inadequate and expressing that sense of inadequacy by apologizing for each idea or statement is evidence of these experiences. Second-guessing every thought. Feeling like you cannot have a good plan or belief, because, well . . . you are crazy.
These experiences are important for both the advocate and victim to keep in mind as they navigate post (or even during) abusive leadership life. Knowing this is part of gaining back voice—being able to present ideas and plans and thoughts. It is part of gaining agency once again.
Victims—remember, you aren’t crazy. You do have good ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. They are val
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.
Recently, a fellow author and researcher shared an article with me written critically of his work in the area of toxic leadership.
There was one paragraph that was fundamental to the journalist’s criticism:
In Sweden, trust in the immediate manager is at a record high. Almost seven out of ten professionals between the ages of 21 and 65 have a great deal of trust in their immediate manager. 58 percent also agree that they have a great deal of trust in their company’s management team. This is shown by Kantar Sifo’s ORVESTO Business 2020 survey, in which almost 15,000 people participated.
This is good and bad news. The writer’s view is that my friend was much too critical of leadership. In essence, the criticism was based on the journalist’s view that the researcher found a toxic leader under every rock.
When my friend and I talked about it, we shared a laugh—and this is why:
Maybe Not Every Rock
Clearly, according to the survey/study done in Europe—where my friend is Professor of Working Life Science at the University of Agder and editor of multiple important international works on leadership—bad leadership is not under every rock.
Only 42% of those surveyed don’t trust their company’s management team.
The way you frame that statistic makes all the difference. Will you allow me to interpret that statistic as saying bad leadership is not under every rock—but nearly every other one?
This reminds me of the criticism leveled at the many bloggers and researchers who are bringing to light toxic leadership in Christian organizations by a seminary professor several years ago—see this blog I wrote about his arguments.
I would like to share some further statistics that might help frame this important debate.
The Statistics are Overwhelming
According to the Toxic Workplace, 64% of those who responded to a survey were working with a toxic personality and 94% had experienced a toxic boss.
According to Balda, approximately one third of workers in the US have been bullied at work and three quarters of those were bosses.
“The Star-Telegram conducted an investigation that uncovered at least 412 allegations of sexual misconduct in 187 independent fundamental Baptist churches and other affiliated institutions spanning 40 states and Canada” (Christianity Today, December 2018).
“Nearly one in five workers—the study calls “disturbingly high” —say they face a hostile or threatening environment at work, which can include sexual harassment and bullying” (LA Times).
Depending on the estimation method, between 33.5% and 61% of all respondents [of a Gallup survey] report their immediate superiors as showing some kind of consistent and frequent destructive leadership during the last six months…” (Aasland et al. 2010, p. 446 in Debating Bad Leadership – Anders Ortenblad).
It is estimated that approximately the same percentage of psychopaths run corporations as are incarerated in our prisons.
Costly financially, spiritually, and personally.
A book called Mean Men took a poll of 800 managers and employees in 17 industries and found:
48% intentionally decreased their work effort.
47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work.
38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work.
80% lost work time worrying about the incident.
63% lost work time avoiding the offender.
78% said that their commitment to the organization declined.
12% said that they left their job because of the uncivil treatment.
The book also noted that toxic managers turn away talented potential employees.
The annual cost of toxic leadership in the Department of Defense (US) is $4.7 billion.
One of my interviewees years ago explained the impact her toxic pastor had on her as an employee. She described migraines and sleepless nights. It took years for her to heal from the experience.
Others of my interviewees have either left the church or are inhabiting the margins due to their distrust after having faced such horribly abusive church leaders.
So, these toxic leaders may not be under every rock . . .
but there sure are a lot of them.
The Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault of the Presbyterian Church in America noted in one of the Myths of Abuse,
“Abuse is not rare. Over half of murdered women were killed by a current or former partner. Approximately one in four women and one in seven men have been victims of intimate partner abuse. In 2019, the Department for Health and Human Services reported that 656,000 children were confirmed by state agencies as victims of abuse, a national rate of 8.9 per 1,000 children. Another study estimates that 37% of children will have a visit from local child protective services by the time they turn 18. By extrapolating these data, we estimate that between 6% and 10% of children will be state-confirmed victims of child abuse by the time they turn 18. Since many instances of abuse go unreported, the actual rate of child abuse is likely far higher.” http://www.DASACommittee.org
I would like to share with you a new spiritual abuse support group that my friend, Aaron Hann is starting. Aaron is a counselor and has had much success in helping survivors of spiritual abuse and religious trauma find healing.
Below is information and a link to his video describing this group. Here are the basics:
What: 24-week virtual support group for survivors of spiritual abuse and religious trauma.
When: Daytime CST (most likely Mondays or Fridays)
Tentative start date: TBD (Hopefully by March 2026 depending on interest)
You can read this or watch Aaron’s video, it’s the same content. This will take you to Aaron’s Substack site which is also a wonderful resource.
Scattered and Found
The name Scattered and Found comes from John 10:12 (where the wolf scatters the sheep) and John 9:35 (where Jesus finds the healed blind man who had been scattered). This group is a bit different from other short-term support groups, and I’m going to take some time to explain what it is all about. If you or someone you love might benefit from a group like this, I think the time to read or listen is worth it. It will help you decide if this group might be a good fit. I believe it can provide unique help to survivors struggling to reconnect with faith and spiritual community.
Why Support Groups?
One of the most painful realities in religious trauma healing is a paradox: we need community to heal; but community is what harmed us and thus feels dangerous. So how can we heal? One helpful avenue is through a support group of fellow sufferers who share your specific pain. While it doesn’t alleviate all of the reasonable doubts and fears, it often feels safer to heal alongside others healing from the same or similar experience. “Safety is the treatment,” and I put safety first in the designs for this group.
A Book and a Group
Scattered and Found is a support group, but specifically it is a book group, and so it has two elements: a book, and a group. I’m going to explain them in that order, but please don’t mistake the order for priority. The group is just as important as the book, and in some respects, more so. One can engage a book, even a book of the Bible, in isolation. Not so with a group.
The Book
This group is centered on a slow reading of the Gospel of John, for a very important and perhaps surprising reason: John was written for Christians suffering from trauma caused by religious abuse and oppression. There are many ways of explaining this. The quick version is that the group of Jewish believers for whom John was written, often known as the Johannine Community (ie the community of John), were kicked out of the Jewish synagogue and the entirety of their Jewish community because of their belief in Jesus. While there are many layers to this—ethnicity, culture, politics, and religion—it is the religious component that makes John especially relevant for religious trauma survivors in any setting.
I’m going to share just a few places in John’s narrative that give us glimpses of the traumatic experiences of the Johannine community. If you join this group, you will see even more of these signs of God speaking directly to your traumatic experiences and God’s healing grace. But since this theme is probably new, I don’t want you to just take my word for it. I’m reading these without explaining any story context; just pay attention to themes of fear, violence, conflict, and trauma.
First, there are repeated mentions of excommunication and the threat of religious persecution, notably, not from people of other faiths (ie Roman authorities), but from those who shared the same Jewish faith:
John 9:22 His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jews, since the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed him as the Messiah, he would be banned from the synagogue.
John 9:34-35 “You were born entirely in sin,” they replied, “and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out. [35] Jesus heard that they had thrown the man out, and when he found him, he asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
John 12:42 Nevertheless, many did believe in him even among the rulers, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, so that they would not be banned from the synagogue.
John 15:20 “Remember the word I spoke to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.”
John 16:2 They will ban you from the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering service to God.
Second, there are repeated mentions of religious violence and fear of religious authorities.
John 5:18 This is why the Jews began trying all the more to kill him: Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
John 7:13 Still, nobody was talking publicly about him for fear of the Jews.
10:12 “The hired hand, since he is not the shepherd and doesn’t own the sheep, leaves them and runs away when he sees a wolf coming. The wolf then snatchesand scatters them.”
John 11:8 “Rabbi,” the disciples told him, “just now the Jews tried to stone you, and you’re going there again?”
John 12:10-11 But the chief priests had decided to kill Lazarus also, [11] because he was the reason many of the Jews were deserting them and believing in Jesus.
John 19:38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus’s body.
John 20:19 When it was evening on that first day of the week, the disciples were gathered together with the doors locked because they feared the Jews.
John 20:26 A week later his disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them…[and] the doors were locked.
Can you hear the story? Why would there be so much repeated emphasis on fear and religious violence? Because that is what John’s audience lived through. John highlights those themes to point out how the story of Jesus speaks specifically to the lived experience of religious trauma.
The Group
One of John’s programmatic, foundational themes is that famous statement in 1:14, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” This group is a way for the Word to become flesh. After Jesus, the enfleshed Word, was raised and ascended to heaven, he sent the Spirit and became Word again in the pages of Scripture. We encounter the enfleshed Word in the Bible. “The gospel of John provides more than the fact of the Incarnation; through the very specific words the Word speaks, the gospel narrative enacts the Incarnation for the gospel’s readers.”1
And, as 1 John 4:12 makes clear, we encounter the divine Word in other brothers and sisters: “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” We are invited into a process, of Word becoming flesh [incarnation], expressed in words [inspired Scripture], and then those words put on flesh again among us in our love for one another. And we participate in the divine Word when we likewise allow the Word to be enfleshed among us.
It’s a reciprocal dynamic of finding our story in this story of the Word, which sheds further light on our story, which then invites the Word into our lives today by the presence of the Spirit who mediates the divine Word and the written Word.
Format
The basic format of the group is simple—on the surface more like a 12-step meeting or a Bible study. But it is a support group, and it’s not a traditional Bible study, nor is it a 12-step meeting. 21 of the meetings will be devoted to each of John’s 21 chapters. Additionally, we will have a joint intro session, a final closing session, and an (optional) individual session with me. Each meeting we will read the chapter aloud in the group, go through a round of sharing, read the chapter again, and then a second round of sharing. We also practice a short time of silence, starting at one minute and gradually working up to five minutes.
The key element that makes this group supportive and healing is that we will explicitly and intentionally read John in light of religious trauma and experiences of spiritual abuse/church harm/deconstruction/etc. That is literally why this Gospel was written and how it was intended to be read by the original audience. As Barbara Stewart put it when describing her trauma recovery groups for war veterans reading through Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, “It is a book group where we put the text in the middle of the room and allow its meanings to resonate.”2 We will put the Fourth Gospel in the middle of the room and allow its meanings to resonate. Additionally, following Stewart, “[John] offers [survivors] a map for coming home. The reading group provides the opportunity to read the map.”3 Like traumatized war veterans being guided home in their reading of the Odyssey4, John guides traumatized believers to the home promised by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (John 14:2, 17, 23). Only, as John tells us, we have a distinct advantage: Jesus promised his Spirit to all disciples, and promised that the Spirit “will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you” (14:26). “If this story is the story of the enfleshed Word, what happens to the words of the Word when the Incarnation comes to an end, as it will with Jesus’ death? The resolution, which Jesus himself offers within the framework of the story, is that the Paraclete will carry Jesus’ words into the future.”5 The Spirit leads us to the words of the Word in the Gospel of John so that they are not just words but, as Jesus said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (6:63).
Not a Therapy Group
This group is designed to be supportive and to provide a place for belonging and healing through the sharing of personal experience. However, it is not group therapy in the sense of process groups or individualized work. While this group is for trauma survivors, it is not focused on the embodied wounds of trauma (nervous system regulation skills, etc.), nor is there focused education on abuse, trauma, and receovery (defining, recognizing, naming, etc.). Those are critical components of healing which can be addressed through counseling or other support groups. While this group is supportive in nature, at times a member can experience some discomfort. If this were to happen, or has a chance of happening, members are encouraged to have an outside counselor. I am also available for individual counseling and can be reached at hanncounseling@gmail.com and https://aaronjhann.com.
A Note on Potential Members
I will often refer to members as friends because of Jesus’ astounding statement in John 15:15, “I have called you friends.” It is possible that your group will have friends with some or all of these experiences: friends from toxic, abusive systems with harmful theology but without any specific abuser or abuse event; friends who were spiritually abused by peers; friends who were spiritually abused by parents; friends who were spiritually abused by pastors, teachers, and organizational leaders; and friends who were leaders abused by other leaders and/or congregants. (Of course, none of that excludes other forms of abuse in addition to the spiritual component). Depending on one’s personal experience, having friends with different experiences can be triggering. This is actually a good thing, though it isn’t easy. It creates the possibility of seeing the humanity in someone who, because of association with our own trauma, we might prejudge as bad/dangerous/untrustworthy. It is important to be aware of this possibility, but at the same time, all potential members are screened to ensure good fit and safety for the group.
24 Weeks?
24 weeks is long. That’s basically six months. Change takes time. Healing and repair, when lasting, takes time. I recognize six months might sound like too much. As a survivor of religious trauma you may not even know what your life will look like in 6 months, what job you will have, where you will live. That’s okay. You will get more out of this group if you can attend every meeting, but attendance is certainly not mandatory. I am asking members to commit to a minimum of 18 sessions (about 75% of the group). General consistency is for the good of the group as well as each member, and a consistent place of belonging can re-ignite and sustain hope, whatever your unique season of life.
Book/Word and Group/Flesh
I call this a “book group,” and I use that phrase intentionally. It is word and flesh. Scripture and embodied relationship (even if we aren’t in the same room together).
Now, you might find one or both of the elements—the book and the group—triggering and daunting. Religious groups are scary after spiritual abuse. The Bible is scary after spiritual abuse. But we need both: we need grace from God offered to us in his Word, and we need that grace to be Spiritually mediated through connection with others. My aim is for this book group to provide a safe environment—kind of like the locked room in which the disciples hid from the dangerous religious authorities in John 20. They still locked the room one week later even though Jesus had already proclaimed to them the shalom of God in his healed hands and side (20:26). This group is a room where you can meet Jesus again, in the middle of your fear, joining hands with fellow traumatized brothers and sisters.
If you are doubting in the wake of trauma, wrestling with what you believe, asking questions while also afraid to ask questions, this book group is for you.
If you were abused by a pastor, religious leader, and/or church community, this book group is for you.
If you were silenced, forced out, or kicked out of your church, this book group is for you.
If church and faith stirs fear and anger and other negative emotions, this book group is for you.
If you feel like an outcast and are searching for where you belong, this book group is for you.
If you were betrayed and scandalized by a trusted leader or group of leaders, this book group is for you.
This book is for you, and this group is for you, and I look forward to taking this journey through John together.
Interest
If this interests you, please submit your information at this link: Google Interest Form.
If you think this group might benefit a friend, relative, or person under your care, please consider sharing this information.
Testimonials from previous members:
“The time spent in this group is precious. I found the community, support, and discussions in this group healing. Reading through the book of John together and sharing stories and perspectives created a safe space for personal growth.” — Anonymous
“You’re not alone. Come join and see how not alone you are.” — Anonymous
“This group is truly wonderful. It is a safe place to feel seen, heard, and share the scripture together. I highly recommend this group and Aaron Hann’s other services. He’s so knowledgeable, caring, and offers transformational support.” — Anonymous
NOTES
1 Gail O’Day, “‘I have said these things to you…’: The Unsettled Place of Jesus’ Discourses in Literary Approaches to the Fourth Gospel,” in Word, Theology, and Community in John, edited by John Painter, Alan Culpepper, and Fernando Segovia (Chalice Press, 2022), 153.
2 Roberta Stewart, “Amphora: Ancient Narratives and Modern War Stories: Reading Homer with Combat Veterans” (Society for Classical Studies, August 8, 2015), 5.
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.
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.
In this second look at the book of James, we will consider the center of toxic leadership. As was noted in part one of this series, much teaching in leadership circles looks at the outward behavior of the leader as the standard.
I have had the pleasure and privilege of writing alongside academic researchers in the field of toxic leadership—not because I am particularly an academic mind you—and have noticed this particular bent. I understand it and am not opposed to what is being written. Just as the US military takes a decidedly behavioral perspective in its training and discipline (as a friend told me), so too I know in the business world it is more feasible to look at the outward actions of leaders. There is the view that as long as you keep your toxins inside, you are golden as a leader.
However, as a Christian writing mostly to those confronted by toxic leadership in Christian organizations—including the church—I am concerned about leaders who may get a free pass because their toxins are covered up—at least for a time.
And that is a very important point; I believe toxic leadership will [nearly] always raise its ugly head at some point if the leader has a heart that is bent that way.
And so, this blog is looking at what James says about the heart. Because it is getting to the beast within that is going to truly and actually impact the toxic leader’s behavior and help in bringing accountability.
James says in 3:13:
Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.
Notice the interesting interplay here. James first points to the heart: “wise and understanding”. Those are heart issues—the inner man. What does he think and feel. Is he “wise and understanding?”
Then he goes on to note that behavior should come from wisdom and understanding. His good conduct will show whether he is wise or not. His behavior will show what is in his heart.
Then James goes on to explain more:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.
When toxic leaders are described, it is usually with terms like arrogance, liar, entitled, controlling, harsh, and overly demanding.
James goes so far as to say that these heart attitudes—jealousy, selfish ambition—are demonic. That is strong stuff. And not only that, these attitudes give rise to “disorder and every vile practice.”
It comes from the inner man.
If the thinking, emotions, and will are evil then the behavior will be. It may be controlled sometimes out of necessity to keep the job or wife or the respect of others. But the evil will in the end get the best of the most self-controlled of leaders and there will be disorder and vile practices.
Where does oppressive behavior come from? It comes from the heart of man.
Therefore all attempts at coaching or counseling must be directed to the heart of man. It is not enough to give him a nicer suit or less angry words. You can’t dress him up from the outside.
The book of James in the Bible is full of teaching on the abusive heart.
Though it speaks generally to all people, it also has specific value for leaders—those with formal or informal power over others.
After providing a beautiful and life-changing discussion on how to persevere under trials, James begins to delve into the heart of oppressive behavior. The warning shot comes in verse 19 of the first chapter:
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
“Angry” is often a descriptive term for those who are abusive of others. Though anger is not normally at the heart of the abusive leader’s problem—rather entitlement and control—it is a means and method for achieving these desires of the abuser.
This one sentence written by James, the brother of Jesus Christ, is antithetical to anger.
Listen.
Wait.
Be right.
A leader who fails to listen to others is not producing “the righteousness of God.” He has his own views, rights, and privileges in mind, not the good of others or the organization he serves. Listening to others implies truly hearing what they have to say and giving them the respect they deserve as God’s image bearers.
This can be applied as well to the leader who seemingly listens to and yet ignores his subordinates. The term “hear” means “to attend to, consider what is or has been said.” Again, is he giving honor to those who serve at his behest? Hearing means truly listening . . . no just acting like it.
Hypocrisy
James goes on in this same passage to challenge those who are wrapped up in a “Christiany” image but are in fact hypocrites. They put on an act of being Christian by spouting biblical sounding speeches, but in fact do not actually live those same words in their daily lives and leadership:
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. [James 1:22-24]
These “Christian” leaders appear to hear the words of God but immediately turn away from them in their daily life. They are surrounded by the Word of God—in the organization masthead, organization chapels, staff meetings, church partnering—but it is all just window-dressing. Often the leader is more concerned about funding the organization than he is about following Christ “whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does.”
So, he speaks a good line that sounds Christian for all the donors and likely the staff, but his heart is really far from it.
Out of the Mouth
In verse 26, James brings the tongue back into the discussion:
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
James takes a hard stance against the evil that comes out of the mouth. It comes back over and over again.
Much of our “behavior” —outward actions—is how we speak to and about others. Just as James says, our tongues are fires (James 3:5), ready to accomplish our scorched earth policies.
Does the leader think of himself, and even defend himself as a good Christian? Does he see himself as religious—after all, he runs a Christian organization or goes to church regularly, maybe even is a Sunday school teacher, or fills the pulpit periodically.
James says, if he “does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.“
In chapter three James goes on with further criticism of those who use the tongue abusively:
For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.
Deadly Poison
“Deadly poison.” Strong words. James shows the incomprehensibility of those who claim to love Christ and yet “curse” others. The Greek term καταράομαι (curse) means to “curse, doom, imprecate evil upon” someone else.
As poison it hurts and kills. Though sticks and stones can break our bones, cursing others is murderous. It destroys the emotional and spiritual health of others. It often destroys other’s relationship with the Lord having come from a “Christian” leader.
James, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gets the harm abusive words cause.
The hypocrisy of those who lead a Christian organizations—or any other organization for that matter—claiming to be a follower of Christ and yet behaving with a pattern of abusive language is beyond comprehension.
Appropriately, James has the strongest words for those who tear down others with their words—words that should give life and hope to others.
Do you take seriously the words that come from your mouth. Do you stop. Listen. And then respectfully hear the words of those under your formal or informal authority? If you continually justify yourself, you need to delve deeper into your heart.
Abusive leadership is a pattern of behavior that tears down others and it is so often with words—even words that sound Christian.
In this little missive I am going to try to relate an interesting, but understandable, phenomenon in domestic abuse experience to the workaday world.
I have heard more than once from friends of survivors that the abuser is “not as bad as my husband . . . so he’s golden!”
We can’t help but contrast and compare our experiences with other’s. We either do so to build ourselves up or show how rough we have it. Either way, one comes out smelling better than another.
Well at least he doesn’t hit her
In the domestic violence world it is common to hear, “Well at least he doesn’t hit her.” But survivors of emotional abuse will come back with, “I wish he would hit me so I would have a bruise to show for it. Then maybe others would take my suffering seriously.”
Many people fail to recognize or make clear that any form of abuse is wrong. It is hurtful to the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of the victim. The pain of bruises and the agony of broken brain circuitry are simply different . . . but all of it is destructive and evil and can create long-term trauma.
So, that brings us to another problem: the isolating of victims because people don’t understand these truths. These comparisons are used to control the victims, particularly in Christian settings where divorce is rejected on abuse grounds.
I have heard things like, “When they don’t destroy things they must be gold . . . though they yell at and demean their partner.” Friends of one woman repeatedly attacked her because her husband isn’t “as bad as their own.” They will not admit that their own husbands are abusive. That would be too hard. So the victim is pushed outside the camp because she isn’t tough enough like her detractors are.
But, as my wife has said, “You don’t have to be strangling someone to choke the life out of them.” Though he may not yell as often or demean in the same way, it is evil.
Workplace Abuse?
How does this relate to leadership in the workplace?
We see the same dynamic in the organization when fellow leaders, boards, or even co-workers suggest that the boss—
Isn’t as bad as the last guy.
The boss is supposed to be a strong leader.
He may be a little rough around the edges.
He is the founder. He can do what he wants.
Corporate bosses are notoriously narcissistic.
All these excuses simply suggest that evil is good.
But Scripture does not take that view.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV)
Notice how that verse starts: “Woe”. That is a scary word that has a sense of “curse”. You do not want to be “woed”. But when you start suggesting that someone is not abusive in the home or workplace because he isn’t as bad as Hitler, you need to rethink your comparisons. You are asking for woes.
Particularly if you are being called on to give aid and comfort to a victim. And instead, you suggest their pain means nothing.
