Amaziah seemed attentive to the LORD as he began his reign as king of Judah 2800 years ago.
When preparing to go to war, he put together an impressive force of power. He hired mercenaries from the northern kingdom, Israel—100,000 of them.
However, a “man of God” came to him and discouraged him from using the mercenaries in the battle. He rather encouraged Amaziah to rely upon the LORD instead of seeking the help of his Israelite mercenaries.
Of course, Amaziah feared losing the money he had promised to the mercenaries. But he was encouraged by the man of God that the LORD would provide for him. Amaziah believed him, paid the cash he promised the mercenaries, and as a result was victorious in battle because he relied on the LORD.
King Amaziah reigned in Judah for 29 years, beating the 20 years that the average king ruled in the southern kingdom.
Scipture tells us “he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not with a whole heart.”
2 Chronicles 25:2
The Slide
That sensitive heart that was willing to hear criticism, even criticism that would affect his wallet, disappeared however.
Once he had won the battle, Amaziah “brought the gods of the men of Seir and set them up as his gods and worshiped them, making offerings to them.”
Therefore the LORD was angry with Amaziah and sent to him a prophet, who said to him, “Why have you sought the gods of a people who did not deliver their own people from your hand?”
2 Chronicles 25:15
Instead of displaying a heart of love for the LORD, the sensitivity he had when he began his reign, Amaziah interupts a prophet sent by the LORD to challenge him, saying, “Have we made you a royal counselor? Stop! Why should you be struck down?”
So the prophet stopped, but said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel.”
2 Chronicles 25:16
Beginning Well
Unfortunately, this is so often the heart of man.
Leaders begin well. The LORD has given them vision for the organization they have been tasked with leading. Their motives, though always mixed—for we are never without sin—are that God be glorified in the church, business, or organization and that they serve people. Diane Langberg says,
Many times someone starts out believing they are called by God and instilled with a God-given vision. Somewhere down the road, when the vision has grown, the demands are great, and the pressure is on, the servant becomes obedient to the work and its demands rather than to Christ.
They begin a mission work in Africa that desires to help people use their gifts to create beauty, good crops, healthy societies, biblical churches, or other fulfillments of the “dominion mandate.” I worked for one of these visionary missionaries.
Or they plant a church that seeks to be engaged with the surrounding culture, giving light and a witness to Christ. They serve their neighborhoods and their churches expand exponentially.
Or they start a ministry helping people build their own home, giving witness to the love of Jesus. The ministry soon covers the globe.
Drinking the Koolaid
But, in time they begin to drink the koolaid of power and self-sufficiency.
Amaziah, after seeing the LORD’s destruction of his enemies in Seir, turned his eye upon his brothers in the north—Israel. He challenged King Joash and the king rebuffed him. Scripture says that the LORD was bringing about the downfall of Amaziah because he had turned from God to himself.
So, Amaziah, in his arrogance goes up against Israel. 2nd Chronicles says,
And Joash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem for 400 cubits, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate.
The Israelite king stole all the gold and silver from the Temple and Amaziah’s palace in Jerusalem in addition to taking hostages back to Samaria with him.
Though Amaziah lived another 15 years in Jerusalem, Scripture is silent regarding those years. Those years of his reign are clearly of no consequence.
Amaziah’s slide into toxic leadership left him broken and in the end men within his own government made a conspiracy against him and he ran for the hills. However, they caught up with him and murdered him.
The Failure of Toxic Leadership
This is the way of toxic leadership. When man begins to rely upon himself—maybe on marketing, image control, power, and authority—he begins the slide into a leadership that no one wants. There will be rebellion, financial failure, and possibly a legacy of hatred rather than the glory the leader so desparately desires.
Toxic leadership almost never ends well.
But it is never too late to turn in repentance; to admit to failure. Turn from self to the LORD. Turn to the only One who can be relied upon to run your church, business, or organization.
Your legacy of self-importance is not nearly as important as His glory.
There were two leaders responsible for the split of Israel and Judah in the Old Testament recounted for us in 1st Kings and 2nd Chronicles. Both leaders are good examples of bad leadership.
I have said it before: I have hopes when I write these blogs that those who are on the edge of leading abusively—or are maybe even over the edge—will read and hear words that the LORD uses to turn their hearts. Even when I am writing directly to the victims of toxic leadership, I hope leaders will develop some empathy and seek to reform their own ways.
Jeroboam and Rehoboam led the nation of Israel into two camps—and geographic localities. Ten of the twelve tribes followed Jeroboam and made up Israel in the north (Samaria) while two tribes followed Rehoboam and were in the south including Jerusalem, the city of David.
Jeroboam, the Providential Hero
The kingdom of Israel was Rehoboam’s birthright as he was Solomon’s son and rightful heir. However, Solomon’s sin and foolish leadership at the end of his reign brought a partial judgment of God on the nation resulting in the LORD putting Jeroboam in leadership of the northern tribes—he was not in the promised line of David.
In ways, Jeroboam is a bit of a hero to begin with. When Solomon was having work done in Jerusalem, Scripture says, “The man Jeroboam was very able, and when Solomon saw that the young man was industrious he gave him charge over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28).”
It is a positive introduction to this future leader of (some of) God’s people.
Jeroboam was taken aside by a prophet (Ahijah the Shilonite) and told,
And I will take you, and you shall reign over all that your soul desires, and you shall be king over Israel. And if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you.
1 Kings 11:37-38 (ESV)
A wonderful promise to Jeroboam: “Follow me and I will be with you.”
On the other hand, Rehoboam does not start well in the south. Scripture tells us he answered “harshly” the request of the people that he not lead like his father did (1 Kings 12:16-24). Thus, the split in Israel and Jeroboam’s opportunity to lead a good portion of the nation in the way of the good kings.
Jeroboam, the Toxic Leader
But Jeroboam instead took the path of toxic leadership: self-protectionism.
As he began to establish his reign, he built an important city in the hill country named Shechem and then the city Penuel in addition. Shechem was the location where Abram built an altar to God because He appeared to him (Genesis 12:7). It was a place of promise and worship.
However, in the intervening years, the LORD had established Jerusalem as his place of rule and His temple was also there. The LORD put it there for His worship and sacrifices—sacrifices were not allowed by God anywhere but in the Jerusalem Temple.
Unfortunately, Jeroboam became fearful that the ten tribes he was leading would go on their annual pilgrimage to sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple never to return. Maybe Jerusalem would just be too enticing for them.
He even feared his life, thinking, “People will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah (1 Kings 12:27).”
Like the Berlin wall, Jeroboam set up a spiritual / psychological wall of demarcation by providing alternative places of worship and sacrifice in Shechem to keep the Israelites captivated with Samaria.
So Jeroboam became a toxic leader.
Seeing the Toxicity
He mimicked Temple worship with the addition of providing golden calves—idols—to the mix and telling the people, “Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. (1 Kings 12:28)” He provided similar festivals to those God had given the people, giving the Samaritans new traditions tied to the old.
We then see Jeroboam’s slide into toxic leadership in is his response to criticism for his idolatry and rebellion against the LORD. As he made sacrifices—something he was not allowed to do as king—a prophet from Judah in the south challenged him. Jeroboam became angry and commanded that the guards take the prophet.
However, the LORD struck Jeroboam with leprosy and he cried out to be healed by the prophet which the LORD graciously did.
What Are Those Toxic Traits?
Toxic leadership almost always involves a heightened sense of anxiety at the loss of leadership and the adoration of others resulting in defensiveness and blame-shifting when confronted.
Often a leader will respond to criticism seemingly well to begin with, but over time—sometimes only hours—he will begin to create justifications and point to others to take the blame.
A good way to determine if your leader is toxic is to give him the “Response Test.” Kindly, graciously, and humbly challenge your leader. How does he or she respond? Keep in mind that many people will respond immediately with justifications or defensiveness. However, if they are toxic, they will keep it up and possibly even retaliate against you, isolate you from others in the organization, or simply ignore you.
If they are not toxic, they will come around. They may not agree with you, but they will consider your claim and express some form of appreciation for it.
Toxic Followers
Unfortunately, when the leader shifts the blame in response, instead of allowing the blame to remain on the leader, some followers—in the interest of pleasing their powerful leader—will take the blame themselves or soften the effects of the foolish behavior of the leader.
Middle-management is notorious for this complicity.
They may feel—rightly—that keeping their jobs or status within the organization requires providing a buffer between the subordinates and the toxic boss. It can almost be a badge of honor for them to seek to mediate between their boss and their employees. It feels “above the fray,” “mature,” and even may give a sense of power to middle managers.
But in the end, it always collapses. There really is no softening or mediating toxic leadership.
So, Jeroboam’s rule collapsed. In 2 Chronicles 13:20 it says:
Jeroboam did not recover his power in the days of Abijah. And the LORD struck him down, and he died.
It ended with his battle against Judah. Whereas, Judah sought the LORD, Jeroboam had slid into toxic leadership, worshipping those who were not God.
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:
It might be true,
or it might be false,
we are not omniscient,
so it does not change anything,
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.
There are two kinds of complicity in cases of abuse in the workplace or home: The one who gets it but refuses to stand by the victim and the one who refuses to get it and goes along to get along.
Both are wicked because they both have the same effect; they allow a great evil that the LORD continually condemns in His Word.
The Old Testament law was given to lead Israel to love God and neighbor effectively. In Leviticus we have laws that relate to making sacrifice for sins. Through those horribly bloody killings of animals, the Israelites were directed to the fact that their sin brings death . . . and the LORD provided a means for that death to be on something else.
The incredible holiness of God and the brokenness of God’s people were ever on display through those sacrifices.
In Leviticus 5 there is one verse that gives us a hint at the evil perpetrated by those who refuse to testify to the wickedness of another who sins. Often we give all sorts of leeway to bystanders, but the LORD does not. We need to be humbly challenged by His Word:
“If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity . . .”
Leviticus 5:1 (ESV)
“Adjuration” is just a fancy word for a call. It is a sin if you see abusive behavior—which always destroys others—and do not seek accountability for the offending party. You are not free from sin though you did not do the abusive deed. You are doing all you can to allow the evil to continue and God calls this sin.
The Workplace Bullying Institute has done some excellent work since 1997 including the frequent surveying of American businesses and employees regarding toxic workplaces. In their 2021 survey, I found a particular statement fascinating:
The final group to discuss is the one that baffles us most. These are respondents who claim no experience with workplace bullying and do not profess to have an opinion about it. They do not care. We surmise that this 34% of Americans deny its existence. They are the fellow workers likely to turn away when asked to help. Similarly, they are the most likely to blame targeted individuals for their fate.
34% of Americans “turn away when asked to help” when their coworkers or subordinates are being battered by others in the workplace. They are complicit to the evil according to Leviticus 5.
What might interest you further is that the largest group in this particular category of complicit workers also happens to be the most conservative. And you can take that a step further noting that Evangelicals will largely be in that group.
This despite the Word of God teaching that it is sin to stand by while someone is being abused and supporting the abuser rather than the victim. And yet, these people they think they get a free pass.
How can that be?
It can be because it is hard to stand up, particularly when it is a boss who is oppressing his subordinates. And even harder when it is a spiritual authority—pastor or elder—who is crushing his flock with Christiany-sounding words.
Loss of job, fear of “touching the Lord’s anointed (1 Sam. 26:9),” or losing face with important people in the church or workplace drives our misplaced allegiances.
However, we must be directed by the Word of God and the call to love our neighbor as ourself. Love means to care for the vulnerable in these places of toxicity. It means to stand up for them when we see abusive behavior.
I am an empathetic guy and I understand the fears—I have failed in this over and over. So, this blog is as much for me as it is for anyone else.
But there are people all around you dependent on you to stand for truth and answer the adjuration to testify.
What happens down, deep within you when your subordinates, or even friends, begin to praise your holy name?
You are smart. You are skilled. You are important. You help the vulnerable.
Does your heart rise up and meet their praises with praises of its own? Does your heart congratulate itself and take on new proportions?
Being praised and being glad to do a job well, care for people well, or be particularly smart is in no way a bad thing. God is good. He has gifted every one of us with abilities and personalities to suit His important purposes of loving Him and our neighbor well. We are His image-bearers.
We can be praised, be thankful to the Lord for His work, and move on to the next task.
Paul and Barnabas knew what it was to be praised . . . in the extreme. Leaders do well to learn from the Apostles as they, in very godly ways, deflected the praise of man:
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.
Acts s 14:8-18 (ESV)
This is a man that was obviously in need. He had “never walked” so there was no “temporary” paralysis about it. Everyone would know that what came after Paul’s command to “stand upright” was miraculous. There was no chance that Paul was a fraud.
God’s Have Come Down
So, how did the people respond? They responded according to their culture and belief system:
11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.
Paul and Barnabas had done something they would expect the mythological gods would do: heal a man who was unhealable by the society’s greatest doctors.
So, they named Paul and Barnabas according to their gods, fitting to their beliefs about those specific god’s jobs. Zeus and Hermes. Or, in Roman parlance, Jupiter and Mercurius.
According to one commentary,
“The main reason for the assignment of the two names was that the listeners recognised in St. Paul the gift of eloquence, which was the special attribute of Hermes . . . there may have been something in the taller stature and more stately presence of Barnabas which impressed them with the sense of a dignity like that of Jupiter.”1
We laugh at Greek Mythology, but they didn’t. It was a very big deal that the people thought Zeus and Hermes had paid them a visit and healed this man who had suffered since birth having no personal means of getting around, working, playing . . .
It was such a big deal that the priests of these mythological gods brought their wares, including oxen, to begin sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas right there in the street.
Turn Away from Little “g” gods
This is where we learn how God’s people, when in positions of influence and leadership and praised mightly for their skills, need to respond:
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” 18 Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.
Turn away from your little “g” gods – Jupiter and Mercurius – Paul and Barnabas say. They deflected the higest of praise, and redirected the people to the One true God.
Yes, this is an extreme example, yet taken into our Western context, the idolatry present in the hearts of these people can be found just as evident in our hearts as we lift up leaders in our society. Jean Lipmum-Blumen suggests our idolatry of leaders (from a non-Christian perspective) is based on “Our need for security and certainty, which prompts us to surrender freedom to achieve them.”2
Indeed, the people in the New Testament times turned to that which could give them answers to their lives’ most pressing questions.
As Leaders, How Do We Respond?
For our purposes, I want to turn to Paul and Barnabas. Their response is educational for influencers. You cannot always help the idolatry of those who observe your skills as a leader, but how you respond to their praises, both outwardly and inwardly, tell much about your own idolatry and may help them as well.
There is much riding on a leader’s response. In some cases, it is just a matter of redirecting the praise as it seems in the Apostles’ (Paul and Barnabas) case. But there is more riding on a leader’s response than simply redirecting. Lipmum-Blumen helpfully suggests:
“Our fear of physical death is not the sole cause of our anxiety. In fact, the anxiety we feel in the face of social death may be just as great, possibly greater, than our dread of physical death. Social belonging is a powerful drive for which we are willing to sacrifice much.”3
When a leader redirects praise he or she may be bringing on “social death.” This act of humility may also have the effect of your adoring masses being less enamored with you. What happens if suddenly you are not so worshipped anymore by subordinates? Can you live with that?
It is a risk that Paul and Barnabas knew they must take. They had no right to steal praise from the One true God who rules over His world and is the One true Healer (Psalms 47:6-8). No matter the results of their redirection, they needed to give God the honor.
The redirecting of praise, as an act of humility by leaders, may be in a variety of directions:
To the Lord,
To another leader responsible for the work ultimately,
To a subordinate who had the orginal idea,
To someone outside the organization who gave you the idea or means for completing the task.
The list could go on, I am sure. All of it ultimately resides at the feet of Jesus, but He has likely used other people to bring good and praising (not worshipping) them is good and right.
Heart of the Matter
But, now most importantly, get to the heart of the matter: your heart.
It is not enough ever in the Christian life to focus on “acts of humility”–“Acting” like you are redirecting the praise. Sure it is helpful for destroying the idols of your subordinates.
But, the Lord looks on your heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Is your heart redirecting the praise? Do you really believe that you gifted yourself? Do you really believe that ultimately your desire, discipline, and self-direction gave you the ability to be great in the eyes of the worshipping subordinates?
Biblically, this is idolatry. It is giving credit to someone other than the Lord for what He does. Consider the following passages (you can read them in the notes below if you are too lazy, like me to look them up):
So, the prescription for us, as we receive adoration, is to consider how the Lord has blessed us and given us even the opportunity to do good, not just the ability.
Allow that . . . in fact, drive it into your heart. Ask the Lord to bring it to mind every time you are tempted to receive and hold onto the praises of man.
NOTES:
Ellicott C. J. 1897. A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. London: Cassell. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 29. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 39). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 38. ↩︎
Exodus 31:1-5 (ESV) The LORD said to Moses, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. ↩︎
Job 12:7-10 (ESV) “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; 8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. ↩︎
Acts 17:24-25 (ESV) The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ↩︎
Deuteronomy 8:17-18 (NIV) You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today. ↩︎
Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.
Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1
His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“
In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.
Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.
It is our job.
So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.
There are Good Pastors
The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.
“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”
And so, the author says,
“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”
I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?
Greater Accountability
In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.
But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:
Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous
A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.
The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.
Judged with Greater Strictness
James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”
Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.
This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”
On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.
Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.
Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:
“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“
Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)
The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.
Diagnose and Expose
As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:
“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”
Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.
The author goes on,
“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“
I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.
The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.
I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.
And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.
A Critique
The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.
I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.
I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:
Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.
But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.
Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebukeabusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).
Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).
I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.
Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).
Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.
Being confronted in your sin is not abuse (1 Timothy 5:20)
It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.
Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.
I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?
True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.
Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.
This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?
Summary
Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”
Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.
And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.
I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.
But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.
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, 16does 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.
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.
Recently, while attending an abuse conference, I was discussing with another attendee the suffering of those who are having to put on the good face for their mission supporters back home while being tormented by their missionary spouse on the field.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for mission leaders to be abusive to spouses, children, and mission subordinates.
We discussed that there are many seemingly insurmountable difficulties in getting free from an abusive spouse. But when that also involves living in a foreign country and being dependent on mission supporters for income, there seems to be another layer of the insurmountable.
Lisa’s story has a happy ending but it meant years and years of torment for her.
Lisa told me that when she was eleven years old, she knew that God was calling her to be a missionary. She had seen an old black-and-white film about African mission work and she immediately knew it was for her.
She spent the years following that childhood dream leading others to Christ and never imagined being married. She would be married to Christ on the mission field.
But then she met Byron who had aborted his university undergraduate degree in order to embark on a seven-year theological studies course. His seeming commitment to Christ and a future as a missionary “touched” her and they were married.
Addictions
What she didn’t know until much later was Byron’s developing addiction to alcohol and later drugs.
He had been working at a vineyard while doing his theological studies and had full access to the wine cellar. It likely started with “just a small sip of free wine” which Lisa imagined he would describe as “the perfect solution to cope with the stress of the high demands he was subjected to, together with his studies.”
In addition, his smoking, which she did know about, drove her crazy. Lisa explained, “He took an oath on the day we got married, he would stop smoking.”
Lisa and Byron went on the African mission field.
The smoking didn’t stop. In fact, Byron began to shame Lisa that she wasn’t doing enough to help him kick the habit. He told her that she had “failed to help him properly” . . . shifting the blame . . . in spite of his vow at their wedding. She did all she could, even attending a group with him to help him stop.
Then as they pursued the Lord’s work on the mission field he began using tranquilizers. She explained to me,
“As head of the missionary outpost he had free access to the medications of the small mission hospital. Although all missionaries could not have any alcohol whatsoever in their homes, I only years later discovered that Byron always asked visitors from afar, to ‘quietly bring me some alcohol from the village – just please, don’t let Lisa see’ and hid it somewhere.”
Byron insisted, according to Lisa, that every afternoon he needed to sleep and he used the drugs to help him forget his difficulties on the mission.
Lisa sought to convince Byron to exercise and eat healthy foods to help with his stress but he responded, “I simply swallow something – that’s much easier, faster and more effective!”
Brain Damaged Wife
Lisa had two brain aneurysms after nearly 30 years of marriage. She suffered through a 15-hour surgery that saved her life. Their congregation had prayed fervently and they considered it a miracle that she pulled through.
Byron, on the other hand, was now angry that his well-trained wife could not do all she had formerly done for him. Initially, Lisa saw everything double and could not remember things of which she always used to remind him.
Lisa said,
“Byron had no sympathy, just anger about what I left undone, and he angrily humiliated me as ‘brain damaged’ and presented himself as the poor husband of the brain damaged wife, eventually starting to beat me.”
The Physical Abuse
Lisa told me that when she said anything about addiction or dependence he would beat and even kick her. She eventually had “three orthopedic operations: a torn biceps in one arm, a torn triceps in the other arm and a torn knee ligament leading to a full knee replacement.”
“He often used his fists on me when we were alone, still presenting himself as the ‘victim of the brain damaged wife’ for his escalating anger and sarcasm.”
She said, “I was a prisoner in my own house. I did not want my children to know.”
But she held out hope that once Byron “understood the danger of the addiction he was gambling with, he would be willing to go for rehab. This, however, never happened.”
Lisa sought out help from counselors for the physical abuse but she was continually advised to just “love him more.” If a therapist said anything else to the couple, Byron would refuse to see him again, claiming they “don’t know what they are talking about.”
She was not realizing that Byron was “completely addicted and not at all interested in rehab.”
Lisa explained,
“As his beatings became more severe, twice a doctor reported physical abuse to the police, who wanted to arrest him. I refused for the sake of my children, and the officer assured me that the case always remains legal and valid and may be presented at any later sign of abuse. He said, ‘And he will be arrested immediately and sleep in the tjoekie – he must learn!'”
This finally put the physical abuse of decades to an end.
The Children
At the young age of 56 Byron was “respectfully requested” to resign from the mission due to the decline in his work because Lisa was unable to prop up his ministry anymore.
Lisa explained to me, “The children sensed the tension and anger in the house.” Byron kept on emphasizing his wife’s ‘brain damage’ as an explanation for the escalating tension in the house.
But, when the children or anyone visited, Lisa said Byron was the “friendly, good-natured father and loving husband.”
But he “immediately turned into a monster once everyone left.”
Others could see, however. Once a professional she confided in told her, “Lisa, I see nothing of Jesus in Byron! He is a total addict!”
The Narcissist
In time, Lisa was able to put a name to the abusive missionary husband. She described him as a “covert narcissist.” She studied the traits of narcissism and realized that he had all of the traits described in the literature.
And there was the physical abuse and the addictions on top of that.
What she learned was that a narcissist is a perfect actor and liar. He was quite “convincing how much he adored his beautiful wife while abusing her behind closed doors.”
“In the end I had to inform my children of the dark truth that their father is a narcissist, of his addiction and his beatings of me, leading to the orthopedic operations that always ‘had other names.’ It was a huge shock for them, and Byron immediately started doing what all narcissists do: He twisted truths and sadly even told outright lies about me to isolate me from my children . . . leaning on the fact that he is their father and they have a bond of blood with him.”
Lisa sadly said that initially he successfully alienated the children from her, isolating her from them to enable him to posess and control the family.
No More Harm
Lisa noted that what we sow, we reap.
Lisa told me,
“I often prayed to God, relying on the assurance from God that He lets ‘all things work together for our good’ (as promised in Romans 8:28). When I started praising Him for that as in Philippians 4:6, I realized that God had actually allowed and then actually used Byron’s addition and resulting illness in my favor . . . to let him reap what he has sown all his life and now helplessly and harmlessly sit on an oxygen machine and in a wheelchair! Praise Him!”
She said, “Byron’s addiction and lifestyle of 60 years finally led to two heart attacks, ending in heart failure, kidney failure, severe emphyzema, eventually requiring him to be on oxygen full time due to less than 25% lung capacity.”
He now lives in a nursing home, moving about in a wheelchair in which he is pushed outside to get a smoke, then returned “urgently to his oxygen afterwards.”
But now, Byron can no longer harm Lisa.
She takes him his medication or cigarettes every eight days or so and if he makes a “sarcastic remark” she takes her leave.
He can no longer harm Lisa.
She exclaimed, “I am free!”
“The very thing that was my cross for so many years – his addiction and his abuse – has now borne fruit for him to set me free.”
Lisa knows that she did all she could to help Byron.
“And now, after more than a year in the nursing home on oxygen, I can in fact slowly start praying for him, releasing him, for my own sanity, as God teaches me. Because, just like the cruel and sarcastic Roman soldiers mockingly nailing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to the cross, he has no idea whatsoever what he is doing.”
Ben taught theology and was a chaplain for a mission college in Africa. In addition, he was responsible for the expansion of the library and development of a master’s degree program. Ben’s wife, Casandra, worked with her husband on the organization of the library and as an administrative assistant.
They served the mission for two years before they resigned.
They grieve the loss of what they had in Africa. Casandra said they loved the “passionate” missionaries with whom they worked and the couple has remained good friends with a number of former African students and co-workers, hearing from them frequently.
It was a very good two years.
The graduate program they designed continues to operate after almost 10 years. They feel they had an impact in their ministry with the mission.
Demeaning and Manipulative
When we talked recently they described a visit they made to the mission the year before they sold their house, quit their jobs, and moved their two children to the African country. Over meals with various missionary families, no one mentioned anything negative about the leadership.
It all seemed like peaches and cream as they prepared to move.
However, after their two years of service, Ben and Casandra described the leaders of the ministry as “demanding,” “demeaning,” “manipulative,” and “harsh.” They described several times that unreasonable “demands” were made by the CEO, including an “email about an additional layer of responsibilities” they received one month prior to moving onto the mission field.
During their first year at the mission, a missionary, who was acting as Director while the CEO was out of country, came to Ben and informed him that the CEO said Ben wasn’t “pulling his weight” and needed to take on night guard duty.
Ben calmly told the intermediary that he wasn’t told that by the CEO and he did not have the time to devote to guard duty.
Ben described that when he would meet with the CEO,
“The moment I walked in, it was not a dialogue. It was a pretend dialogue that I could say what I wanted to say and for as long as I wanted to say it. But, the answer was already etched in stone and was going to be carried out.”
Casandra had few conflicts with the CEO, but when she was helping in one of the other offices, she was “yelled at by [the founder’s wife] to not be involved at all because I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about.’”
Seeking Accountability and Change
Ben did meet with the CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution.
In addition, Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter from a large group of missionaries’ said, “It could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories and make changes.
However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.
Ben explained the “judging” section of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1-5 did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. That passage says,
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Matthew 7:1-6 (ESV)
At that time, following writing letters to the board, CEO, and faculty, he said,
“I recognized that I just needed to forgive them. I was never going to be asked for forgiveness . . . I didn’t need to be putting myself in the seat of judge.”
While still with the mission, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” He explained,
“I began to feel more and more affirmed in my thinking that my job was not to try to change them. I was going to fry myself if I took that campaign on. It was a waste of time and energy to try to change the situation in that sense of casting pearls.”
Dealing with 1 Peter and Matthew
When asked about his consideration of the Matthew 18 principles of conflict management, Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage.
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives direction for confronting the sin of a brother. The multi-step process includes:
Go in private to the one who has sinned against you.
If unrepentant, bring another person or two to once again confront the sinner.
If continuing in unrepentance, tell it to the church.
If rejecting all these pleas for confession and repentance, they are to be treated as an unbeliever.
He explained,
“I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” He had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply [Matthew 18] to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”
Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”
Ben also said there were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage where it says,
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
1 Peter 2:18-20 (ESV)
Ben explained that they said, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.”
Ben said he thought most about the 1 Peter passage. He said he “went back to it again and again and again. Sometimes looking for a loophole.”
However, Ben argued their positions with the organization were “voluntary” and received no funding from the mission. He suggested their “accountability” was “to those who put us there”; The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.”
As an example, Ben recounted a sermon given in the organization chapel by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters who were his mentors for their advice.
He asked them, “Is it me, people.” Ben wanted to be accountable to those who would be honest about his evaluation of the leader.
Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you . . . something’s broken.” He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He explained, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, [the CEO] is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”
As Ben considered the application of Matthew 18 to their situation, he suggested there was no church authority in place for the third step:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:17 (ESV)
No Change
Ben noted the CEO always justified or explained away his sin, often blame-shifting. He saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others approached the boss.
Others in the mission had approached the board prior to their families leaving the organization with no success.
According to a Workplace Bullying Institute survey, this experience is not unusual. In a 2012 survey, only 3.5% of those who confronted their bullies at work experienced a change in bullying.[1] They found that there was little recourse for those under toxic leadership. In another WBI survey, 61% of the victims lost their job, while only 15% of the perpetrators lost theirs.[2]
As a parachurch and mission organization, no ecclesiastical governing body had authority to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.
Family Business
Ben called the leadership a “family business.” He said, “[I had] very little sense that I was part of something whose passion was building God’s kingdom. It was very much building ours,” referring to the family.
He had discovered “if you weren’t in the family, you were out of business.” Ben said the “family called the shots and it didn’t matter the thoughts, opinions, the ideas of anybody outside.” He explained, “Real decisions were made around the family table.”
Party to the Abuse
Ben explained the responses of some staff to the toxicity of the CEO, “Some people were the fighters and some people were just apathetic.” As noted above, in his experience, the fighters were “worn out” through a lack of change coming from their battles.
However, the apathetic ones “put their heads down” and “counted the minutes when they could drive out the gates and do what gave them life and meaning, a purpose and joy.”
Ben determined that he did not want to “become apathetic to leadership” or “go find another mission somewhere for survival’s sake.” However, in the end, Ben and Casandra believed remaining at the organization would mean being “a party to the abuse” and did not want to risk joining either of these “camps.”
The Return and the Church’s Response
Ben suggested the negative effects their experiences had were not as great compared to others possibly due to “living off campus” and being there only two years. However, he said, their “jaws were on the floor with what other people needed to do and go through to unwrap their minds, hearts, and spirits from that experience.”
Though they felt somewhat spared from a lot of direct abuse, Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, and noted, “He had lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”
Both shared they “were very fragile for a time. We were looking for and very much needed support and encouragement.”
Ben told the story of returning home from the mission field and experiencing two different responses from church supporters. Some seemed to have little concern and apparently did not understand the difficulties he and his family had faced. Ben and Casandra’s sense of failure due to returning so soon from their mission seemed to be exasurbated by these responses.
Ben said, “Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say; ‘Well thank you for your service. God bless you as you go.’” In fact, they noted that only one of their five supporting churches really sought to minister to them when they returned.
This church welcomed them back, sought them out, spent time with them, and supported them fully. This was a very healing time for them.
When Ben, Casandra, and I first spoke, Ben said, “It has been three years since we have been back” in the United States. He said he had received that day an email from one of his former students, they were going to be hosting another student at their house in a few days, and their church in the United States continues to support the ministry of another former student.
Ben said, “We didn’t cut any ties with [the country], just with the organization. It is very much an ongoing part of our lives and always will be.” In the end, they believed their multiple communications to the leadership and board of directors provided opportunity for corrections to be made had those entities listened to their pleas.
Casandra said,
I came to a point where I knew in my heart that spiritually, emotionally and professionally that ‘the person I am’ did not line up with who and what the organization leadership had demonstrated to me in the past two years. While, I loved the ‘mission of ECU’ and my role at ECU, I could no longer turn a blind eye to the leadership decisions and how the organization leadership treated its students and especially “the help” (ie. nationals in general). The hierarchy of power and status based on race (“we are white and therefore superior”) and the lack of grace, humility, and servant leadership displayed by the organization leadership was directly opposite of everything I believed that God called me to be and how he called me to serve. I could no longer be part of an organization that manipulated Scripture to promote its own agenda.
Ben and Casandra said they never “questioned their decision to leave.” They had comfort in knowing God had called them “there for that time . . . God has equipped us with the mission of what He wanted us to do. We felt we accomplished what we were there to do.”
Healing
An important period of healing came when they returned to the United States. There was a “mission group” at one of their supporting churches who cared for them. Casandra said, “They just really embraced us and were willing to help.”
Ben added, “They wanted to know how we were doing. How they could help us.”
When we spoke recently – eight years after our initial interview – Ben and Casandra explained that the good response they received from this one church was likely due to the church’s intentional development of a relationship with their missionary.
The group asked Ben and Casandra to come meet with them to “debrief with them, not to pick apart the ins and outs of the organization, but for us. It wasn’t about trying to fix what we left behind.” He said most “people didn’t really understand” and that made this mission group’s support so helpful.
Casandra added,
“There was a measure of failure you wrestle with. We moved our entire lives and sold our house . . . and two years? But, we were never made to feel like failures . . . We were able to make a difference at that time and whether it was two years or 20 years, we gave our best and we left when we could no longer operate there in good conscience before God and our supporters.”
Another aid to their healing came with a new vocational direction. They moved to Europe to pastor an international church. There they found it helpful to be in a cross-cultural setting (which they felt called to all along) and among people who did not know them. In addition, they were not in the United States where the failure they felt was so prevelent.
The process of healing has been a longer process for Casandra. She isn’t sure why. She continues to struggle with how to view missions in the church and she has no desire to return to Africa. Ben, on the other hand, jokingly said, “I’m just dead inside.” Remembering his response to leaving the mission mockingly said, “Well that sucked . . . next?”
When they got free from the toxic leadership, Ben and Casandra found healing in the words of scripture, from those individuals who supported them, and in new vocational directions. God has provided good ministry for both Ben and Casandra.
References
[1] Namie, “2013 Instant Poll – D: The Timing & Results of Targets Confronting Bullies At Work.”
[2] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”
