It is not unusual for those who have faced off with toxic leadership in the church to turn from the church. In my experience, most do not turn from Christ but have a difficult time squaring the leadership of God’s people with abusive authority.
So, they refuse to darken the doorway of a church building at least for a time.
Ezekiel spoke God’s damning judgment upon Judah as they were taken into exile in 587 B.C. After chiding the toxic Jewish leaders for eating the sheep instead of shepherding them, God said,
So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; 6 they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
Ezekiel 34:5-6 (ESV)
It is what is to be expected. When leaders fail, the hurt runs deep. You can expect people to leave, maybe never to return.
Don’t blame them.
But for those who wish to find a church that will carefully and lovingly shepherd them in places of peace (shalom), here are some ways to determine if the leadership is toxic or not:
Plurality of Leaders: Is there a board? Elders? The plurality of leadership is a first step. There can be more accountability if the church has multiple leaders that can challenge one another.
Center of Everything: What kind of praise do people give the pastor? Does he seem to be the center of everything? Does the leadership encourage (or fail to discourage) hero worship?
Pastoral Arrogance: Does the pastor often tell stories that, even in a self-deprecating way, make him the hero of the story?
“And so I went up to him and told him he was wrong . . . and he turned from his sin.”
Empowering: Does the leadership – all of them – empower the congregation as Ephesians 4 tells them to:
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” (Ephesians 4:11-12) Or do they keep a particularly strong hand on all ministry?
Emphasis on Submission: Look at the titles of sermons posted online. Are there frequent sermons on authority? Is the focus on washing feet or protecting and ruling? Protecting and ruling are not wrong, but a particular emphasis on telling the congregation to submit is telling.
Focus on Image & Competition: Is the ministry of this particular church “so much better than other churches?” Do people talk a lot about how much better their church is than other churches in the area? This can be just how people feel, but it can also be what they are hearing from leadership. Daamgaurd helpfully says, “Although it is natural to want to associate with like-minded individuals, a healthy church welcomes communication from those outside of the church, even if church pastors and members don’t fully agree with the outsiders’ views. Those within the church realize that they can learn much and benefit from these interactions.”
Turnover in Leadership: Is there a significant turnover of leadership? Elders? Deacons? Sunday School teachers? Especially office staff?
Turnover in Membership: Is there a large turnover of people in the pews?
Focus on A Family: Is there one or two or even three families that seem to be the center of all ministry that takes place? They need not even be formal leaders, but the church may be driven by them.
Legalists & Pharisees: Does there appear to be many cultural expectations of members that find little support in Scripture? Dress. Ways of praying. Don’t dance, drink, or go with girls who do?
None of this is guaranteed for determining toxic leadership. There are so many variables and toxic leadership is found in all types of churches with a variety of doctrinal views.
It can be one powerful individual – pastor or member – that causes chaos for the congregation. Or it can be an entire system that continually hires or trains up toxic leaders or brings good leaders down because of their own blindness.
The church is Christ’s bride, but she is deeply broken. I pray that you find a church that loves you as Christ loves you that you may rest in His shalom.
“And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. 20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.”
Hosea 2:19-20 (ESV)
NOTES:
Damgaard, Neil. Wounded Faith: Understanding and Healing From Spiritual Abuse (p. 16). Kindle Edition.
One of the most hideous beliefs crushing abuse survivors within our Christian communities is that the reporting of abusive leadership in the home or workplace is gossip or slander.
It is understandable that the church has strong views of gossip and slander upon the first reading of passages such as Proverbs 11:13, 16:28, and 2nd Corinthians 12:20. In those passages, there are very strong words for those who “whisper” and “slander.”
Both gossip and slander are wicked uses of our tongues.
Throwing in Jesus’ process for dealing with relational conflict (Matthew 18), there has been a concerted effort to keep reports of abuse quiet in the church. In Matthew 18 the Christian is called to keep the knowledge of a brother’s sin to himself until he has confronted that brother and given him a chance to repent.
Only then, may the circle of those in the know begin to widen. We are understandably concerned that a brother or sister’s good name not be destroyed for sins with which we all struggle.
Therefore, survivor’s reports of abuse to others have often been viewed as gossip, and worse, slander by many in the church. Those who have suffered under abuse have been isolated and shamed as they have shared their story seeking help from others who may be in a position to bring them aid.
However, the church’s understanding and teaching on gossip has failed to bring the whole of Scripture into the fray and the church has relied on a simplistic and incomplete exegesis of God’s Word.
The Terms
Gossip: The term gossip in Greek means “to whisper” and “slander.” ψιθυρισμός [psithyrismos] is found in two places in the New Testament – the 2nd Corinthians passage noted above and Romans 1:29.
The Old Testament (Hebrew) version is דִּבָּה [ḏiḇâ] and it means “defaming, evil report, infamy, slander.”
One commentator’s definition:
My way of summarizing the Bible’s teaching on this topic is to say that the sin of gossip is bearing bad news behind someone’s back out of a bad heart.
Theologians are careful to note that gossip can be true or false. Even a true report to others of someone’s evil act can be gossip, but as Mitchell notes, there needs to be evil intent behind the sharing of it (out of a bad heart). The gossip must be seeking some kind of personal satisfaction and seeking to bring another person down unnecessarily.
Slander: The term slander in Greek means “evil report.” δυσφημία [dysphēmia] means “defamation” and “the action of one who uses disgraceful language.” Another term translated slander, βλασφημία [blasphēmia] means “blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.”
Oxford’s Dictionary defines slander as:
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
Note that at the root of these terms (gossip and slander) is the sense of speaking badly with bad motives of another person and/or trashing someone’s good name without reason (defaming). Slander is more specifically saying something evil about someone that is not true and thereby injuring their “good name.”
The Context
As we consider the biblical context of the use of these terms, you will notice some things that are particularly helpful as we consider abuse.
The term that is translated by some as “gossip” [ḏiḇâ] in the Old Testament is found in a few places, but rarely in that translation.
The only place in the OT that ḏiḇâ is translated “gossip” in the English Standard Version is in Ezekiel 36:3. There, it is the enemies of God’s people who are speaking evil of Jerusalem and God assures them He is going to judge them.
In Numbers 13, the spies have returned from searching out the “Promised Land.” Their description, which was negative despite the land being good and a gift from the Lord, was called a “report,” which is the same word translated “gossip” in Ezekiel 36:3. They spoke evil of that which was good.
In Psalm 31, David is crying out to the Lord because of the abuse he is receiving from his enemies. He says,
For I hear the whispering of many— terror on every side!— as they scheme together against me, as they plot to take my life.
Psalms 31:13 (ESV)
The term, “whispering” is the translation of ḏiḇâ in this passage. These are evil, wicked people seeking King David’s demise.
If we broaden the search of terms in the Old Testament, slander is often used similarily to gossip. It is evident that the context of these terms is speaking evil of those who are without guilt in regards to the slanderer’s claims.
It is lying.
It is hatred.
It is wicked speach.
Do You Get the Idea?
Treating with contempt and shame those who are reporting abuse is missing the point completely.
Defaming an abuser? He has chosen to ruin his name already. Slandering means to call someone evil who is good. That is quite the opposite of what reporting abuse is all about.
Reporting abuse is calling evil that which is evil.
Can you imagine keeping silent while a gunman murdered at will because you didn’t want to damage his name?
The abuser is a liar. The abuser is full of hatred and deception. He is a murderer in his heart as Jesus describes in Matthew 5:21-26. Except, unlike most of us, he is not repentant of his sin and will continually justify and defend himself.
King David once again describes the abuser in Psalm 109:
Be not silent, O God of my praise! 2 For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me, speaking against me with lying tongues. 3 They encircle me with words of hate, and attack me without cause. 4 In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer. 5 So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Psalm 109:1-5 (ESV)
Reporting abuse is calling evil, evil. What is the wrong response to reports of abuse?
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)
Woe to those who would ignore or shame the victim of abuse, calling good (the report) evil and the evil (abuse) good.
Calling out abuse is not giving an abuser a bad name. It is simply naming their name! They are oppressive and evil and according to the rest of God’s Word are supposed to be called out and held accountable (Ps. 109:6, Matt. 18:17).
Before you begin to criticize and shame a victim of abuse as they report to others the evil that has been done to them, please consider the whole of Scripture and instead give them the help and encouragement the Lord wants you to give them.
If you have been discipled as I have you might be tempted to believe grace means cutting all people some slack.
Forgive and forget.
Don’t judge.
Remember we are all sinners.
I use the term “tempted” quite intentionally. Because it is not biblical.
At least, not always.
There are actually times when grace (which should never be absent from our hearts or actions) means to pronounce judgment and bring accountability rather than cut them slack. But, there is a distinction in Scripture upon whom those judgments are made.
Spreading Like a Tree
I have seen a wicked, ruthless man, spreading himself like a green laurel tree. 36 But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found. 37 Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace. 38 But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psalm 37:35-38 (ESV)
We need to look at some of the words that the psalmist, King David, used.
עָרִיץ (‘ârîyṣ), which is the Hebrew word “ruthless” in the psalm, means “powerful or tyrannical.” Strongs Dictionary goes on to say it means “mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent.”
Do you get the idea? This is why in abuse language “oppression” and “oppressor” are used frequently. David is speaking of a particularly wicked individual. This is someone who is particularly destructive of other people.
We know this in part because other places in Scripture tell us to that when we confront brothers, we can expect a certain amount of humility and willingness to see their sin and repent (Prov. 12:1, Rev. 3:19).
But when Scripture talks about oppressors, generally there is no such expectation and in fact, often the Bible authors tell us to stay clear of them because they are too dangerous to confront or not worth confronting (see Prov. 9:8, 22:24, Matt. 7:6).
Hopelessness
King David in this psalm notes the hopelessness that seems to be the lot of many abuse victims. The ruthless man (oppressor) is like a green laurel tree. One commentary tells us the language refers to a “native tree” which in their interpretation means,
“The idea here is that a tree which thus remains in its own soil is more vigorous, and will attain to a larger growth, than one which is transplanted; and thus the figure becomes an emblem of a prosperous and mighty man. “
Barnes Notes on the Bible
This is part of crushing effects of abuse. The oppressor seems unstoppable. He is large in the victim’s eyes and often he is large in the community’s eyes. He is prospering while the victim shrinks and suffers psychological, spiritual, and physical harm.
Hopefulness
But David does not stop with verse 35. He goes on to say they will be destroyed. In both verse 36 and 38 there is evident judgment and accountability for the oppressor. He is “no more,” “destroyed,” and “cut off.”
And the one of peace – the victim is clearly implied – will have a future. It is like they will instead “spread like a tree.”
I don’t think I have ever talked to a victim of leadership abuse who has not at some point under the crushing weight of abuse felt he or she was without a future. They feel like they have been axed. Cut down and burned up . . . while their oppressor spreads like a tree.
They have maybe tried confronting their boss, manager, or pastor to no avail. They have maybe sought help from HR, the board of directors, the senior pastor, a church elder, or the CEO to no avail.
In fact, often they have received more abuse either by the oppressor or by the foolish ones to whom they reported who ended up being complicit as they failed to support the victim.
The oppressor became large in the eyes of those who should have been helpful.
It’s Really Real
But, the assurance that David gives is real. It may not come about as we hope or envision. But, it is real. There is a future for those who are abused.
God is not mocked by the scoffer (Prov. 9:8).
And it is God’s grace that brings that oppressor down. We ask that the ruthless be destroyed (Ps. 55) not because we lack grace, but that we wish grace to reach the oppressed. The abused. The vulnerable.
Because this is to what we, as God’s people, are called (Isaiah 58:6).
Having come from a long line of pastors—father, grandfather, and uncle—his calling to the ministry seemed a natural consequence of being born into his family.
Following Bible college and a stint with a traveling ministry, Aaron joined the staff of a large church with a well-known and “successful” pastor. Pastor Gene had been in the ministry for nearly 50 years and had served at all levels of leadership within Aaron’s denomination. Aaron said he and his wife, Joyce trusted him like a grandpa.
Aaron joined the staff as a music minister. He considered it his “dream job” and Joyce was hired in the youth ministry.
I could tell in our discussion that Aaron was the dream employee. A self-described “people-pleaser” and “rule-follower,” he was eager to please both his senior pastor and congregation. He clearly had a heart for ministry.
Just the Way He Is
But, after two years of serving in the church, Aaron came home to his wife and shared with her, “I think Pastor Gene has a man-crush on me.”
Aaron explained that Pastor Gene would do subtle things.
They would go out to coffee and Aaron noticed that when he would put his hand on the table, Pastor Gene would put his hand on Aaron’s. Taken aback, Joyce responded that she thought it was just the way he is. She knew he was very physical in his engagement with others.
These kinds of actions continued over two years and, though Aaron was disconcerted with it at first, he got more and more comfortable with the touching. Over time, however, the amount of physical touch ramped up. Pastor Gene seemed to get more and more “touchy” with Aaron as he described it.
Then one day Pastor Gene leaned in to give Aaron a kiss.
Four months after Aaron shared his suspicions with Joyce, Pastor Gene’s wife, Lee came to him “and exposed everything.” She explained to him that she and her husband “had been having arguments since October.”
Aaron asked her, “What does that mean?”
“Lee shared how Pastor Gene had fallen in love with me.”
Aaron was shocked. He described putting “walls put up instantly.” He said he went home that night and his son, who was only over a year old, came to give him a kiss goodnight and Aaron said he “immediately put up a wall.”
Fortunately, he said he realized his mistake and “brought him in, giving him a kiss goodnight.”
Power of the Pastor’s Presence
According to Wanda Collins of Baylor University,
“Every clergy or minister is a symbol of religious authority. By virtue of the pastoral office, the minister interprets religious truth, the meaning of life, the way of faith, and even the reality of God. Add to that status the power of the pastor’s presence through ministry, and the special influence a minister holds among his or her congregation.”
As I have written before, there is a significant power diferential between pastors and their subordinates or congregant members. As Collins notes, people under their care look to them for guidance that involves eternal life. Sexual advances by a pastor to those under his care are called “harassment” for a reason. It is more than sex that is at play in these cases.
When the pastor’s wife met with Aaron, she said he “needed to go to the church board because she couldn’t.” She feared being the one to bring down her pastor husband.
Yet, by end of week she was telling Aaron, “I’m such a horrible person. I can’t believe I did this.” She had completely “flipped,” confusing Aaron and Joyce. Aaron said, “She told us that everything she had told us was wrong. She asked us to forget about it and forgive her. She said that it was an attack of the enemy on our church and Pastor.”
Aaron and Joyce began trying to prayerfully figure out what to do next. Pastor Gene and his wife were leaving on a vacation at the end of the week and so Aaron arranged a meeting with the four of them before they left.
Aaron described the meeting as a “laying out boundaries” he had determined to enforce. He told the pastor,
He would not be in a room alone with the pastor.
He would not allow the pastor to be with his son.
Aaron would not allow the pastor to touch him.
Their ministry work needed to be in view of others.
The pastor would not enter the prayer room where Aaron kept the music when Aaron was there.
Pastor Gene responded, “Are you calling me a pervert?”
As Aaron explained, this showed Pastor Gene’s hand.
Aaron said, “Nope, never did that. Just laying out boundaries.”
Sacred Trust
Collins notes, “When the male clergy exploits his privileged position for personal sexual satisfaction, he violates a sacred trust that is contrary to Christian morals, doctrine, and canon laws. Because of the respect and even reverence the position carries, there is an imbalance of power and hence a vulnerability inherent in the ministerial relationship.
That “sacred trust” was broken. Aaron knew he was in a very vulnerable position and Pastor Gene was not likely to humble himself. Staying meant further violations and leaving meant the loss of jobs and income.
However, Aaron and Joyce knew they needed to leave the church. Aaron explained to me four perspectives he had as they left:
Aaron said his attitude was, “If Christ forgave me, I have to forgive.”
Many survivors of abusive leadership will understandably struggle with forgiveness in part because they have been taught it means to ignore the sins of their abuser. However, Aaron recognized the need for accountability in leadership. He said that if nobody had come to leadership to report the pastor’s toxic behavior, he wanted to be first. But, if others had, Aaron wanted to corroborate the testimony of those others.
Though it was not their responsibility or burden to bear, Aaron and Joyce sought to leave the church quietly for fear of the sheep scattering. Aaron said he didn’t want it all to blow up and the congregation’s faith to be hurt.
And finally, Aaron said if Pastor Gene wanted help, Aaron was not the one who could give it, but could lead the pastor down that road.
Leaving the Abuse
When Aaron announced his resignation, he saw Pastor Gene begin to cover his tracks.
When Aaron and Joyce met with him a week before his last sunday in the employ of the church, Pastor Gene said, “My wife is Norwegian and I don’t know what I’m going to do with her.”
He blamed her for misreading his actions saying, “I’m a touchy kind of guy. I hug. She doesn’t understand that.”
As Aaron and Joyce left the employ of the church, he spoke with three trusted pastors: his father, Joyce’s uncle, and another local pastor named Troy.
He and Joyce went to her uncle and said they were trying to “get out fast.” The uncle asked why? Aaron said, “It’s just important to get out.”
Joyce’s uncle said, “Is there an issue with pastor?”
Finally Aaron said, “Yeah.”
“Joyce’s Uncle asked her if we were leaving because Pastor was having an affair. Joyce did not respond. He asked if it was with a man. She was shocked and began to cry. Being that they already knew part of the situation, we relayed the whole story to them. They both said they were not surprised.”
The uncle shared about other pastors who had left shortly after working for Pastor Gene. He also spoke of rumors regarding Pastor Gene exhibiting homosexual behavior.
The uncle even described a night “when he got a call and the caller was inappropriate and he thought it sounded like Pastor Gene.”
Up to this point, Aaron and Joyce thought this was an isolated incident. However, the uncle’s comments added to the pastor’s wife’s revelation that it had happened before.
Joyce’s Uncle encouraged them to tell someone what was going on, but Aaron said they felt insecure, embarrassed, and confused.
However, Aaron and Joyce went to Aaron’s father, also a pastor. Aaron explained that his denomination is very concerned about slander and if Aaron accused Pastor Gene of anything, things would not go well for him. His father’s advice was helpful to Aaron. He told Aaron, “Don’t accuse, just share your story when reporting it.”
Blood on His Head
Pastor Troy came to Aaron and asked him why he was leaving the ministry. Again, Aaron tried to hide the true reason, but the pastor kept pushing him.
Aaron asked Pastor Troy, “Why are you pushing?” He replied, “Because I think I know why.” Aaron asked him what he knew and again the pastor said he had heard rumors. The pastor said, “I should have done something about it [when I heard the rumors]. I didn’t, so your blood is on my head. I’m not going to let that happen again.”
As they left the church quietly, they faced the anger and disappointment of family members who didn’t understand their move. How could they leave the church “in a lurch like this,” they asked.
Joyce’s mom shared her suspicions that the pastor had an affair, thinking he was involved in a sexual relationship with a woman. They explained Pastor Gene’s sexual advances. Obviously, it was not an affair as that would imply consent and willing emotional and/or sexual involvement between two adults.
Neither of which applies in Aaron’s case where Pastor Gene groomed and attempted to sexually assault him.
Her father told them they needed to tell others or “Pastor Gene will see it as weakness and he’ll do this same thing again.”
Reporting
After several months, having resigned, Aaron typed up his story and had it notarized. He made two copies “so it wouldn’t be forgotten.” He set up a meeting with the regional leadership of the denomination and read it to them.
Joyce’s father went with them to the meeting along with the other pastor to whom Aaron had shared the story.
The other pastor told Aaron he wanted to tell his own story and not have Aaron in the meeting when he did. He wanted to tell his story seperately from Aaron so the evidence would be presented in an “unbiased way.”
After nearly a year and a half, Aaron and Joyce had heard nothing. The other pastor began pushing the regional leadership to do something.
The leadership called Aaron about meeting with Pastor Gene because the pastor wanted to apologize to him. Aaron agreed to recieving a letter from Pastor Gene, but not a personal visit.
Pastor Gene wrote the letter and it was like so many apologies of abusers. Aaron described it as saying, “I’m sorry you feel badly that I did this to you.” Aaron said there was no actual apology.
The leadership asked Aaron what they should do about Pastor Gene. Aaron shared with them that it was their responsibility to hold him accountable, not Aaron’s.
Accountability
When I asked Aaron what has provided the most healing for him, he said he sought perspective on his ministry. Aaron said, “My dad is a pastor. My gramps is pastor. I have experience knowing that even though people are in the church, they are still people.”
Aaron went on,
“My relationship with God is not dependent on people. It’s got to be my relationship with the Lord . . . We often put people on pedestal because they are in leadership. We honor those people God has given us, but we must primarily honor the Lord. I can’t look to leaders to build my relationship with the Lord. . . Jacob wrestled with god, there is a wrestling we have to have with the Lord to grow.”
Aaron made much of building good and solid boundaries.
Though abuse is never the result of the victim’s sin, but rather the deeply rooted sin in the heart of the abuser, Aaron sought to be humble before the Lord and consider how he could grow, knowing he couldn’t fix Pastor Gene’s heart.
Beauty from Ashes
In parting, Aaron shared that he saw the sovereignty of God in bringing beauty from the ashes of the evil Pastor Gene perpetrated. Though he lost his “dream” job, he was given a beautiful mnistry planting a church, ministering alongside his wife to other broken people.
“He works all things together for our good. I have to believe that and I have seen God’s hand in that.”
Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.
Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.
Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.
We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.
Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.
Is He Successful?
But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”
He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.
I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.
They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.
I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the churchI own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.
The Shepherd
The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.
The Strongs Dictionary says,
“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary
We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.
Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.
A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.
But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.
Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13
Responsibility, Not Authority
Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.
A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.
He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.
The sheep do not fear him.
You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.
Not take authority.
Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.
And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.
In this writing, I want to bring leaders down to earth . . . with a view to heaven.
I hope these ideas are both biblical and helpful in challenging common misconceptions about our Christian leaders. Leaders are important . . . and so they need to get it right. When speaking with Jada, I was again confronted with the teaching in some churches that leaders are to be obeyed absolutely.
I am going to use Numbers for some analysis of this view. But, I first must begin with a spoiler alert. The Old Testament priests are not in all ways equivalent to the New Testament leader or pastor in the church. I would suggest that there are some general principles that we gleen from OT Scripture for leadership, but we cannot make one-to-one comparisons.
Therefore, I will work from a principled way as we look at the Old Testament priesthood and apply it to current church leadership.
God’s Leaders: The High Calling
Leadership in the church is a high calling. It is likely that every society that gives credence to “religion” gives special honor to leaders of those religions. The spiritual guidance these leaders provide, bad or good, creates a we-them perspective. Religious leaders are normally set apart. They are often looked upon as having special knowledge or skills of the spiritual realm.
Some cultures especially give attention to spiritual leaders. We experienced significant honor in Africa and even in the United States there is a general sense of respect and honor for church pastors.
We see this in the Bible in Numbers 8 where the LORD gave Moses guidance for the establishment of the Levitical priesthood.
“Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.” [Numbers 8:6-7]
The priests were set apart for the work they did, even in their physical appearance. There was clearly a uniqueness to their vocation (calling).
And in the New Testament,
“Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
1 Peter 5:5 (ESV)
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
1 Timothy 5:17 (ESV)
The elder in the church is placed in a position of authority that others submit to them and they are to be “honored,” especially the ones who do it well.
In addition, the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 point to their calling to be guides and examples to God’s people.
Our Leaders: Not So Much
This is where we begin to see the balance with which we must grapple in our view of leaders.
Their authority is not absolute because they are not absolute.
The LORD is the only One Who is absolute and this becomes apparent when we look at the above Numbers passage and consider those same qualifications for elders found in Timothy and Titus.
“When you bring the Levites before the LORD, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the LORD. Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the LORD to make atonement for the Levites.”
Numbers 8:10-12
Note that these leaders—priests—are sinners just as the rest of the people of Israel are. Their sins must be atoned for and that sacrifice for sins is done in full view of the people.
Not only that, the people lay their hands on these priests. The people ordain the priests.
This is significant.
The priests represent the people—they come from among the people. They are not the end-all of leadership. The LORD is.
He calls leaders. He instructs them in righteous leading. He calls His people to follow them.
And He holds them accountable. They have, do, and will sin. It must be atoned for.
“When a leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by the commandments of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD; it is a sin offering.”
Leviticus 4:22-24 (ESV)
The leader is to admit his wrong whether it was intentional or not. And, in the Old Testament law, he was to bring his sacrifice . . . a public presentation of their need for God’s forgiveness.
Leaders are Accountable
But, when those sins deeply affect his leadership, God brings an end to his leadership through His and His people’s systems of justice. God does not look kindly on wicked leaders who feed on the sheep rather than care for them.
So He calls them out:
“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 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.”
Ezekiel 34:7-10 (ESV)
Sometimes he strikes them by His own hand and sometimes He uses man’s justice. Either way, it becomes clear that leaders in the church (or anywhere for that matter) are not absolute in their authority or honor.
Some Application
What do these principles mean?
In the big picture, they mean that leaders are given by God, but they are accountable for their leadership. They are to be respected, but they are to be held to high standards of behavior.
To get more specific, we serve our leaders as they call us to follow them towards the heavenly. As they teach us well, we learn well. As they give vision and example for ministry to others, we fulfill the vision and ministry. They are, after all, called to train us for works of ministry (Ephesians 4:12).
On the other hand, leaders who teach or behave contrary to Scripture can be called out by subordinates. Leaders who are unwilling to humble themselves, recognizing their own need of forgiveness from the Lord and others, need to cease being leaders.
Those who are responsible for appointing those leaders need to take their responsibility seriously and provide accountability. And they should never suggest to followers that they keep silent about errors on the leader’s part. As followers we should never feel and be taught as Jada was that we cannot challenge an “elder” in the church.
We must always remember that pastors and organizational CEOs are God’s leaders . . . and they are OUR leaders.
NOTES:
I encourage you to read Dr. Diane Langberg’s wonderful book, “Redeeming Power.”
In addition, this podcast sheds some light on power dynamics in the church: “Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse.”
The Bible is repleat with examples and the modern business and Christian organization world is full of them. It is a huge temptation for any organization that feels more dependent on donor funds than God.
Only in the Christian organization it is spun as “being an example for Christ.”
In other words, truth does not really matter. What really matters is if appearances are kept up for the public. Then Christ is glorified.
And it just so happens, the money flows better that way. Contributions roll in unabated.
But, Jesus never told his people to fake it until you make it. In fact, He most commonly called those who do hypocrites and that was not a positive assessment of their spiritual state (Matthew 6).
Saul and Image
King Saul reigned in Israel approximately 1021–1000 BC. He was their first king, which is a story in itself (not to be discussed here).
At one point he was told by the prophet Samuel to attack Amalek. He did as commanded by the Lord. But, though being told to destroy everyone and everything, Saul spared the king and held onto the best of the sheep and oxen.
Samuel came to Saul having been told by the Lord, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:10)
As Samuel confronted him, Saul immediately began shifting the blame to the people. Samuel told him the Lord was stripping him of his kingship. Saul responded,
“I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30 (ESV))
“I have sinned.” Sounds like he got it right. But listen to those words following.
“Honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. . .” His image is of greatest importance here. His confession is only a ploy to please the prophet. His desire for honor far outweighs his relationship with the Lord.
Samuel seems to think so as well.
He tells Saul that he will not return with him and walks away. However, Saul won’t stand for it and grabs the prophet’s robe, tearing it. Samuel in turn uses Saul’s disrespectful action as a metaphor and tells Saul that God is tearing his kingdom away from him just as he tore Samuel’s robe.
And then Samuel returns with Saul and finishes the job Saul was supposed to do.
Outward Appearances
Saul is a good (evil) example of the image-driven pastor, organizational leader, or business CEO. The Lord does not look on outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:12) and you will never get away with being driven by an image rather than the real deal (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees through that. God knows your character through and through.
You cannot put on airs with Jesus like you do for your adoring public.
Jesus will bring it to light at some point.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and never airs its dirty laundry . . . run.
It is unhealthy and hypocritical.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and tells you all the ways that it does ministry better than anyone else . . . run.
It is unhealthy and they are lying.
We Will Crush You
When an organization is driven by image, you can be assured it will do anything to keep that image alive.
That means the leaders will lie about wrongdoing. They will crush dissent. They will refuse criticism . . . even constructive criticism. They will put on a facade for the donors.
On a side note, this is of what NDAs are made. NDAs are often intended to keep that image alive through silencing its victims while offering cold cash for the buyout.
I worked for a mission agency like this. I watched it in action. And I drank the Koolaid for several years. I am not above being sucked in.
My wife had to confront me (in her gracious way) following a missions conference when I came away all blustery about how our mission was so much better than all those other missions.
It was less than a year later that all that image crumbled before me and we left the mission beaten and bruised by the toxic leadership.
It is insidious. Don’t take part in it . . . it will kill you.
For helpful information on “impression management” by Wade Mullen:
Amber, a young adult, was committed to church. She loved the fellowship and teaching.
Then something happened.
Her friend, Kayla, noticed it in her church attire at first. One Sunday she wore a prom dress. The next, Amber wore jeans to church. Kayla said it was strange.
“I knew something was wrong.”
Kayla’s Story
Kayla was hired by the church when an old friend became the pastor. It was a rough start when she sought to engage a small group of women led by an older, very wealthy matriarch.
Kayla was not welcome. They misinterpreted her reaction to them when they had tried to hide their alcoholic drinks from her, telling others Kayla was judging them (she wasn’t).
When the matriarch was “slandering” her, Kayla asked permission to attend their small group get together to clear the air. She was rebuffed.
So, she went to her pastor and boss, Brandon. Despite having stuck up for the music minister facing a similar situation, the pastor told Kayla to just get over it. “It’s just part of ministry,” he explained. “It’s time to put on your big girl pants.”
The New Elder
Kevin was in training to become a new elder at the church. They were nearing the time that the church would “ordain” him in the new leadership position. But Kayla had heard stories about Kevin that were concerning.
Kayla attempted to warn Pastor Brandon that Kevin had a reputation as possibly an adulterer; she had heard that he had a sexual relationship with a woman, not his wife. The pastor brushed it off and said, “I know Kevin. Of course, he wouldn’t do such a thing.”
The ordination went forward.
Reporting the Abuse
Meanwhile, Kayla sought out Amber, asking her if something was wrong. At first, Amber said nothing was wrong, but a few months later, when Kayla again approached her, Amber poured out her heart.
Amber had been sexually assaulted by Elder Kevin.
Thus began a long road of incredible hurt for Amber, Kayla, and her husband, Zachary. And failure on the part of church leadership.
Kayla convinced Amber to speak with her husband, Kayla’s husband Zachary (a professional Christian counselor), and Pastor Brandon. The first meeting with Zachary and Amber’s husband went well. The men were understanding, attentive, and supportive.
However, if Kayla had it to do over again, she said she would not have pushed Amber to talk to the pastor. Kayla assured Amber the pastor would “hold Elder Kevin accountable” for the assault.
That evening they went to the pastor’s house and Amber bravely shared her story. The first thing Pastor Brandon asked her was, “Were you drunk?”
From that point on it was a battle. Was Pastor Brandon blinded by Kevin’s wealth? Or some kind of loyalty? After all, Kevin had chaired the pulpit committee that had hired Pastor Brandon. Or was it something else?
Standing For Oppression
As Kayla sought to bring accountability to Kevin before the other elders, she faced one roadblock after another.
The elders didn’t believe Amber. She had been drinking so somehow it was her fault. Amber had denied ever being drunk, but they didn’t believe that either.
Amber’s story has been slowly coming out just as those who are traumatized slowly piece things together according to experts. But Pastor Brandon has maintained that she must be lying because her story had changed. However, according to Kayla, Amber has been simply adding to the story as she has processed it over time, as can be expected.
Brandon said when he met with Kevin, “He sobbed like a baby.” Brandon said he had never seen a man so broken.
Shortly after reporting the assault to the church leader, Kevin contacted Amber asking her if he had “penetrated” her. (According to state law, there must be penetration to be classified as rape). In so doing, he admitted the assault, but obviously wanted to stay out of jail.
The elders in the end asked Kevin to leave the church but did not explain to the congregation what was happening and have never taken care of Amber aside from offering to pay for counseling.
There has been no real public accounting for the credible accusations against Kevin.
Kicking a Dead Horse
As Kayla and Zachary pressed on, their livelihoods, spiritual, and emotional health have been profoundly damaged.
In seeking the accountability of these leaders, it has felt like kicking a dead horse. Except, this dead horse kicks back.
In a meeting with Pastor Brandon, he asked Kayla, “What if I said Amber has changed her story?” Kayla explained that it is a known fact that memories change in those who have been traumatized.
Kayla then tried to explain to Pastor Brandon the power differential between Amber and Kevin because of Kevin’s spiritual authority as an elder. In response, Pastor Brandon said “That’s CRT” (Critical Race Theory). Kayla, knowing that the leadership view those who hold any CRT views as “heretics” said, “I’m not a heretic.”
She described to me,
“He moved to the door with his arms folded. I couldn’t leave. Then he moved on to another case I was working on – a case of domestic abuse. He said disbelievingly about the accusation of abuse, ‘There are two sides to every story.’ So, I said, ‘But she works for me.’ He retorted that he had talked to husband for six hours, but I said, ‘I work with her for 20 hours a week!’
Brandon left the office but then came back to her. He said, “I want you to know you have a voice in this. Get it out and at some point we are done talking about this.” Kayla asked, “When?” She said he got angry and threatened, “I will do a nationwide search and replace you.”
He went on, “Though I disagree with 99 percent of Mark Driscoll, I would say he got one thing right: get on the bus or get run over.”
Wow.
How We Always Talk
Kayla’s husband, Zachary was there for this heated exchange.
He was shocked by the outburst and when Brandon left, Zachary asked Kayla if he normally talked to her that way. He explained that Brandon was yelling at her. He described it as a “narcissistic kind of rage,” especially Brandon’s tirade, “I will not be accused here! I will not be put on trial!” in response to Kayla calmly reminding Brandon of something he said which he adamantly denied saying.
In response to Zachary, Kayla said, “That is the only way we talk.” Zachary went on, “He was obsessed with never being corrected.” Mimicking Brandon, he said, “This is how you have to talk to me.”
Kayla said Brandon’s solution to their conflict “was that we would meet once a week where he could correct me if I ‘misinterpreted’ anything he said.” Brandon basically demanded the right to reinterpret Kayla’s experience as it suited his agenda of control.
This was not the only form of gaslighting Kayla experienced. At her first and only performance evaluation, Brandon provided positive feedback but zeroed in on one carefully chosen criticism: “Overly bearing the burdens of those under your ministry has the possibility of clouding your judgment.” This was said with clear reference to her relationship to Amber, and the message was subtle but clear: Brandon saw things clearly, but Kayla’s judgment could not be trusted.
Kayla, burned out and depressed, finally asked for a leave of absence for a couple months. Pastor Brandon encouraged her to resign instead. She pushed back and made clear that her request was for a paid leave, not a resignation.
Kayla explained, “A couple, who met with Pastor Brandon, said he told them that I came to him on Tuesday and resigned and then came in Wednesday and changed my mind.” Kayla thinks it likely that is the same story the pastor told the elders.
At no point did she suggest that she was resigning.
The elders in the end approved Kayla’s leave.
Pastor Brandon then announced to the church staff that she was going to resign. She had to again push back and say loud and clear that she never resigned, she just asked for extended leave.
The NDA
However, during her leave the elders asked her to resign and sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.”
They would provide a severance package if she wouldsignit and resign. It would effectively silence her. She would be legally bound to keep her mouth shut about the failures of the church leadership . . . in particular, Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
However, Kayla and Zachary would not be bought off, as they described it. Despite Kayla’s salary being their family’s primary source of funds, they were agreed that in good conscience they could not take a vow of silence.
Kayla refused the NDA.
The church leadership must have realized they were in trouble as they went ahead with a severance package (but only gave a portion of severance offered with NDA), and at the end of Kayla’s leave, fired her without any explanation or justification.
The Peace and Purity of the Church
After months of silence following the sexual assault, the elders called a congregational meeting to address the firing of Kayla as well as Kevin’s sexual assault.
The pastor began with a statement regarding Kayla’s termination. He explained,
“Let us be clear that there is no sin or character issue that has led us to this decision. Kayla is a remarkably gifted woman of God who has contributed greatly to our church and her ministries.”
The reason she was fired was that she continued to challenge the pastor and elders for their failure to take the kind of action that responding to a sexual predator in the church requires. Pastor Brandon in his statement denied this and did not express remorse for the horrible damage done by the sexual abuse of an elder, of whom they had been warned prior to installing in a leadership position.
Despite being encouraged by a respected abuse specialist in their denomination to seek a third-party investigation, they did not.
They did not make it public to provide a safe place for reports of other victims of Kevin’s abuse (though there were others reported to Kayla). During the congregational meeting questions were asked about the church’s investigation and the elders refused to answer them.
They had not brought in experts, neither law enforcement nor abuse consultants, to investigate.
Pastor Brandon confessed in the meeting that they should have come to the congregation with the information sooner, yet did not and have not asked Kayla’s or the survivor’s forgiveness for failing in this way to support them as they should.
In fact, the pastor noted defensively it was in their “rights” to not report to others there was a sexual offender among them.
When a question-and-answer time was coming to a close, one church member spoke passionately in Kayla’s defense:
“This is an extremely serious issue where, by all appearances, a wonderful person, who had impacted many of our lives very positively, was unfairly fired because she advocated for a victim and because she wouldn’t stop advocating for a victim.”
Bringing the meeting to a close, Pastor Brandon, in exasperation made a last-ditch effort to force submission to the church leadership and silence whistleblowers:
“If you still have issues, come to the elders, talk to them. But go directly to the parties that are offending you, and please, for the sake of the peace of the church, be careful how you talk to one another, or talk to other people, go directly to the source, and get these questions answered.”
Pastor Brandon went on:
And when we have disagreements, take them the session, and, you know, express your concerns and your grievances. But if it is a matter of a judgment call, God has ordained them, and you have elected them, to make those decisions on your behalf. And for the peace of the church, we need to leave it there. And then walk away and love each other.
His plea was to keep their failure to do what was right and failure to confess and seek forgiveness for their failures from destroying the church. Where admitting the wrong and seeking restitution would have healed many wounds that continue to this day, instead he recommended keeping things as private as possible.
As if that would serve “the peace and purity of the church.”
Accountability
Following the meeting, a church family wrote to the elders,
“Abusers need to know that their predation will be met with consequences. Victims need to know that they have a place to turn where someone will listen. And the world needs to see that the church is serious about protecting the vulnerable.”
They went on,
“By your own words you make the case that Kayla’s firing was a retaliatory measure, designed to silence her from bringing Kevin’s sin into the light.”
But rather than seek real accountability for Kevin, the elders sent him to another church to continue his abuse.
Submission to [Bad] Authority
In a recent sermon, Pastor Brandon was speaking on submission to authority. As is common to church leadership abuse, it is not unusual for a pastor to double down on the submission topic when he is being challenged. He said in the sermon, “Never ever confuse authority and biblical leadership with arrogance or a power grab.”
Brandon proclaimed the innocence of the elders’ motives in their decisions. One of the elders argued that their decisions to keep Kevin’s felonies private were simply “judgment calls.” He said, “But when the decision is made, unless it’s something so sinful, you know, or so greatly unbiblical, then, we are called to submit for the peace of the church.”
Sounds very biblical and wise.
But, regarding such horrible treatment of victims and those who advocate for them as simply judgment calls is anathema to the Lord.
As one individual who has experienced leadership abuse said, “It seems that where there is leadership abuse in the church, you will always find spiritual abuse.”
It is when submission is taught from pulpits and in responses to questions about the ways authority is exercised in the church that the Scripture is used to control and manipulate. References in Scripture like Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13f are taken out of context and absolutized to suggest that no matter what the authority does, the subordinate is required to obey and submit.
It is poor exegesis and deeply damaging to God’s people. [see here]
Turned Upside Down
Kayla, Zachary, and Amber’s lives have been turned upside down by the leadership of their church. Rather than responding in silence, deception, justification, and anger, their leaders should have heard their cries. They should have taken decisive action to hold the abuser accountable. They should have sought the healing of those who suffered under Kevin’s sexual assaults.
And they should have seen how this crisis revealed Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
If they haven’t, they should pack their bags. They do not belong in leadership.
NOTE: I recommend the below website. It provides excellent resources for survivors of clergy sexual abuse. God’s shepherds must be held accountable for oppressive behavior as the Lord held His shepherds accountable during the prophet Ezekiel’s time – Ezekiel 34.
Clergy Sexual Misconduct – We provide info & resources to those affected by clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) & ministries desiring to be a safe place.
If I didn’t know the whole story, I would side with the people of Israel (Korah’s group) as they stood up against Moses and Aaron:
“You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”
Numbers 16:3
This statement by “Korah and all his company” in the wilderness following the Exodus from Egypt is a beautiful summary of toxic leadership. Toxic leaders assume a place of prominence (exalt themselves) and refuse to acknowledge the value of their subordinates (all in the congregation are holy).
However, Korah’s analysis of Moses’ leadership was wanting.
Moses was specifically chosen by God to lead His people out of Egypt and into the promised land. God had prepared a man who was deeply driven by justice to be the shepherd of Israel. Moses had stood up against multiple oppressors as a young man, putting even his life at risk (see Exodus 2).
He looked out for the vulnerable. Moses protected those who were forgotten in his society – slaves and women.
God MADE Moses into the leader of Israel.
A False Charge
So, what brought on the complaints and accusations of Korah and his mob?
The Lord had graciously led the people of Israel (by Moses’ hand) to the border of the promised land. It was a land “flowing with milk and honey.” A good land that He was freely giving them.
And they had rebelled against the Lord.
They had refused to go into the land out of fear. The Lord had led them by many miraculous signs – many of which established the fact that Moses was God’s chosen leader – and yet they still had no faith that God would safely bring them into the land.
So, the Lord refuses to lead them into the land after they made an act of contrition for their disobedience and failure of faith.
That brings us to “Korah’s rebellion” in Numbers 16.
His words are in fact hollow and foolish. And we know this not only because over and over the Lord has made clear that His chosen leader is Moses, but because Moses has a heart of love and protection for his vulnerable followers.
When the people had rebelled against the Lord at the entryway to the promised land, He said to Moses,
“How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”
Numbers 14:11-12 (ESV)
God had continually cared for them and they refused Him. Their judgment was sure. So, God promised Moses that He would create a new nation who would follow Moses and He would destroy the current Israel for their failure to follow him.
What does Moses do? Did he say, “Sounds great to me. I am sick of their bellyaching, myself. Give me a people who will bow and submit to me!” No.
But Moses said to the LORD, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for you brought up this people in your might from among them, 14 and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people. For you, O LORD, are seen face to face, and your cloud stands over them and you go before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if you kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard your fame will say, 16 ‘It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land that he swore to give to them that he has killed them in the wilderness.’ 17 And now, please let the power of the Lord be great as you have promised, saying, 18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ 19 Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”
Numbers 14:13-19 (ESV)
True Leadership
Moses stands between the Lord and His people.
He seeks their pardon. He desires to assuage the Lord’s anger at his rebellious people. And Moses seeks the glory of God among the nations.
This is true leadership.
Moses should have the respect and honor of his subordinates because he continually proves that he is faithful to them and to their God. He is a shepherd who does not turn and run from danger, but seeks to protect and guide (John 10).
But Moses is a man and he fails at times. In fact, the Lord holds him accountable for his own lack of faith and refuses him entry to the promised land later (Deuteronomy 34:4). Moses then humbles himself.
Moses is a leader to emulate.
Then There Are Abusive Leaders
When a leader is abusive of his authority, what then?
Is a church leader, by nature of the office he holds, the “Lord’s anointed” as David calls King Saul in 2 Samuel 1:14? Should he be obeyed no matter what?
2 Samuel 1 seems a strange Scripture to turn into a principle and apply to church leaders today. And yet, I hear this over and over as a criticism of those who have stood against a pastor or Christian leader. By calling out a church leader due to his misuse of spiritual leadership, these church members are shamed for “touching the Lord’s anointed.”
When a leader has “hands laid upon him” – “ordained” – there is an anointing that has taken place. As the “Book of Church Order” in one denomination states,
“Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.”
Book of Church Order – Presbyterian Church in America
Though he has been set apart for work as a pastor in the church, by those same standards he
“should possess a competency of human learning and be blameless in life, sound in the faith and apt to teach. He should exhibit a sobriety and holiness of life becoming the Gospel. He should rule his own house well and should have a good report of them that are outside the Church.”
BCO
There are high standards for pastors. And we are called to submit to them by the writer of Hebrews:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:17 (ESV)
The New Testament Leader
Though these instructions provide a high view of church leaders, there is no sense in the New Testament church that leaders cannot be challenged or “touched” as if they are somehow untouchable in their position of authority in the church.
Church leaders’ lives are to be such that they can be emulated by congregant members, not unchallenged.
Paul, speaking of his Apostleship, says to the Corinthian church:
“This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.”
1 Corinthians 4:1-2 (ESV)
Verse one points to the high position Apostles have (not speaking of pastors) as “stewards of the mysteries of God.” But verse two notes the responsibility even the greater (Apostles) have for faithfulness. Without that faithful living, even the Apostles would stand accountable. It is all the more so for pastors in Christ’s church who are not called “stewards of the mysteries of God” anywhere in the New Testament.
This principle of authority (do not touch) comes more from Old Testament Israel. In that context, leaders often provided spiritual and political leadership (Moses, Joshua, the Judges, David and Saul). But, that is not the case in the New Testament church. The “theocracy” of the old has passed away (and in fact, there is a clear shift in how the church is to now engage the world around them).
Church leaders do not have the same authority over the lives of their sheep as Moses did. He was given the law “face to face” by the Lord. Other leaders were given the Word directly to pass on to God’s people, who in turn were to believe and follow the leader appointed by the Lord.
However, a New Testament church leader’s spiritual authority only goes so far because all of God’s people are “priests” (Revelation 1:5). And it should be obvious that they have no political authority being that there is no longer a nation that is a “church” as Israel was (nor is there a desire on God’s part that there be one found in the New Testament).
Whereas, leaders in the Old, both spiritual (priests) and political (kings) were God’s mouthpieces to His people, the New Testament saint (believer) has the Word of God written and available to all and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to illuminate.
Hold Them Accountable
Yes, we submit to our church leaders. Yes, we respect and honor our leaders. Yes, we listen to them.
But, we also hold them accountable to teach rightly and to live rightly.
Please do not use the line, “Do not touch the Lord’s anointed” again in reference to a church pastor. Particularly when his life of abusive leadership has disqualified him from that leadership.
Give your church leader respect and accountability.
The pastor sent an “apology” to Jack. The letter was less than a page long and included a very general confession of sin.
At first Jack was encouraged by the words from his former boss. But, as he considered what repentance should look like from abusive authority, he began to question the wisdom of reconciling with the pastor on the basis of the pastor’s apparent repentance.
This is the experience of victim after victim of leadership abuse. Apologies that give hope, but in time prove to be false acts of contrition.
What is Repentance?
Biblical repentance is difficult to understand. The word is used freely as though everyone gets it. But identifying the actual repentant heart is not so easy.
Because repentance affects how we respond to the apology of a fellow believer, its identification is important. Repentance means reconciliation may take place. Repentance means a position relinquished because of sin may be regained.
We need to be able to distinguish repentance from other forms of people-pleasing responses.
True repentance is a matter of the heart. The actions of the repentant flow from his entire being turning from sin. And, this is the difficulty: We can’t know another man’s heart.
ID Repentance
However, in the Old Testament there are some helpful guidelines to recognizing and receiving repentance. There are a couple words that are at times translated as “repent” or “humble” oneself.
The word, “nâḥam” (נָחַם) means to breathe strongly; to be sorry, to pity, console or rue; or repent. Another word, šûḇ (שׁוּב) means “to turn back (hence, away).”
In either case, the idea is that the sinner has given up the sin. And it is not just in action, but the heart. Note, the terminology “breathe strongly,” There is the sense that the rejection of sin goes way down deep into the inner man. Breathe. What I have read about this Hebrew term gives the impression of deep sadness – inner change – over what the sinner has done.
Where we run into difficulty here is in defining and identifying repentance when there is a return to the old sin. Is it repentance if we do the same sin again . . . later?
I know of two “repentant” abusers who have made significant progress in overcoming their entitlement and control over their wives. However, they do continue to go back to the old ways at times. The difference is that they identify it in themselves quickly and seek to confess and turn from it. Their wives no longer consider them abusive. They no longer live as if walking on eggshells.
So, we have to understand repentance in cases of abuse in like manner to our own various sins. It is why there is the old adage, “We must repent of our repentance.” We will at times go back to the trough of gruel. Our inner man never fully gives up on its idolatry until Jesus comes again.
But our recognition of the sin and deep sorrow over it has made significant progress.
Again, we do not know if someone else is truly, deeply sorrowful over their sin. Their words may just be further manipulation, of which many abusers are adept.
Confession and Resitution
Under the section heading of “Confession and Restitution” in the English Standard Version, Moses is given guidelines for determining repentance:
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that people commit by breaking faith with the LORD, and that person realizes his guilt, he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong.”
Numbers 5:5-7 (ESV)
This passage does not mention the word “repentance,” but I understand it to express the evidence of a repentant heart.
First of all, the sinner confesses his sin.
He understands that he has done wrong. He identifies that he has broken faith with the Lord. The Hebrew says he has acted treacherously. What he has done is really evil. And he confesses it. He doesn’t cover it over in any way.
I would suggest this means he doesn’t make excuses. He doesn’t blame it on someone else, even a little. He truly owns up to the specific sin. In cases of abuse, he doesn’t suggest others made him do it or it was a small thing.
Then, he makes “full restitution for his wrong.”
Restitution is an important part of the Old Testament law. Just saying you are sorry doesn’t cut it when it comes to repentance. If there is to be reconciliation, restitution is imperative.
The difficulty with restitution is the application of it when it comes to relational sins like abuse. And, as we are not a theocracy, we do not normally apply the Old Testament civil law directly to our setting.
However, much of the law can be applied within the church in a principled way (keeping in mind we must not create a list of Pharisaical laws based on “principles” we find in the Law).
It is certainly appropriate that we expect a leader in the home or workplace to not only apologize for their specific sins of abuse, but seek some form of restitution. I would suggest this gives evidence of real repentance.
What Does Restitution Look Like?
What might that look like? Though I have written of the “look” of repentance in other places, I would like to explore restitution here.
Note, that restitution was normally full payment for what was “stolen” or “destroyed” plus an additional punitive amount. Sometimes that additional amount was 1/5th the cost of replacement (like in Numbers 5:7). The amount of restitution was in part based on whether the loss was intentional, accidental, or criminal.
In essence, the greater the evil in the heart, the greater the restitution.
Accidents are not evil, so that additional amount is less. Stealing was particularly evil, and so in Exodus 22:1 the thief is to pay five times the number of oxen he has stolen. A stiff penalty.
What if we try to apply the principles of restitution to cases of abusive leadership? What would be required of the repentant leader?
Payment for necessary counseling for the victim.
Providing a safe place for the victim (new position in organization not under abusive authority).
Allowing the victim, without interuption or critique, to share in a public setting the evils perpetrated by the abuser.
Give up any authority formerly held by abuser.
Payment for lost wages (plus additional punitive amount) due to trauma in the workplace caused by the leader.
These are not biblical commands. They are only ideas. If you have other ideas, I would love for you to share them in the comment section.
“I Was Horribly Wrong”
Restitution is a means of giving feet to a confession. It can be evidence of a truly repentant heart. It can say to the victim of your sin, “I was horribly wrong and I must do all I can to make up for it.”
Though forgivess (another topic) may be given even when repentance is not in evidence, reconciliation is unlikely to happen without it, and should not be expected until true repentance is apparent to the victim.
This may mean restitution may be the evidence needed.
NOTES:
Saul and David make a fascinating study in repentance. Both did horrible things, but only David seeks to do all he can to make things right after doing some evil things. Consider Saul’s fear of David and abuser tactics and false repentance when David is running from his evil: 1 Samuel 19-27.
