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.
I never tire of nor do I ever run short of biblical material for the study of abusive leadership.
I say that because of the number of people out there who don’t think of abuse as of any importance. They don’t believe that the Bible speaks to abuse. They think that all sin is basically the same and should be handled much the same way.
I recognize that most people reading my blog are those who do actually see it in scripture and want to understand it better from a biblical view. But I still have hopes that there are those out there who will come across some of these writings and come to realize that they have shorted God’s Word by failing to see abuse deliniated in its pages.
And in response, become caring and empathetic in their approach to survivers of abusive leadership.
Asa, King of Judah
I often turn to the kings of Judah and Israel for my material. The history of the kings is found in the two books of Kings and two books of Chronicles in the Bible. These summary stories of the kings does not hold back on the good and bad of these kings.
There was a king who ruled in Judah around the ninth century B.C. whose name was Asa. His story is told in 2 Chronicles chapters 14 through 16. His particular story is a good warning for leaders. If you are a leader in any capacity, please consider Asa. As a friend of mine likes to say, “Everyone is good for something . . . even if it is as a bad example.”
There are those leaders who are simply bad. They are toxic to their core and they reap destruction in the workplace.
But, there are leaders who begin well and end badly. We can take a birdseye view of the span of their ministry and sorrowfully recount their failings.
It is said of Asa,
And Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God. 3 He took away the foreign altars and the high places and broke down the pillars and cut down the Asherim 4 and commanded Judah to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, and to keep the law and the commandment.
2 Chronicles 14:2-4 (ESV)
It was a good start to his reign in Judah. There is so much promise in those two verses. Scripture notes in the next verse that “the kingdom had rest under him.” There was peace, clearly as a result of his good leadership.
Then War
As an example of Asa’s good and godly leadership, the story is told of when an Ethiopian ruler attacked Judah. Asa led his army out against Zerah the Ethiopian and the writer of Chronicles recounts Asa’s prayer:
“O LORD, there is none like you to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O LORD our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this multitude. O LORD, you are our God; let not man prevail against you.”
2 Chronicles 14:11
It is a beautiful prayer. It is an expression of Asa’s dependence on the LORD and recognition that his life is in service to God and not his own comforts or power.
Scripture tells us that as a result, the LORD “defeated the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled.”
Spiritual Leadership
The passage goes on to deliniate Asa’s spiritual leadership in Judah. Following his victory on the battlefield, a prophet approaches Asa and tells him, “The LORD is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.”
Leaders, this is your call. As the LORD called Asa to seek Him always, so the LORD calls you to seek Him always. And the promise is sure that if you seek the LORD, He will be evident to you (“found by you”).
Again, there are encouraging words of Asa. He immediately made more spiritual reforms in Judah to show all the people they needed to rely on the LORD not on idols.
Relying on Other
But well into Asa’s reign—33 years—he turned to someone other than the LORD to protect him against an invading army. After all that has been said about it, it is a jarring change of storyline.
Scripture says,
At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him, “Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the LORD your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. 8 Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the LORD, he gave them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him. You have done foolishly in this, for from now on you will have wars.”
2 Chronicles 16:7-9
It was a crushing blow to Asa. In one sentence the fall of Asa is described: “Then Asa was angry with the seer and put him in the stocks in prison, for he was in a rage with him because of this. And Asa inflicted cruelties upon some of the people at the same time.”
Asa is angry (indignent in Hebrew) and raging (storming in Hebrew). His actions towards the seer, who is bringing an opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness in humility, is rather rebellion and anger. Asa belies a toxic heart.
And that toxic heart would give way to physical decline. Three years later he got a disease in his feet and died.
It is such a disappointing end to his reign. A man who clearly loved the LORD and sought him ended his leadership in disgrace and the oppression of others over whom he had power.
Have you seen this in your own leader? Have you seen it in yourself?
You may be becoming enthralled with your image. You may be leading some people who have strong opinions—and share them readily—and feel intimidated by them. You may feel you must show how much smarter and stronger you are and you may be using sarcasm and put downs to show them.
Turn to the LORD instead.
Remember, “If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.”
King Solomon, maybe the wisest king of all time, had extraordinary gifts from the LORD.
1 Kings 10:23 tells us that “King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.” As time goes along, “the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.”
Earlier in the book of 1st Kings, the LORD appeard to Solomon in a dream and asked him, “What shall I give you (1 Kings 3:5)?”
Solomon answers in a beautiful expression of humility: he needs wisdom more than anything—to discern between good and evil. He has just become the leader of God’s people, who are numerous, and as a young man he needs God’s wisdom to rule well.
The LORD answers his request and more. He says He will give him both wisdom and, because he didn’t ask for it, riches and honor.
And thus, Solomon begins his reign with wisdom and starts to build a wealthy and powerful dynasty. The LORD tells Solomon that he will be wiser than all who came before and all who come after if he will “walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments (1 Kings 3:14).”
Blessings and Honor
Seems simple enough. Solomon, like all men, is not a paragon of virtue, but he humbly recognizes his inabilities and depends upon the LORD’s forgiveness and help.
He became wealthy and other leaders looked to him for wisdom including the Queen of Sheba. You get the sense he is the most powerful man in his part of the world. He received honor and glory from all the nations surrounding Israel.
Every one of them brought his present, articles of silver and gold, garments, myrrh, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year. 26 And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen. He had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. 27 And the king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stone, and he made cedar as plentiful as the sycamore of the Shephelah. 28 And Solomon’s import of horses was from Egypt and Kue, and the king’s traders received them from Kue at a price. 29 A chariot could be imported from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver and a horse for 150, and so through the king’s traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.
1 Kings 10:25-29 (ESV)
What is the Purpose?
So, in receiving all this blessing from the LORD, what do you think Solomon considered his purpose to be?
Scripture has memorialized his thinking in the form of his poetry. The Psalms are songs for the use in worship. David, his father, who was a great musician wrote nearly half of the 150 Psalms contained in the Bible. But Solomon is also a contributor to the book of worship music.
Psalms 72 gives us insight to how Solomon understood his purpose as a leader:
Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice! 3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!
Psalms 72:1-4 (ESV)
What impression do you get as you read his song of praise?
His work as a leader should be like the work of any leader: to provide justice and prosperity for the people. And that includes stopping those who crush others—oppressors.
He goes on to develop the idea in the song:
12 For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. 13 He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.
Psalms 72:12-14
There is a distinct focus on caring for those who are struggling to care for themselves—the poor and needy.
What we see in so many leaders is quite the opposite. Their arrogance, narcissism, raging, and image control cause the “oppression and violence” that Solomon decries in his Psalm. Those behaviors and attitudes are opposite of what a good leader is to do and be.
Solomon sounds like the kind of leader I want.
However, it does not end well for Solomon.
The Fall
The LORD does not withdraw His blessing; Solomon scuttles it.
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
1 Kings 11:4 (ESV)
It is hard to believe that once, having tasted such incredible goodness from the LORD, a leader would turn his back on Him. But, in Solomon’s case, he chose to break God’s law in regards to marriage and took on his wives’ idols for his dependance and worship.
His idolatry was expressed in the worship of mythological gods common to his wives and the nations from where they came. It is more likely that a leader in our culture will turn to the gods of wealth, power, fame, and image control rather than a golden artifact. But these are idols nonetheless—things that are trusted in other than the LORD.
Solomon’s legacy ends up being the breakup of the nation into two parts—northern and southern—and continual hostilities between God’s people.
That breakup was brought about by his son who thought the counsel of his buddies to oppress the people was better than the counsel of justice given by older and wiser men. The young men suggested he take control of the people and say to them:
“‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s thighs. And now, whereas my father laid on you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.’”
1 Kings 12:10-11 (ESV)
It is evident that Solomon had become a slave-driver—doing quite the opposite of what his Psalm 72 says a king should do. Rehoboam also chose to counter his father Solomon’s psalm.
This was Solomon’s legacy because he rejected the LORD’s good and peace-giving guidance on leadership. He created an environment of injustice, power, and authoritarianism that his son learned at his knee. He allowed all those gifts of wisdom and wealth given by the LORD to create a monster.
For those of us in the West, we have the opportunity to reject such leaders. We have freedoms unknown to many throughout the ages to get free from political, social, spousal, and employment leaders who are narcissistic and destructive.
He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.
Recently, I was having one of those imaginary discussions. You know, the conversations where your anger ramps up against whom you had a disagreement—though they are not present to actually fight back?
One of the things I stated to my imaginary combatant was, “You are going to tell me that you are doubting the LORD of heaven and earth, Who created you, and could crush you with His pinky?”
All people, everywhere, at all times have been tempted to distrust the LORD—often many times per day. That distrust of God in essence is what drives our trust in ourselves. We, in practice, believe that we can make better decisions, control situations better, and get the job done better than the LORD, even if we would never admit that.
How could we ever presume to be so powerful. There is one God and he can crush us with His pinky.
So too the Israelite leaders—priests and kings and counselors—thought they knew better than the LORD when Zechariah spoke around 500 B.C.
But Zechariah pummeled the Israelite leadership with these words:
“My [God’s] anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders; for the LORD of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle. 4 From him shall come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler—all of them together. 5 They shall be like mighty men in battle, trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight because the LORD is with them, and they shall put to shame the riders on horses.”
Zechariah 10:3-5 (ESV)
God is angry at the leaders of His people.
So much so, He promises to punish them. This is a common theme among the “minor prophets” of the Old Testament. Prophets like Zechariah were continually calling God’s people to repentance for their evil, often for the way the leaders (more powerful) oppressed the vulnerable (the weaker). The leaders are held to a higher standard throughout Scripture.
How does Zechariah say God will punish these wicked leaders?
He is going to raise up the followers—the house of Judah—to overwhelm the leaders. The humble will overcome the great. The arrogance of the wicked leaders will be judged.
Symbolic Implements of Destruction
Zechariah notes the symbolic implements of destruction as the means by which these subordinates would bring judgment upon the leaders:
From him shall come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
from him the battle bow
Though we see the LORD raise up other nations to drag these leaders into exile, the ultimate fulfillment is found 500 years later through the raising of Jesus—born in the house of Judah—from the dead.
Some commentaries suggest the CORNERSTONE to be symbolic of a ruler or prince. Ultimately, we know that the LORD raised up Jesus Christ to be the true Israelite cornerstone—ruler and prince—and exemplify the leader who brings restoration and healing to the downtrodden Israelites.
However, He does so by also judging the evil of man’s out of control leadership which Israel was experiencing at the time of Zechariah.
Zechariah says the TENT PEG will be brought forth by the LORD. Most suggest this refers to the symbolic purpose of the tent peg:
The allusion is either to a nail, by which the timber in the building is compacted together, and the whole is strengthened, as the church is by Christ: or to a nail to which the cords of tents are fastened, as those of shepherds, travellers, or soldiers; the church is as such a tent . . .
Jesus, the Cornerstone will bring the nation together against these wicked leaders.
However, there may be another interpretation: The allusion may be to Judges 4:21 where Jael, “the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died.”
A wicked king in Canaan, Sisera, was subdued by a “tent-dwelling woman.” So, too it will be a lowly carpenter’s Son [Jesus] who will drive the nail destroying wicked leadership of God’s people (Rev. 20:11f).
And the final implement of war and destruction—of overcoming wicked leadership—is the bow; used as our drones are today to bring down enemies at a distance.
My imaginary conversation came around to the LORD Who can crush me with His little finger. Leaders, in the home or workplace or church, who think they are so powerful to control and suck the life out of their subjects need beware:
The Cornerstone, nail, and bow of the LORD will ultimately destroy those who have been raised up to lead and who have used that privilage and responsibility to oppress God’s people instead of serving them.
Zechariah calls for repentance as all the minor prophets do. Will wicked leaders heed the warning? Will they turn from their wicked leadership before the LORD crushes them with His pinky?
Unfortunately, strength = toxic too much of the time.
The warnings are clear in Scripture for those who rise to positions of leadership. There is a story in 2nd Chronicles that should strike fear into all leader’s hearts–or at least a healthy concern. A sixteen-year old was placed in leadership in Judah. His father, Amaziah had died and it was his turn to rule the nation.
And a long reign he had: fifty-two years.
Uzziah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” as he began his reign. He sought God, was teachable (by the prophet Zechariah), and God made him prosper as he followed the Lord.
Scripture says,
God helped him against the Philistines and against the Arabians who lived in Gurbaal and against the Meunites. 8 The Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah, and his fame spread even to the border of Egypt, for he became very strong.
2 Chronicles 26:7-8 (ESV)
His military might was a result of God’s delight in him. Uzziah was faithful to the Lord. There is so much encouragement here that such a young man should rule with wisdom and faith.
But.
Pride
But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.
2 Chronicles 26:16 (ESV)
The Lord had set up a separation of powers (duties) in the theocracy of the Old Testament. The national political rulers (kings) were not allowed to interfer with the sacrificial system of the temple. Though there were often battles between the kings and priests, where the kings had responsibility to rule the nation, the priesthood made it evident that God ruled over the kings.
Uzziah’s unfaithfulness would be a footnote in his story if what happened next had been different.
17 But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor, 18 and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the LORD God.”
2 Chronicles 26:17-18 (ESV)
The priest, Azariah stood up to the king. Like Nathan in King David’s case (2 Samuel 12). Like all faithful friends and advisors to those in power over the centuries. Azariah was willing to do the messy work of challenging the wicked behavior of the most powerful person in the nation of Judah.
Anger
This is an important point of the story, and what comes next is the frustrating part.
19 Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the LORD, by the altar of incense.
2 Chronicles 26:19 (ESV)
Unfortunately, a reign that was godly and a witness to the Lord of heaven and earth ended in arrogance and entitlement. “He became proud.” Rather than admitting his foolish and arrogant behavior to the Lord (and Azariah), his sin was not a footnote but the fall of his rule in Judah.
In his pride, Uzziah was likely thinking that he could do what he wanted. He was powerful and was likely continually being coddled by his subordinates; told he was the greatest, winning all his battles, a real rock star.
No priest could tell him what to do.
But God did not allow him to continue in his arrogance. The Lord physically struck him, causing him to break out in leprosy.
And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD.
2 Chronicles 26:21
With dishonor and shame he went to the grave; turned out of his primary residence; disallowed entrance to the presence of God (“excluded from the house of the Lord”). Uzziah’s life was turned upside down.
Accountability
It is an important story for leaders. Each of us, in our places of influence, must understand the warnings that the Lord provides through the many stories in Scripture. We need the accountability of others. We need others who will, even if subordinate to us, be able to bring us grace through criticism.
We need to humble ourselves before the gracious and mighty hand of the Lord . . . before it is too late.
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. ↩︎
The Lord gives us all spheres of influence. Family. Friends. Work. Church. Organizations.
And, as a result of the Fall of man into sin, we have an ego to match.
We want the respect of people. At least some of us do. We want to know we are needed. Our insecurities can drive us to new heights of self-defense. Often that defense is in putting on a good show—making our outward image as squeaky clean as possible for the watching world, while rotting away inside.
We see this in Jesus’ critique of the scribes and Pharisees.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
Matthew 23:27-28 (ESV)
One of the ways that a toxic leader can be identified is by simply observing those self-defense mechanisms – how hard is he or she trying to keep up an image?
And at times, one of those mechanisms is found in their rabid hold on titles.
I was raised in a family that was very keyed into college degrees. In general, I would suggest the drive was not so much for egotistical purposes but from the belief that it was the means for being the best person you could be.
However, those degrees can become a foundation for arrogance and in the end toxic leadership that feeds on them.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matthew 23:2-12 (ESV)
There are several criticisms that Jesus has for the scribes and the Pharisees:
Hypocricy
They say one thing and do another Jesus says. “They preach, but do not practice.” This is true of all people. It is why Jesus died . . . to save sinners like us. However, the Pharisees were unrepentant hypocrites on steroids.
Legalism
The Pharisees expected others to follow all their unbiblical or additional rules for godly living but did not practice those rules themselves. Just the laying these burdens on others was wicked. But, the hypocricy of failing to practice the rules themselves was double the evil.
Keeping Up the Image
They looked good. They put on the clothing of importance. You see, that’s the easy part. It takes little trouble to look good on the outside, throwing on a nice looking uniform, tie, and saying nice things to others (in the presence of others).
But note the motive – “To be seen by others.” Not to serve Christ. Not to love neighbor. But to be “seen” as good or important.
Titles
The “Rabbi” was an important and respected position in their community. Strong’s Dictionary says this title means, “my great one, my honourable sir.” or “Master.” Wow.
Pretty big deal.
Titles are Important, But . . .
Titles are helpful for a couple different reasons:
They establish lines of authority. With titles we know who is in charge in the organization. It provides a job description.
And, they help us know the amount of training an individual has had in a particular area of expertise.
Those reasons are good reasons. Fine. Useful.
However, what Jesus gets at in his scathing criticism of the Pharisees from which we want to learn is that motive matters. The heart matters.
Why do I want to be called Dr.? Why do I desire my subordinates to call me Mr. or CEO? Why does it make me uncomfortable when a parishoner doesn’t call me Pastor?
What is driving my need to sit in a particular seat at the table?
A Little Story
When my family was working for a mission in Africa, my wife was invited along with several other women with the mission to a seminar presented by a diplomat’s wife. The seminar was on social etiquette. Having put on numerous state dinners and the like, this woman presented a variety of things that are expected of those hosting important people.
It included how the host should seat people at the table for dinner. Who is on the right hand of the host, who at the end of the table, etc.
My wife and her fellow missionaries were rather amused by it all. However, our mission Director’s wife took it all in. When we were invited to their home for dinner along with the U.S. Ambassador to the country, she sat us according to these etiquette rules.
After the Director’s wife sat us, the Ambassador said, “I see you know the correct etiquette.”
Jesus’ words about seeking the head of the table and desiring to be noticed and held up as important came flooding to my mind.
As it turned out, image, place of importance, titles . . . all of that, was very important to our mission leaders. And they were toxic.
Do We Reject Titles?
The question for us is do we reject titles all together? It should be apparent that titles themselves are not wrong. It is what lurks underneath that we must consider and of which to be aware.
Why do I want others to know my title? Is it driven by ego? Or is it to provide context for my work that others know my qualifications.
Is it to run roughshod over those under my authority in the church, organization, business, or home? Or is it to clarify my position in the organization as a servant to my subordinates? And then seek to live up to the title with integrity and good character?
The answer to those questions will largely determine yours and my own toxicity. Beware. Writing this has given me an opportunity to take a bit of a dive into my heart.
I hope that it will be helpful to your heart transformation as you seek to be a godly influence in the spheres God has given you.
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.
“The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care,” says Timothy Witmer, author of “Shepherd Leader.”[1]
That seems basic to the Christian, and yet how many bosses view their leadership this way?
The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.
A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”
The picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord” that is expressed by “words and deeds” says Richard Rardin, author of “The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.”[3]
Rardin says that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4] This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.
Unfortunately, some ministries fail due to shepherds who take advantage of their position and power over the sheep.
To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of a pastor’s assistant who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach – 1 Tim. 5:17) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral position).
The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra or jazz ensemble who perform under the “first chair” or lead player, must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.
This is particularly treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd.
John’s Story
John’s story is very similar to Susie’s [her story]. I heard his story along with Susie’s nearly the same week.
John spent one and a half years serving his congregation before resigning, under pressure, due to the autocratic behavior of the Senior Pastor. He noted, as we talked, that his purpose for accepting the position was that Pastor “Jim” said, “I’ll train you, give you preaching [opportunities], visits . . . the whole gamut of ministry.”
John was very excited to gain valuable experience in ministry following his seminary training and this position appeared to provide the opportunity. However, John resigned from the position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Jim.
Pastor Jim’s toxic leadership came out particularly in “pharisaical” ways which can be understood as practicing (and normally) advocating for extra-biblical rules, treating them as necessary for holiness.
The Pharisee
John described an incident when, as the Youth Pastor, he was encouraged to visit the local crisis pregnancy ministry. He spoke with the director, who had contracted HIV-AIDS from his wife, had experienced his baby (who also had HIV-AIDS) “die in his arms,” was divorced from this wife, and in the end became a Christian.
In the course of the discussion, John decided to bring him to speak to his youth group. There was a 16 year-old mother in the group and he hoped that it would be of real encouragement to her.
He approached Pastor Jim to seek permission. Because the crisis center director had an earring, John decided it would be wise to inform the pastor due to the “fundamentalist” leaning of the church.
After telling him about the earring, Pastor Jim “just killed it right there.”
Stuck in the Middle
In another incident, John was seeking permission to move the 16 year-old mother to the “college group” because “she was still of the mindset that [she was] a teenager” and he believed the college group would provide more maturation for her.
Again, Pastor Jim did not allow him to exercise his authority as the Youth Pastor and John was “stuck in the middle” between the pastor and families that were concerned for their own young children that were in the same group.
John found it necessary, as one under the authority of the pastor, to “come up with some reason of why the pastor [thought it] better to leave her” in the youth group to mediate between his boss and the anxious parents.
Shepherding the Agnostic
John said to me, “Shepherding is my favorite aspect of working in ministry” and related an opportunity he had to shepherd a teenager who had told his parents he was an “agnostic.” The teenager was finding it difficult to believe that his parents loved him and would support him despite his unbelief.
John was able to encourage him and help him through that time of questioning. The young man later turned to the Lord and John believed the Lord has used him in the young man’s life.
However, despite his success, John was placed in awkward positions with the senior pastor, particularly when he was leaving the ministry. His concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in our discussion.
Like Susie, John said, “I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving. I didn’t want to see a schism,” as he described two leaders in the church (Deacons) coming to him to discuss actions by the senior pastor. Though John did not mention the word, “gossip,” he implied that he was very careful with whom he spoke during the crises and when leaving the church.
He also sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about his experiences. Though John was very careful to keep his frustration contained by sharing primarily with family members, he said,
“If I had had more interaction with the deacons, who were also frustrated, it would have been very difficult to stay supportive, to not complain, not gossip.”
The Emotional Damage
John experienced many opportunities to use his giftedness for the building of God’s kingdom in his assistant role in the church. However, he noted that seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging.
John spoke extensively about the emotional difficulties of ministering under Pastor Jim.
Again, like Susie, John observed multiple times when his supervising pastor was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care.
However, he realized the significance of the emotional injury only later, as Susie said when I interviewed her.
Long Time of Healing
John said he and his wife took a year and a half out from ministry to heal from the hurt caused by the pastor.
John noted that he spoke with both his father and uncle who are pastors, to gain perspective emotionally. As he evaluated his response to the toxic leadership of the pastor John noted that he “spent most of that year and half frustrated” and didn’t “have good spiritual disciplines established.”
Because of this, he said, “I didn’t process through things as I would have.” His year and a half out of ministry following his resignation was because he “was more broken than I should have been had I been processing my emotions more effectively.”
John believed that had he had a deeper relationship with the Lord, he would have seen his context more clearly and resigned more quickly.
However, according to John, that time of struggle in ministry was invaluable to his growth as a leader. He said,
“I learned from it that my relationship with Christ needs to be what gives me the confidence and satisfaction rather than my relationships with the pastor, or church . . . it needs to be much more personal . . . that union with Christ. Who am I in Christ?”
His ability to be self-differentiated, while operating in an environment of broken relationships and anxiety was a valuable lesson John learned. He shared that though he “didn’t have the guts to argue with [Pastor Jim] at that time,” he would at this point.
In addition, he learned that much of his training in seminary focused on the idea that the pastor receives the vision from God and passes it on to the congregation. Having experienced this form of leadership from Pastor Jim, he recognizes that it is actually devastating to ministry.
Sharing With Others
There can be many emotional challenges for the assistant as he interacts with members of the congregation and an autocratic senior pastor. John noted that most of the leadership (Deacons) in the church have since left the church primarily due to the autocratic leadership of the senior pastor.
When John was preparing to leave this particular ministry, two of the deacons came to him and asked him about his experiences with Pastor Jim. He said,
“I was much more open with them. I knew I could trust their discretion . . . not go blabbing around. I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving.”
But, to complicate matters, John explained that his supervising pastor was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by him or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail.
When describing the pastor, John said,
“He was convinced of his philosophy of ministry so the problem was the church, it wasn’t him. I don’t feel like that there would have been a way for him to see his own shortcomings in that.”
Pastor Jim rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
He’s in Charge
John had an amicable relationship with Pastor Jim,
“But, I knew it was very clear, from the moment I got there, he made it very clear he’s the leader of this church. He’s in charge . . . So, the level of authority that he exhibited – that was intimidating to me, because I knew his word was final. So I wouldn’t ever push that.”
John felt “defeated, like my hands were tied. Like I had no authority.” He was given the task of leading the kids, but he had to do exactly what Pastor Jim told him to do.
“But, how exactly is that leadership? I don’t have any authority to make decisions.”
Having come to learn ministry, the actions of the pastor “really took the wind out of my sails.” There was very evident frustration in his voice as he described the inhibiting of his ability to minister to the youth by Pastor Jim’s authoritarianism.
Quitting Leaders
As James Kouzes and Barry Posner say, “People don’t quit their organizations; they quit their leaders.”[5]
It is not an infrequent occurrence that those who are called to gospel ministry find employment in churches led by autocratic pastors. The often devastating emotional effects on those who serve as their assistants are felt for years.
Rather than enter into a joint ministry that provides a learning environment for an inexperienced assistant, the assistant’s gifts are squandered by “self-serving leaders [who] use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves” rather than train and equip their assistant in ministry.[6]
Those caught in these emotional triangles of pastor-assistant-church must navigate relationships that are fraught with emotion, balancing respect and submission to the senior pastor and care and shepherding for the congregation.
Because these senior pastors are often given extensive authority by elder and deacon boards that are more inclined to “herding instincts” – keeping the peace at all costs and doing what the pastor says – the assistant is left to cope with the emotional struggle, sometimes unaided by those in the church.
Assistants that have a high view of the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation have little recourse as the one with whom they seek to correct for the purpose of reconciliation holds the keys to the church humanly speaking and are unresponsive to confrontations described in Matthew 18.
Two to Tango
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango”.
This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25.
Sometimes it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.
Susie had a Master of Divinity and was working on a Doctor of Ministry degrees when I spoke with her. She had served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with a little under 500 members and served under the supervision of the Senior Pastor.
Pastor Pete was, by her description, the primary authority in the church.
Susie worked three years at the large, multi-campus church and was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks.
In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.
Susie explained to me the position of an assistant to a senior pastor provides unique opportunities and challenges. There is real pleasure of “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” as Susie noted. Susie enjoyed using her gifts to serve people in the church and it was evident that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation.
“You are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before,” as Susie explained.
She said, “I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well.” But her work administratively in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders and helpful procedures for all the teams.
However, her work at the church did not end well. She resigned from her position in large part due to the abusive leadership of Pastor Pete.
The Missions Committee
Not long after joining the staff, Susie was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to an African country. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a particular group of African churches in one country through short-term trips.
The pastor gave Susie much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization through which they would operate.
As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team, but explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany the pastor on a mission trip to a different African country.
Susie and the new committee were quite surprised. Neither Susie, nor her committee, had heard about this new work of the pastor’s. When an elder, who was on her committee, heard about it, he was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete.
Hoping to work with the pastor to straighten out what had to be a miscommunication, the elder explained gently their difficulty with the pastor’s conflicting mission trip. However, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had simply gotten his “feelings hurt.”
The elder, taken aback by the pastor’s callous response, explained the lack of respect shown by the pastor. But the pastor continued to laugh.
The two mission trips went on as planned.
The Financial and Relational Fallout
Following Susie’s trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the African churches with which they worked.
At the close of the service, Pastor Pete stood before the congregation and gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier.
The missions committee and team were astonished. Pastor Pete had personally directed the committee to raise the funds and materials for the churches visited by Susie’s group.
Despite her success, Susie was placed in an awkward position with the senior pastor. Her concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in the interview. She was able, on a day to day basis, to minister to the needs of her little flocks over which she was given authority.
However, seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging. And draining.
Susie observed multiple times when Pastor Pete was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care. The frequency of such events were instrumental in Susie’s resignation from her position. She said she never felt that Pastor Pete “respected” her though he “handed [projects] freely over” to her and never came back to ask how they were progressing.
For Susie, the lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, she realized much of the emotional injury only later. Susie explained,
“I didn’t realize at the time but now looking back and going through some spiritual abuse healing, there’s no question that I was deeply hurt. I felt betrayed.”
According to authors Freyd and Birrell,
“Our preliminary findings indicate that shame is indeed associated with exposure to traumas that have a high level of betrayal, but not to traumas with a low degree of betrayal.”
[Blind to Betrayal, location 485]
Limiting the Damage
Susie sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about their experiences. In order to cope with the emotional struggle, Susie explained,
“I think more than anything I reached out to some family in the mid-west because I really wanted to respect the church and I didn’t want to create any division.”
Despite having been placed in an uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off, Susie recognized that the onus of the failure was the senior pastor’s.
She explained that her concern that her reputation was damaged was limited by her knowledge that others knew her character and integrity. Her self-differentiation was evident in her challenging the pastor during two meetings with him. Self-differentiation [described here], as defined by psychologists and management experts as holding firm to convictions while wading the torrents of anxious, relational environments is a particularly difficult skill for those who are self-described “people-pleasers.”
She suggested to Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior. Susie believed her ultimate authority was God and not the senior pastor and this helped her respond with a significant level of self-differentiation.
There were many emotional challenges for Susie as she interacted with members of the congregation and her autocratic senior pastor. She noted that most of the leadership (Deacons, missions committee and Elders) in the church she served have since left the church primarily due to the authoritarian leadership of the senior pastor.
Because the frustration Susie experienced was not unique to her there was difficulty determining how to respond to the congregation in those times. Susie said she counseled others to “try to understand that even though you are part of a church and you are a part of a Christian organization, sometimes your first answer is to God and to God alone and you need to first and foremost seek Him.”
She also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18. However, as described in other articles, this is not always safe nor biblically necessary.
To complicate matters, Susie explained that Pastor Pete was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by her or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail. She considered Matthew 18 to be the model, yet Susie noted that “there’s nothing you are going to do to change this guy.”
The pastor rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
In summary, Susie was cognizant that her responses to the pastors and to members of the church could “create a schism” or “division” and so restricted her communication to those either outside the church or directly involved in the conflicts.
Hands Tied
A pastor that leads autocratically may leave little room for those under their authority to use their gifts and practice effective ministry. Susie expressed frustration with having had her “hands tied.”
Susie was subjected to frustrating decisions made by Pastor Pete who had little interest in discussion or consideration of his assistant’s opinions.
When other mission team members sought Susie out to encourage her to talk to Pastor Pete, Susie told them,
“He knows the situation we are in and he has clearly told me ‘this is the decision I’ve made…this is where it’s going, and this is what’s going to happen.’ And so I have no control.”
Pastor Pete had given Susie a substantial amount of freedom to use her gifts in her position, however she had seen enough imposition of his will with church leaders that she was “not surprised,” but rather felt “bamboozled” by his decision.
However, upon her advice several mission team members continued to work with the African churches and mission agency, making other arrangements to continue in their commitment to the churches despite their own pastor having removed the church’s support of that particular mission.
As noted above, Susie also did extensive work to leave a legacy of organizational structure, fulfilling the purpose for which she was employed. Following her final worship service, she said, “I left my keys right in the middle of my desk and I walked out and I never heard a word from him.”
According to her account, ministry happened that has had long term effects on the congregations she served. Yet, the frustrations encountered dulled her hopes that she had effective ministry during those years of service.
What Can Be Learned
In the end, Susie finally considered the ministry “vision” of the senior pastor to be in conflict with her own and resigned her position, leaving with damaged emotions that would take years to heal.
Susie was employed by a church that, in policy, the elder board had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of control and poor decision-making.[1]
It was very apparent that the practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary and unquestioned importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.
Because strong, authoritative leaders can often be seen as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes more and more difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat. Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership appears to be destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.
As Susie pressed on towards her goal of ministering to her congregations, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.
As was noted earlier, her coping strategies were focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful as they receive encouragement and possibly biblical advice.[2] However, the focus of the problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what they are facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the emotions is limited.
The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Susie’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire them and was under no real authority of elders. And Susie was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip. This leaves a gap in the healing process.
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor. This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person and there is just no way to get around it.
It was clear in the interview that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success. Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.
Susie took submissive postures with her senior pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.” Susie’s ability to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gives opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God is sovereign over the future of her ministry whether remaining in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or somewhere else, is of absolute importance and a lesson into which she gained valuable insight.
Recommendations for Churches and Organizations
Elders: It is advisable that the church consider seriously the Apostle Paul’s instruction that a plurality of elders be established to guide and shepherd the church.
Accountability: In addition, immediate response should be given to pastors that exhibit authoritarian practices. The church on the whole operates with no category for autocratic leaders. In my experience, it is only the leaders who have a moral failure such as sexual abuse or financial fraud that are held accountable by church boards. Leadership failure is much broader than these select moral faults. Though harder to distinguish, authoritarian leaders are just as damaging to the body of Christ and His witness.
Examinations: There should be much attention given for the identification of autocratic personalities when ordaining and calling pastors. We must understand the destruction caused by broken relationships with both assistants and members.
Seminary Training: In addition, seminaries should consider ways of providing graduates with the tools, emotionally and biblically, to confront autocratic leaders.
Summary
It is my hope that Susie’s story has provided a glimpse into the personal struggle that those under authority have when faced with autocratic leadership. Her story is not uncommon. Her story is an example of a church work environment that is destructive and extraordinarily complex because highly authoritarian leadership is destructive and extraordinarily complex.
The prophet Ezekiel, calling the religious leaders of Israel to repent of their wicked leadership said, rather than shepherding God’s sheep, healing their diseases and seeking after the lost, “you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty.”[3]
As Christian leaders, ministry is marked by both comfortable, life-giving relationships and relationships that are a battleground. Rardin says Christian leadership is to be “motivated by love for the Lord.”[4] This love gives strength in the difficulties pastors face in a job that is largely about relationships.
It is love that gives pastor’s assistants the motivation and roadmap for interacting with and supporting an autocratic senior pastor’s ministry. However, it is also love that knows when to stand firm, grasping deeply held convictions with integrity, when a senior pastor oversteps his biblical authority. This self-differentiation is of primary importance for assistants to authoritative pastors as they cope with the emotions that rise out of the brokenness of sinful man that is both their own and their employer’s.
God, in His grace, has prepared many excellent works for each Christian to accomplish.[5] May the church provide the environment and love necessary that every part of the body does its part for the body.
[1] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.
[2] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.
[3]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4.
[4] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.
[5]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ephesians 2:10.
