The toxic leader will be threatened by the slightest show of strength from subordinates. This was the story of the new king of Egypt in the time following the death of Joseph.
As a little background, Joseph, the son of Jacob, had been taken as a slave from his family to Egypt—that is a whole story in itself. Through a variety of amazing circumstances directed by the Lord, Joseph’s ability to read the dreams of others came to the attention of the king.
Having read the king’s troubling dreams, the king appointed Joseph to oversee the nation’s food supply. The king had dreamed (symbolically) of seven years of abundance followed by a seven-year drought. God gave Joseph incredible wisdom that saved the Egyptian nation and many surrounding nations through his wise management of their agriculture.
Joseph’s family—God’s people—moved to Egypt during this time and were given good land to farm by the king. The “Israelites” grew in numbers and after Joseph died, Exodus 1:8-11 picks up the story:
Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses.
Exodus 1:8-11 (ESV)
You have to the ask the question, “Why would the king think the Israelites would join Egypt’s enemies and fight against them?” Egypt had proven to be a good place to work and raise their families. The Israelites were prospering because of the former Pharoah’s (king) kindness to them.
Why, Why, Why
However, it appears that the Israelites were already in the grips of the Egyptians. They did not appear to be equals in their citizenry. The king (and the other Egyptians) appeared to have power over these foreign people. This is evidenced by the fact the king could set “taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens.”
This new Pharaoh would prove in the story to be a toxic leader.
The Egyptian king had the ability to rule over them in a toxic way and chose to do so. So, he chose to take toxic control. An average leader might consider how to woo his subordinates. Not the Egyptian king. . . nor a toxic leader of any sort.
Robert Hare wrote,
There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life. Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought.1
If you know the story, you know that Exodus goes on to describe the destruction wrought by the king in the lives of the Egyptians and the subsequent judgments God brought upon the nation of Egypt because of the king’s horrific toxicity. As Hare notes, the Egyptians were “forced to live with or repair the damage [the king had] wrought.”
This is the way of toxic leadership. The destruction a narcissistic or abusive leader causes can be far-reaching and long-lasting. But generally, it is people in the organization, nation, business, or church that have to, in the end, live with it or try to repair it.
And it gets worse
Barbara Kellerman, the Founding Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, wrote of the common direction these toxic leaders go; down. It only gets worse. There is example after example. It is extremely rare that a bad leader becomes good. Rather their slippery slope is all downhill.
Kellerman tells the story of Volkswagen’s former CEO, Martin Winterkorn.
The effect of Winterkorn’s bad leadership was cumulative. The longer it lasted, the higher the cost to everyone adversely affected. Volkswagen’s cheating was not a single, quickly aborted instance of wrongdoing, never to be repeated. It was the opposite. It went on for eight years, the price paid by the victims of Volkswagen’s wrongdoing escalating with each passing day.2
But this should not surprise us as Christians. Sin is crouching at the door (Gen. 4:7) and without the intervention of Christ, it goes generally from bad to worse.
There are people who are truly driven by evil as Dan Allender describes (and it only gets worse):
All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul. Often the one who delights in evil is an ordinary, unassuming person who hides behind a facade of normalcy. Few people who are evil ever appear evil, even after the evidence of their deceit, destructiveness, and hardness is exposed.3
Keeping Clean of Defilement
It is difficult to watch the masses follow after narcissistic and abusive leaders in any organizational setting. They might think the leader holds some values they hold or promote some policies they promote. So, they think those positive traits will keep the followers clean of defilement. But, that is not how it works.
The followers of the Egyptian king suffered much the same from God’s judgment as did the king. The plagues that devastated Egypt crushed its people. In fact, it is likely that the only plague that fully affected the king was the death of his firstborn. As the king, he was likely above many of the affects of the other plagues.
Let this story be a challenge to leaders who are tempted to gain control through strength or manipulation. And let is be a challenge to followers who think they are somehow exempt from the damage such leaders bring.
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.”
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?
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.
Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.
Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1
His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“
In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.
Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.
It is our job.
So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.
There are Good Pastors
The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.
“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”
And so, the author says,
“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”
I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?
Greater Accountability
In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.
But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:
Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous
A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.
The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.
Judged with Greater Strictness
James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”
Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.
This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”
On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.
Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.
Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:
“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“
Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)
The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.
Diagnose and Expose
As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:
“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”
Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.
The author goes on,
“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“
I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.
The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.
I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.
And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.
A Critique
The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.
I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.
I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:
Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.
But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.
Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebukeabusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).
Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).
I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.
Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).
Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.
Being confronted in your sin is not abuse (1 Timothy 5:20)
It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.
Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.
I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?
True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.
Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.
This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?
Summary
Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”
Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.
And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.
I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.
But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.
Those who make themselves complicit with toxic leadership will often do so due to fear of loss of prominence or privilage. These are the middle-managers in Christian organizations, businesses, and churches.
One of the most captivating stories in Scripture is the book of Esther. In ten chapters of moving narrative, Esther provides the plot of an epic drama. The twists and turns of God’s sovereign reign in care of His people even while having exiled them for their idolatry, always keeps me fixated to the end.
The story also captures a common problem with toxic leadership.
So often those who lead under the oversight of toxic leaders are complicit with their leader. For a number of reasons they do evil right alongside the head of their organization, business, or church.
An Object for Display
In Esther’s story, Memucan, a manager in King Ahasuerus’s government, saw Queen Vasthti refuse to come like a slave to the king when he commanded her presence. The king wanted her to come “in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at (Esther 1:11).”
Memucan realized his own power and position may be in jeopardy with the Queen’s refusal to obey King Ahasuerus’s making of her an object and display to his subordinates.
King Ahasuerus asked his subordinates who were present,
“According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?”
Esther 1:15
Memucan told the king:
“Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.”
Esther 1:16b-18
Can you imagine that? Other women will see her unwillingness to be treated as property and think it is okay to refuse authoritarianism. In the end, others who have authority, like Memucan, will lose that authority to boss and abuse their own wives.
Analogous with Toxic Complicity
This is an analogy of complicity with toxic leadership, not just poor marital behavior.
There are a variety of reasons why those who act as “middle-managers” in the workplace will refuse to seek accountability for their boss and become complicit in their abuse.
Loss of Prestige for Boards: Members of boards fear the loss of prestige if their leader is the focus of a public scandal. So, they cover it up.
Access to the Leader and Power: Managers fear a loss of access to a leader, from whom they have been empowered, if they report / whistleblow abusive leadership.
Donor Support: Fundraisers may fear being caught supporting a badly run organization and so would rather just keep it quiet . . . continually praising the health of the organization.
Bad Witness: Assistant Pastors may continue to support a wicked Senior Pastor because suggesting he is broken and unworthy of leadership will be a bad witness to the world.
Common Goal: One particular church leader “was picked with the goal of growing the congregation,” and so the “main goal was to keep him as pastor.”1
“Image management” may create difficulty for subordinates to see the leader for who he or she really is. “Weick (1988) and Maitlis and Sonehnshein (2010) found that strong, optimistic statements and justifications produce blind spots that keep organizations from seeing contradictory cues and pieces of evidence. Followers also feel as if they must be bound to those positive outlooks.”2 In other words, subordinates struggle to keep clear sight when their leader has brainwashed them with positive think.
No Access: A close cousin to this positive think is subordinates being continually fed the leader’s narrative and never considering the victims’. Boards are notorious for this kind of mismanagement, as the board of our own mission was. They willingly allowed themselves to be kept from access to the stories of the missionaries and nationals who were being mistreated by the leaders of the mission.
And there are other reasons.
Most, if not all of them are bad.
It is not worth it to be complicit in these ways with abusive leadership. The organizational damage will be much worse because more lives will be broken and damaged by the leader the longer he or she remains at the helm.
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.
It was a life-altering experience that she embraced with “enthusiasm and was filled with joy and excitement” at her future.
This new life led to a basic assumption that all new Christians were on that same road, making her “lenient in forgiveness.” She knew her own sin and the forgiveness she received in Christ. Lisa knew she must pass it on.
She met her future husband, Anthony at a coffee shop. He seemed to her to be “sincere, charming, loving, gentle, mature in his faith.” And, his heart for missions took her in.
She fell fast for him and they were married in two months.
“I soon realised something was wrong in my marriage, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. It was very covert, hidden behind the façade of him fulfilling his God ordained role as head of our family. I found it near impossible to have a productive conversation with him. My opinions were mostly not valued or considered as valid. He used sarcastic jokes to poke fun at me, but I felt the sting deeply inside. If I tried to explain how I felt, my feelings were dismissed as being invalid and I was told I was too sensitive and couldn’t take a joke . . . He was jealous of my friendship with other women and wanted my full attention all the time. He did not have close friends. We only ever went out as a couple.”
On Mission
Lisa and Anthony went on the mission field, but after Anthony had a “falling out” with the mission leadership, the couple returned to their home in South Africa.
Three years later they returned to the mission field, serving in Zambia deep in the bush. She said, “We literally hacked our way onto our newly acquired property and set up a mission base.”
They oversaw a fruitful ministry of developing a Bible Training School and church planting endeavours in addition to various other projects.
During this time, Lisa explained that she tried to be the best wife she could be. She tried to be more submissive. She tried to be an obedient wife. She tried praying more. Believing more. She tried marriage counselling and “watched countless DVD’s on better communication and marriage enrichment.”
She attended seminars. She read books.
However, he would be negative and vindictive. He would constantly nit-pick and used character-assassination often obscured as a joke with Lisa and everyone and everything else around him. Lisa said the staff, fellow missionaries, friends, fellow workers, their children (and at times even their pets) were the targets of his abuse.
Keeping the Peace
She said, “I would desperately try to placate him and keep the peace.” She would excuse his behaviour and defend his actions all the while internally she was screaming at the injustice being done to others.
Lisa tried talking to him. She explained, “I desperately wanted him to understand the devastating consequences his words and actions were having on me and on others.”
But nothing she did could fix her troubled marriage.
He would simply deny everything and then shift the blame to Lisa. She said she would walk away more confused, taking on guilt and shame for what had happened.
Anthony was so sincere in declaring his innocence, she thought surely, he must be right. She was to blame.
The Children
She could see that their marriage would have a major impact on the children and determined to protect them in any way she could.
“I wanted them to feel safe and secure and have a firm foundation of trust and respect. . . I over functioned big time. I just wanted to make things okay and normal.”
Still, there were good times too. He could be charming, friendly and sweet. And Lisa sought to extend these times by never rocking the boat. She knew the bad times, that she described as “really bad,” were just around the corner. But, she worked tirelessly to keep those times at bay.
Inevitably, those bad times came to the fore. No matter what, they were never able to discuss any issue and find a resolution. Never. “Anthony was always right, and he had the final word and say in everything” and somehow, she was to blame.
Every time.
So, Lisa said she would “slump back and do intense introspection, cry, and confess before the Lord and determine to do better next time.” After all, she said, “it was my duty as a Christian wife wasn’t it – to stand by my man for better or for worse?”
Silent Tears in the Night
“There were countless nights of silent tears, of crying out to God to help me find a solution, to soften my husband’s heart, to lead me to an answer. I forget how many times I cried in the toilet whilst I ran the shower to cover my loud sobbing. But then, I would pull myself together, put on my happy face and fill my days with busyness to forget the bruises on my soul.”
In time Lisa said this all became her “normal.” She considered it too horrible to face the truth that her husband and marriage were incredibly broken. She said, “I knew it in my heart but didn’t know what to do about it.”
Like others in domestic abuse, she had no idea where she would go. Abusive mission leaders are notoriously difficult to “out.”
She didn’t even really have the words to describe it and so just “secretly carried the burden and pretended all is well.” Lisa said she became “so good at pretending I fooled everyone. Even myself. I was in denial.”
A Mission of Broken Relationships
Lisa said that things were not going well at the mission base and Anthony had “littered” the path behind him with broken relationships of his own making.
The couple resigned from the mission organisation and a few months later Lisa broke down “in total burn out.” She shared that she emotionally and physically crashed.
Anthony was furious.
It was very inconvenient for him.
He sent her to Johannesburg.
There she “semi-recovered.” However, when she returned to Zambia things became worse than before.
They moved to a new mission location, and he now had absolute control. They lived “off the grid” and were completely dependent on inconsistent solar power. Whether she needed the washing machine, the laptop, to switch on a light, use the car, go to town, buy a cool drink, cut her hair, or visit a friend, she needed permission from Anthony. She had no money. Had no access to money.
Lisa described spending many days under the covers in her bed. She felt hopeless and helpless. She was suicidal. But thoughts of her children and grandchildren prevented her from following through.
He Was Suffering Because of Me
Lisa was shamed by Anthony for making his life miserable and difficult. “He was suffering because of me.” He complained to their pastor that her behaviour and attitude were causing him great distress.
The mission was failing and they had lost most of their personal financial support. He was spending much of their support on the ministry but was not well liked by the local community. Anthony attempted “practical training sessions” with local farmers but Lisa thought they “attended out of politeness, and afterwards no one actually implemented any of his teachings or ideas.”
He was critical and depressed and blamed the lack of success on others and Lisa, who, in his view, were ungrateful for his hard work and sacrifice.
Lisa suggested they return to South Africa to be closer to family and find work. Surprisingly, he agreed, and Lisa was thankful to get back home. However, he did not like Lisa spending so much time with her sister and mother and she continually tried to “appease him and live up to his expectations” while also caring for her family.
Lisa and Anthony’s finances were in very bad shape. Fortunately, when Lisa got a part-time job, she also opened her own savings account. Due to his irresponsibility, she did as much as possible to take care of her own needs.
She knew something had to change. She was desperate.
Again, they tried marriage counselling and were both diagnosed with various relational problems. However, as most marriage counselling goes, there was no diagnosis of abuse. She was discovering that marriage counselling rarely fixes an abuser.
Back at Square One
“And so, we were back at square one, except that I now struggled with increased, suppressed anger.”
Late in 2019, Lisa and Anthony had another incident and she determined to take steps to salvage the marriage. She secretly recorded a conversation and “told him that I was done with the status quo and of taking all the responsibility to find a solution to the conflict and unhappiness in our marriage.”
She explained that she drew a line in the sand. He needed to put some effort into finding help for their embattled marriage. Or else.
Anthony did nothing.
But, with Covid lock-down of 2020 came what Lisa described as her liberation.
A mutual friend knew that she was deeply unhappy and stressed in the marriage. She had challenged Anthony at various times and became his enemy number one. She encouraged Lisa to stop trying to fix him, suggesting he was not going to change. Rather, the friend encouraged her to work on her responses to him instead.
Narcissistic
During a conversation, her friend casually mentioned that Anthony displayed “narcissistic behaviour” and at that moment Lisa said “a light went on for me.” She spent time learning about narcissistic, overt and covert emotional and verbal abuse and realised she had a name for what she was suffering.
She was “ecstatic, relieved and elated! I wasn’t crazy after all!”
For a time, Lisa thought she was the only Christian experiencing this. Then she discovered the shocking statistics for abuse in Christian marriages.
But being a victim of abuse did not sit well with her. Lisa said she was determined not be a “victim, but an overcomer and with time, a thriver!”
Lisa sought out a psychologist and for the first time felt that she was heard and believed. She researched and learned as much as possible. She learned how to “grey-rock” – a strategy to survive emotional abuse – and how to create boundaries.
Gaining Clarity
Slowly she gained clarity.
Anthony spent much time away during one year. It gave Lisa time to develop courage to put boundaries in place and by the time he returned she had made some changes to her lifestyle. She hoped the boundaries would be an opportunity for Anthony to become self-aware and take responsibility for his part in the destruction of their marriage.
He did not.
He accepted it because she “no longer reacted negatively and critically to him.” She realized later that this was a typical response for an abuser. “It is all about how things affect him.” Never would he own up to contributing to the situation.
Lisa refused to be intimate with Anthony.
Again, he didn’t protest.
Lisa then asked him to move out of the bedroom and put “house rules and financial adjustments” in place.
They were living like “housemates with separate lives.”
“I asked him to consider therapy for himself and suggested a therapist. He went three times and then stopped going ‘because he didn’t have any problems.”
Bitter, Angry and Resentful
It became clear to Lisa that he was not willing to take responsibility or to change his behaviour or attitudes.
As time went along, Lisa found she was focusing so much on Anthony’s toxic behaviour that she was becoming what she described as “bitter, angry, and resentful.” She had insomnia and was struggling with her health. She longed for Biblically based advice and counsel.
Then she stumbled upon Leslie Vernick’s website, YouTube videos, and blogs.
Lisa was determined to make staying with Anthony work because she could not envision being financially independent. But it became apparent that living this way was unsustainable.
“The covenant had been broken a long time ago and the marriage was over.”
Leaving Well
Rather than “staying well,” it was time to “leave well.”
With the support of Lisa’s children, her family, and some close friends, she sought out a divorce attorney and filed.
“I followed the safety advice from Vernick’s to inform Anthony of my plan. He did not contest it.”
As she walked out of the courtroom this scripture came to mind:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
Lisa was finally free to start rebuilding her life, to heal and see Christ’s restoration and fulfilment of His purposes in her life.
Lisa had gone from victim, to survivor, to thriving as a Conqueror.
Lisa ended by thanking Leslie Vernick and her team for all they did to bring her safely through.
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.
There is often a significant difference between the short-term and the long-term.
We see our oppressors (as the Bible calls them) winning the battle. Their violence goes unpunished. Their manipulation continues to create more supporters and greater isolation.
They arrogantly assume they have the upper hand. And in the short-term, they do.
Church leadership says, “It’s her story against his.”
Business leadership says, “He just doesn’t buy into our vision.”
The organization’s board says, “He is tough, but he gets the job done.”
None of them realize the damage that is being done. And the abuser continues to win the day.
So said Asaph in Psalm 73. The song writer gives a 3000 year old account of the sufferings of those under abuse in the home, workplace, and organization. He is frustrated by the evil he sees and the seeming hopelessness he finds to be his daily existence.
For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind. Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment. Their eyes swell out through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies. They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression. They set their mouths against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth. Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them.
Psalm 73:3-10
But Asaph, like so many survivors of abuse, came to a place when clarity swept him up into the heavenlies.
Asaph sings,
But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.
Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.
Psalm 73:17-20, 23-26, 28
Asaph entered the sanctuary. We may have that moment in a worship service, or mountain hike, or moment of quiet meditation.
It is in that moment that the long-term saves us from the short-term.
No matter what others say. No matter the attitude of a pastor, elder, or CEO. No matter the short-sighted thinking of a board president. No matter a friend’s ignorance.
The LORD is with the oppressed. He is not with the abuser. They are destroyed in a moment.
The LORD is my strength. No opinion of man. No pride of position.
The LORD is my Refuge.
Do you need some help and encouragement? Go to our Resources page.
