Category Archives: Image

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Emily’s Story

Posted on by
Reply

Emily joined the African mission work because it “sounded good. It was the way we should be helping.”

The mission hosted an orphanage and had plans to build a school and tech center for women. It was holistic in its service to the poverty-stricken community. 

Emily had just graduated from college and was ready to begin her life in a foreign land, serving people as Christ would want her to serve. Emily bought her plane ticket with the intention of being a career missionary. She was excited to serve the Lord in this way.

Emily began our discussion saying that the mission was “shiny,” but when she had been with the Christian organization for a little while, that glitter began to wear off. She said, “When I saw the other side of the mission, it was like a one way mirror.”

Image

It started with small things.

The soap that they were teaching the nationals to make had a variety of ingredients. But, when it was marketed in the United States certain ingredients were left off the label.

“It was not a big deal,” she said, but she was curious why the ministry was leaving them off.

There was a constant flow of visitors. As Janice (the mission Director) would show the visitors around, Emily heard the same refrain over and over. The orphans they were serving were put on display. Emily said, mockingly, “Come and smile for these white people. Sing songs because they like that.”

Emily noted that there were so many visitors that Janice didn’t even know the children because she was so busy “showing off” the mission. Emily explained, “She didn’t know the culture, the values, important things to raising a kid. Yeah, she knew that in America, but in Africa there was a completely different value system.”

She saw a disconnect from the culture and seemingly little interest in getting to know the people on a real day-to-day level.

It was like the image presented of the organization was all that mattered, not whether it was actually serving the community or not.

Racial Boundaries

One day she was confronted by Janice. She said, “I need you to be in charge of those women in back. Yer the boss.” Emily said she felt so uncomfortable with that. “I was 23 and some of these women had grandchildren.”

Rather than allow the nationals do works of ministry, the “white girl” from America needed to be in charge. Why would Emily, who had so little experience with children, be the “boss” to a group of women who had years and years of experience?

But, there was a disturbing boundary between the Africans and Americans.

They would go to a local church together, but the Americans would be put in the front row seats and everyone stared at them. Emily explained that they would “pretend to cross the cultures periodically,” but there was no real interest in tearing down racial divides.

Laws of the Land

Janice was also breaking the country’s laws in a variety of ways in the name of “ministry.”

The ministry was saving money by purchasing rice on the black market.

They were forging birth certificates. They made up the ages for the children to encourage adoptions.

When Emily questioned Janice, she said, “This is how things work over here. I’ve been here a long time.”

But Emily, said, “As a 23 year-old you begin to think its okay to do all these morally wrong things while saying we are standing for righteousness!” She said, “There was so much truth mixed in with it that over time I began to question whether it really was the way to do it.”

Be Warmed and Be Filled

There is a passage in James that challenges our tendency to do what is expedient rather than providing real, tangible help to others in need.

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:15-17 (ESV)

Emily shared that Janice was gone one day and a local family came asking for help. They needed food or money. Emily told me,

“We said no, we can’t help you right away. Then later that day we had the realization, ‘What did we just do?’ It was almost like we had been brainwashed. We couldn’t help unless we got something out of it.”

She said it was a sobering moment. Emily reflected, “Shouldn’t we be helping – pushing back a bit?” But she said Janice would just say, “We can’t help everyone.”

There were more stories and it seemed to Emily that what they cared about was looking good and making money but didn’t really care about taking care of the kids there.

Emily told a heart-rending story of a two year-old who was brought to the orphanage. The child had a broken leg and was malnourished. She needed traction on her leg, but Janice was too busy and wouldn’t be of any help. Emily spent much time talking to doctors, but finally the child’s mother came and took her to Doctors Without Borders.

Getting Out

When Emily decided she needed to get out, she sought to bring some accountability to Janice by going to the board of the ministry.

She said, “I had a list of all the injustices. I laid it out for the board. But they simply responded, ‘Well, she’s been there so long. We just have to trust what she’s doing.'”

Emily sadly said she was in a long line. There were at least four others who had gone to the board before her.

She moved to a house nearby before returning to the United Stated. Emily explained, “I didn’t want my name associated with the ministry.” One of the boys in the orphanage begged her, “You can’t leave us with her!” She said it deeply hurt. She felt guilt that she was abandoning the children.

Learning

When I asked her what she focused on in the midst of the fire, she said, “I kept thinking about what Jesus would be doing? What would that look like. Thinking about how faith works into this? What does it look like for an organization to follow Christ?”

She said she read the gospels. Her experience put into perspective what the Bible said about the outcasts of society. 

And Emily talked to anyone she could when she came home. She wisely noted, “I knew who not to talk to because of cultural clues.” Her experience like so many was that some people just don’t want to hear about apparent failure on the mission field. Some just want you to get over it and move on. They tire of hearing your story.

Some people had the attitude, “you made a commitment.” That was not helpful, she said.

Healing

I asked Emily what has been most healing for her over the past years since returning from the mission.

She said, “Talking to other people in similar circumstances.” Emily would realize that she wasn’t crazy when hearing other stories. She had been living with that feeling of insecurity.

In addition, it has been helpful to share frequently with a friend that was with her there at the mission. She tries to remember the sweet times. She doesn’t want to throw the baby out with bathwater and forget that there was good ministry there as well. 

She met her husband three weeks after getting back to the United States. Emily said,

“He loved me no matter what crazy thoughts I had. Especially in the beginning. It’s an experience that will never leave. It impacts everything about me. Having someone who isn’t judging was incredibly healing.” 

When she and her husband moved to a small town in the west, she crossed paths with a woman who had had a similar experience on the mission field in Africa. They sat down at Emily’s house and she told some of her story and Emily told hers. Emily said, “That was one of the most healing times.”

Forgiveness

I asked her what her journey of forgiveness has been like. She said it was a “big question everyone asks.” She said, “I don’t care to have a relationship with Janice, but have come to where I can have grace for her knowing her brokenness. She’s a human too.”

But, she added, “I could never trust her again.”

Emily noted, “Not forgiving only hurts me. She doesn’t know I haven’t forgiven. It only creates bitterness.”

But, it has been a slow process. She doesn’t think forgiving is just a “one and done” kind of experience. “I still can find myself getting up and angry again. It is more like a spiral . . . I just keep coming back to it. It is such a complicated thing.”

Some Advice

When I asked Emily if she had some advice for others suffering under toxic organizational leadership she said,

“Get out!”

She has seen others stick it out in abusive church leadership situations and the trauma and pain it has caused has convinced her that she took the right step of getting back on the plane.

“You can tell when someone is being called to do what they do and it never looks like an abusive situation.”

Authorized Unity: Loyalty, Allegiance and Fidelity

Posted on by
Reply
“If you are not trusting me, you are not trusting God…”

When a collaborative church planting network chose Jennifer’s city for a new faith community, she and her husband were excited. They had enjoyed being involved in another church plant years before in another city.

Continue reading →

Enabling Abusers: Saul and the Ziphites

Posted on by
2

Saul was just like the other kings. Israel had asked for one. And they got one.

He was a rotten leader. Often we downplay his wicked leadership.

Psalm 54 is described as a song that David wrote when he was ratted out by the Ziphites when Saul was hot on his tail. David, God’s anointed king to replace Saul, had been Saul’s greatest supporter. But when Saul began to see David’s popularity for being such a gifted warrior—abilities David used for the purpose of supporting King Saul—Saul’s wickedness became evident.

David had no intention, we are told, to replace Saul. He had multiple opportunities to stage a coup, killing Saul, and rise to the throne. Yet, he said,

“The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’S anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed.”

1 Samuel 24:6 (ESV)

But Saul, nonetheless, pursues David to murder him. Saul even had priests of the Lord murdered because they helped David, even though they did not know David was on the outs with Saul. When accused by Saul of colluding with David, the priest Ahimelech said to King Saul,

“And who among all your servants is so faithful as David, who is the king’s son-in-law, and captain over your bodyguard, and honored in your house?“

1 Samuel 22:14 (ESV)

The servant is to point to the master. And, David did just that. Ahimelech explained that David was faithful to Saul. He was his right-hand man. David, in essence, glorified Saul, his king.

And yet, Saul had all the priests killed.

Enabling Abusive Leadership

Then Saul comes to the Ziphites. From David’s own tribe, yet they are all too happy to turn David in to Saul, enabling the abusive king.

Then the Ziphites went up to Saul at Gibeah, saying, “Is not David hiding among us in the strongholds at Horesh, on the hill of Hachilah, which is south of Jeshimon? Now come down, O king, according to all your heart’s desire to come down, and our part shall be to surrender him into the king’s hand.”

Then check out what Saul said to them:

And Saul said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, for you have had compassion on me.”

1 Samuel 23:19-21 (ESV)

Matthew Henry comments on Saul’s words, “Saul affected to speak the language of piety. Such expressions, without suitable effects, can only amuse or deceive those who hear, and those who use them.”

Saul puts lovely religious language on his abuse. “You had compassion on me.”

In the book, “A Church Called Tov,” Barringer says, 

"Rather than accepting responsibility and apologizing for sin, pastors and church leaders may create false victimization narratives in which everything is reversed and the perpetrators of sexual violence become the victims."[1]

“Poor me,” Saul is saying. “I am the one who has been treated badly.”

Hear the abuse ringing through? Saul is a manipulative and wicked man. He was what the people asked for – a king like the other nations. Rather than appreciating and building up his right hand man, David, who did so much for Israel, Saul is paranoid of him and seeks to kill him.

Saul is a fool and an evil man.

A Bible Study on the Kings of Israel
Get on Amazon

Unfortunately, this is not unusual.

Twice recently I have watched as two women have suffered under their abusive husbands as their pastors continue to support their abuser. It is all too common in Christian organizations for the same thing to happen with toxic bosses.

Like the Ziphites, the board, other managers, or even other co-workers continue to enable the leader in his abuse.

And the abuser just puts on the religious charm and others are overcome with empathy for his plight.

Just like Saul. And his enablers.

NOTES:

[1] Barringer, Laura McKnight . A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (p. 65). Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Wild Grapes: God’s Judgment on Power & Oppression

Posted on by
Reply

People were created to love God and neighbor. They were created to care for and keep the world [Genesis 2:15]. To create flourishing.

They were not created to sow power and reap abuse.

Imagine for a moment that you have purchased a vineyard. You tenderly care for the vines, providing ample water each week, making sure it goes a foot deep into the rich soil. You daily walk through the rows pulling weeds and watching for nasty pests. You fertilize it and prune it yearly to remove all growth except new 1-year-old fruiting canes and renewal spurs.

But then, you discover the grapes are smaller and less sweet than you had expected. They are more prone to disease. They are “wild” grapes.

You did everything to care for the vineyard but the grapes have gone their own way.

God’s Wild Grapes

Apparently, in Isaiah’s time, God’s people had done the same.

God, the one true God, who created all things, is perfectly just and righteous. He is loving in all His ways. He is extraordinarily merciful to a broken people. Despite seeing His love and care, watering and pruning in the lives of His people, they have been more interested in joining “house to house” and adding “field to field” as the prophet Isaiah said of the wild grapes [Isaiah 5:1-10].

The picture Isaiah paints is of a greedy and oppressive people who are more concerned about their wealth than the care of their fellow man. If you ever wanted to know where our anti-monopoly laws come from, you need look no further than Isaiah’s prophetic witness.

However, this picture does not stop with monopolies. Isaiah is presenting a broader principle that cuts to heart of American Christian culture: power and oppression. We are a deeply broken people in the West where fame, fortune, and building at all costs rules so many of our decisions and is used as a means to oppress rather than bless. Consider how we protest a corporation who operates in a way we think is morally repugnant. We boycott. We shoot for the pocketbook. We know money makes the world go ’round.

Because we know that to get to the heart, you go to the bank.

Because people are more concerned about power and comforts than anything else. As long as the stock market is doing well . . . we are doing well. As long as the church’s image is larger than life . . . we are doing well.

The ends justify the means.

But God says there will be a reckoning. Isaiah goes on to say,

The LORD of hosts has sworn in my hearing:
“Surely many houses shall be desolate,
large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant.
For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath,
and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah.”

Isaiah 5:9-10

God told Israel (and Judah) He would take away the very thing they were so driven to attain: wealth and power. All those houses they built for themselves, after taking everyone else’s land, will end up empty. The land they invested in, taking it from all the “little guys,” would produce very little fruit.

The oppression they practiced would come back on them. 

and Toxic Leadership?

It is in the context of grabbing after wealth and power that the toxic leader rises up and survives in our power and image-driven world. If the expectations of followers is that there be much cake, then the leader is driven by such demands. If a leader shows an accute ability to build the image of the church, the members greedily hang on his every word.

It does not matter if he is a liar or a sexual predator, or any other kind of toxic personality. If he creates something we can take pride in or supports our priority projects, we are good to go and will support him.

And I am not talking about the government or secular workplace. This is the church.

But if God’s people expect love and care for all of God’s creation, there is more likely to be a use of our resources for care and concern by those in leadership. There is more likely to be a use of power for care and concern. If Christian organizations hold leaders accountable, power becomes the means by which those organizations and churches take care of people. And that power is held very loosely remembering that the first will be last.

Money, social presence, and power are only tools. And they are not to be tools used for an individual’s pathological self-love.

Not at all.

Zero.

and he looked for justice,
but behold, bloodshed;
for righteousness,
but behold, an outcry!

Isaiah 5:7

We all need to evaluate what we look for in leaders and those of us who are leaders, consider the cost of self-love.

Only the humility found in the Gospel can save us.

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

Posted on by
1

Dave Marks’ father enrolled him in boxing lessons so “real boxers had a real person to hit instead of a punching bag.”

Dr. Marks wrote a short and helpful blog three years ago on conflict management [see here]. Despite the crazy dad, Dave’s thoughts are helpful for understanding the toxic work environment…or really, any conflict.

He used the boxing analogy to explain that he loved the corner of the ring that he went to when the 90-second round was finished. It was “safe” there. It was where he got to go when done getting pummeled. But the great value of Marks’ blog is in pointing out the underlying causes of how we react in conflictual relationships.

The go-to “corners” of the ring in conflict, as explained by Marks, are “relationships” and “personal needs.” He asks which we value most? The answer will determine in which corner we seek safety when the going gets tough…and, in my analysis, will determine the toxicity of the environment.

The Corners

As applied to leadership, those who seek to meet only their own perceived needs or only relationships will be toxic or useless. They will either be abusive or so passive they do not lead.

The one who is focused on relationships to the exclusion of their personal needs (or the needs of the organization) will be run over by those he (or she) is charged with leading. It may be that the organization needs a particular project to be completed. If the leader is bending to every personal request of his subordinates, the job fails to be accomplished. Marks notes that he will likely withdraw to save the relationship from conflict.

The leader becomes ineffectual.

However, a leader who is intently focused on his own needs (or the organization’s) and could give a hoot about his relationships with his subordinates, is likely to be authoritarian, abusive, easily angered, and controlling. If his relationships mean nothing, it is his own perceived needs that need satisfying. He must control and manipulate others in order to get what he desires.

He will be toxic.

Bad News

Each of these ineffectual leadership qualities can – and usually do, according to management researchers – create chaos in the workplace.[see blog]

Marks nails it on the head in suggesting that a true balance of valuing relationships and valuing personal / organizational needs will provide a safe corner in conflict…as designated on his chart in the upper right corner (“resolve”).

The one who balances these two extremes will have a resolve to bring order out of the chaos of conflict. They will work with the person they are leading and in so doing, will make the goal of their work clear and attainable. The leader will not fear the response of the subordinate but know clearly where they need to go.

The subordinate will know they are valued and will seek to fulfill the mission of the leader (or organization).

From Dave Marks’ blog on “How to Resolve Conflict”

Both Christian and non-Christian researchers have come to variations of this conclusion. The ground-breaking work of Edwin Friedman in “A Failure of Nerve” provides a glimpse into the toxic environments developed by those who are so focused on their own emotional needs, they run roughshod over their co-workers or subordinates.

These leaders often become so self-focused they place their own goals over everthing else and will manipulate and abuse anyone who stands in the way.

On the other hand, he also takes to task those who are part of the “herd.” These are the ones who are so concerned about relationships that they create emotional dependency or allow toxic individuals (who do not care about relationships), whether leader or subordinate, to rule the roost.

As I have written before, Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken Friedman’s research and noted the biblical connections. They point to Jesus Christ as the ultimate “self-differentiated” one as he stays connected in relationships and yet gets the job done. He relates perfectly, knowing the needs of those he engages, and yet always knows his mission and goals.

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

It is the perfect balance we all seek in our Christian leadership.

Ronald Enroth, an authority on cults, writes,

Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation.

We need to take the warning Enroth lays before us. These cultish leaders focus on their own needs and manipulate the relationships. They do not truly care about relationships and their subordinates have allowed themselves to become dependent on their authority. I have seen it in mission organizations, churches, and politics.

We need to remain engaged in relationships and recognize our own needs and the needs of our organizations. When a leader refuses to seek that balance, the organization is headed the wrong way.

It will not go well for the mission of the organization nor for the subordinates.

Book by Editor of P&

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

What others say about the book:

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

Go On and Kiss the Girl: People-Pleaser-Ahab

Posted on by
Reply

I think I have King Ahab figured out.

He may have been a pretty nice guy…just don’t tell Naboth that.

He is a people-pleaser.

Scripture describes a particular incident between Ahab, his nasty wife, Jezebel, and a citizen named Naboth. 1st Kings 21 says Ahab saw this great garden right by his palace and it was owned by Naboth. Ahab thought it a good idea to have that garden so he would have veggies close at hand.

What’s a king to do?

Most kings of the time would probably tell Naboth to find a new garden…“It’s mine, all mine!”

But Ahab was actually pretty honorable. He said,

“Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house, and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.”

He offered a better one or cash. That seemed pretty fair.

However, Naboth had good reason to refuse Ahab and told him it was part of his family inheritance. They did not just give away their inheritance back in those days. It was pretty impressive that Naboth felt safe enough to reject his king.

But King Ahab went home and sulked. He accepted Naboth’s rejection but was quite torn up about it. He clearly was lusting after that piece of property.

Go On, and Kiss the Girl

So, in his sulking, that Jezebel of a wife showed up to save his day. She told her hubby,

“Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”

She reminded him he had absolute power – because that is how she thought of his position of authority. She knew nothing of God’s requirements for the King of Israel (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Jezebel did not put up with insubordination no matter the reason. My guess is she could not allow the image of her family be tarnished by a commoner.

So, she took care of the problem.

She did so by hiring a couple “worthless fellows” and acting suddenly religious. With Ahab’s stamp on the orders, she proclaimed a “fast,” which would normally mean a humbling of the nation before the Lord and prayer. But instead, she used it to bring false accusations against Naboth that he bad-mouthed God (and king).

And he was stoned to death.

Wow.

King Ahab arose from his sorrow and went “down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.” Just like that it was taken care of.

No Mocking God

But that is not all. The Lord will not be mocked by Ahab’s foolish compromise with evil to be done in his name. The Lord proclaimed that,

Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel.

And he told Jezebel,

“The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel.”

The Lord does what he says. Jezebel was indeed eaten by dogs…

But, following this pronouncement, Ahab actually humbled himself before the Lord, though Jezebel did not. He tore his clothes, put on sackloth, and fasted. God noted his humility and promised to withold his judgment during Ahab’s days.

You really get the sense that Ahab was not such a bad guy afterall. He is not the beastly abuser of whom so many stories are told in scripture. He has some humility. He was not going to force himself upon Naboth despite having the power of king.

But his people-pleasing created problems. Especially for Naboth.

Wagging the Dog

As a leader he was unable to stand against that which was evil – an abusive, horrible wife. He could not say, “No” to her. He was willing to submit to horrendous wickedness because of his lust for land and desire to please Jezebel.

There are many leaders out there in this category. Where many leaders that I write about are mean and controlling, Ahab leaders are ineffectual and hurt their organizations not through meanness but through failure to actually lead.

They fear others and will compromise with evil to make them happy.

The tail wags these dogs. Just as Jezebel wagged Ahab.

Note: There is an excellent business text on leadership traits where I first saw this particular type of leader discussed.

Vries, Manfred F. R. Kets de. The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. 1st edition. Wiley, 2009.

Sure Signs of Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
1
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Sure-Signs-of-Toxic-Leadership-e27dqg9

One of the occupational hazards of someone who studies and writes about abuse is an ever-present vigilance – often overdeveloped. I am very attentive to leadership failure. I can find it under every rock.

But I guess that is my job so others can think about other things maybe more productive.

Let me share some of those rocks under which I have found toxic leaders in my various interviews and experience. There are a number of indicators of abusive leadership and it is important to be able to diagnose toxic leadership and root it out from your organization.

Because it is nearly guaranteed toxic leaders will kill your organization if left unchecked.

The List

This is meant as a simple list and it is not conclusive. But it can give you something to consider if you are wondering if you serve a toxic leader:

1. Lack of Humility

Recently, a blogger listed the various evangelical leaders who have fallen by the way-side. He noted that each one lacked humility. “He cannot be wrong.” This is my warning to survivors of domestic violence or leadership abuse: run from those who do not have the humility to admit they are wrong. They are wrong at times no matter how often they tell you someone else is wrong.

2. Focus on Control

From micro-managing to mind-control, leaders who abuse God-given authority want to control everything. In Christian organizations control is often hidden behind the “Christianese” of despising gossip. As one ministry under-shepherd said, “He had to control the narrative.” One Christian business leader (of whom I have heard testimonies) makes it his biggest priority to root out gossip from the organization.

Sounds good.

The Lord speaks against gossip. But his hatred of gossip is in one direction. He is entitled to be free from being challenged for wrongdoing. If someone goes to him directly they are either torn apart (Matthew 7) or their complaint is ignored. Where do you go from there?

Wherever you go, it is then considered gossip by these authoritarians.

3. He is the Center

Closely related to number one is the leader who always takes the credit. Rarely is the leader really the reason something got done. Maybe he directed as a good leader should. Maybe it was his idea.

But it is usually the minions who are doing the hard lifting. The abusive leader makes it very clear he is the center of all that is good in the organization. We all want praise but these leaders are seemingly driven by little else.

And, watch out if they do not get it.

4. Blame-Shifter

Closely related to the first and second is the leader who deflects criticism by sending you in another direction. Someone else must be wrong if the leader is always right. Right? Often they create the environment that there has to be a fall-guy. There must be someone else to blame.

Often blame-shifting comes out when the leader talks about the large percentage of resignations from the organization. “They just weren’t supportive of our mission…They just couldn’t handle the hard work…They just couldn’t handle Africa…”

You might want to actually talk to some of those people to get the real story.

5. No Team is a Good Team

As a musician friend of mine noted not long ago, the conductor’s job is to help the orchestra (or choir or band) use their talents to the best of their ability to serve the audience. It is not his job to create a cult of self. The focus should never be on the conductor.

Good leaders build teams that help each other multiply their effectiveness by enjoying and using one another’s giftedness. Toxic leaders are (back to number 2) the center of their universe. And they want to be the center of yours as well.

6. Image, Image, Image

In our day of marketing genius, this may be a bit harder to get. We want to get our ministries out there so we let people know what we do well; that can include some pretty professional marketing. But those who have been part of a mission organization that practiced this will understand.

One Christian psychologist put it this way:

I often think of a narcissistic pastor who served in a rural setting in a very small church, who by all accounts was diligent and godly but who constantly compared his church to other churches with an attitude of judgment, lauding his church’s orthodoxy while quietly condemning other local pastors. 1

There are many mission groups or organizations out there that are doing God-glorifying work. When a leader is constantly comparing his ministry to others and touting that his organization is the very best, there is a problem going back to number 1.

In fact, maybe he believes his organization is the only one doing the work of God. It is ego-gratifying and it will eat you alive. And it fails to recognize the big team of God that is out there seeking to do His work.

7. Sweetness & Hurt

Not all toxic leaders practice this bizarre behavior but it is extremely confusing to those who do not recognize abuse. One moment the leader will go off on a subordinate, tearing him to pieces . . . the next they are sweetness and light. And usually with no acknowledgement that anything happened at all.

This is an indicator of “borderline” personality disorder. It is manipulative and destructive.

8. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

It is really hard for most employees or church members to believe: There are “Christian” leaders out there that lie through their teeth.

It took several years for us to finally realize that our mission leader was intentionally lying to us. We gave all sorts of justifications for his failure to “remember” what he had told us before. We even calmed others with justifications when they pointed out his lies to them. But it finally came down to him covering his own entitled self with lies.

This is not normal behavior!

Run or Confront?

So, those are some indicators of toxic leadership. If your boss is practicing these, have another vocation waiting in the wings and send out that memo. You can run or confront.

If you want to see repentance, your leader will need to be seriously challenged. They do not change through soft-pedling their wrongs. If you care for the organization and the work it is doing, help the organization root out the toxic leader.

NOTES:

1. Vrbicek, Interview by Benjamin. “The Many Faces of Narcissism in the Church.” ChristianityToday.com. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/march/chuck-degroat-narcissism-comes-church.html.

The 2nd Chair: Suffering a Toxic Leader When 2nd in Command

Posted on by
Reply

In an orchestra there is the “principal” player in each section (I.e. trumpets) and the “second chair” who supports the principal.

Depending on the church, an Assistant to the pastor may take a significant role in directing a particular ministry in the church such as youth groups, music, discipleship and worship as a leader in the “second chair.” In some denominations the senior pastor and elders have equal authority and this may include an assistant.

However, most elder and deacon boards give significant authority to the senior pastor, giving him broad discretionary powers in budget spending, vision, and day to day operations of the church. An assistant (or associate) pastor may report almost entirely to the pastor.

When the senior and assistant pastors’ visions and practice of leadership conflict there can be significant relational battles waged that then envelop the congregation.

How does the pastor’s assistant, who “leads from the second chair,” practice self-differentiation when the environment is exceptionally anxious due to the autocratic leadership of a senior pastor?

Self-Differentiation

“Self-differentiation” is described by Edwin Friedman [A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix] as,

“Someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about.”

An “anxious emotional” environment may develop because of the autocratic and non-empathetic leadership of the pastor. Conflict is a matter of course under his leadership.

Some literature describing self-differentiation suggest that those who are self-differentiated can have a significant impact on the systemic anxiety located in an organization. Though there may be a person who acts “obstreperously” or is “ornery” and intimidates “everyone with his gruffness,” Friedman argues that it simply takes one person willing to take “a stand, telling this person he has to shape up or he cannot continue to remain a member of the community” to neutralize the anxiety in the system.[1]

While speaking of marital discord, Friedman says, “It does not require two people working on a marriage to change it.”[2] Friedman argues that one person can create a positive environment despite the intimidation of another individual.

Christian writers, Herrington, Creech and Taylor would agree as they maintain that the focus in an anxious environment needs to be on “managing yourself rather than managing others.”[3] It is necessary to be different (differentiated) from those creating the anxiety.

These counselors have had extraordinary success in helping leaders of organizations develop self-differentiation skills that greatly impact the relationships in their systems.

But Abuse

But does this really work when under the authority of an abusive leader? Can the pastor’s assistant practice self-differentiation in this way and impact the systemic anxiety while facing an autocratic, dictator-like senior pastor?

David McAllister-Williams, in The Leadership Challenge, exhorts, “what matters is not your personal success or the success of your organization.” To self-differentiate, the assistant needs to “put the future in God’s hands, and [he] will be the kind of non-anxious presence people will look to for comfort and hope.”[4]

Here self-differentiation is related to a servant’s attitude as the (second-chair) leader has opportunity to provide “comfort and hope” rather than defending his own territory, ego, or ideas.

However, when anxiety-causing leader has extensive authority and is seeking only his personal success, the aggressive stance of telling him “to shape up,” as Friedman suggested earlier, is not an option available to the second-chair. Even seeking redress from others in the organization (like the elder board) can mean losing employment or breaking an already fragile relationship with the pastor or CEO, according to Mariam Ciby and R.P. Raya of Pondicherry (Central) University.[5]

There are few psychologists who have studied abusive leadership who will suggest that self-differentiation by those under abusive leaders will change the environment. Calling the subordinate to mellow the anxiety created by the leader places the responsibility of systemic change on the target of the abuse rather than calling to account the badly behaving pastor.

Expecting the one under the powerful position of the leader to be above it all while being battered is likened to telling an abused woman to “just hang in there,” being submissive to a man who has no intention of loving her, only controlling her to his own selfish ends.

There is likely to be no change in the abusive leader’s end-game as any abuse counselor will affirm. He may change tactics, but the end-game will be his control and entitlement.

Coping Strategies

For fear of losing their job or being ruled by people-pleasing instincts, some under abusive leaders create coping strategies when under the duress of this anxiety. They cannot change the environment they have found, but they want to “fly under the radar.”

One of those coping strategies is the “herding instinct.” This pattern of behavior is intended to bring peace to an environment in a perpetual state of anxiety by discouraging “dissent,” “seeking consensus,” and “adopting an appeasement strategy” toward the one that is troublesome according to Friedman.[6] The goal is to create a positive and peaceful environment, overlooking or diminishing disagreements.

However, this strategy will focus on “changing others” as it is necessary that all employees (or congregant members) who surround the difficult leader must come to a consensus on matters of disagreement in order to please the senior pastor.

Friedman says people must “focus first on their own integrity and on the nature of their own presence rather than through techniques for manipulating or motivating others.”[7] The pastor’s assistant and elder or deacon boards caught in the middle must be primarily concerned about their own beliefs, values, and integrity rather than seeking agreement where there will be none with the autocratic leader. He is likely only to agree to those things that bring him fame and honor…and this often is not what is best for the organization, nor God-honoring.

Be Ye Different

However, being self-differentiated provides a positive coping strategy according to Herrington, Creech, and Taylor. They suggest that,

“Differentiation is the ability to remain connected in relationship to significant people in our lives and yet not have our reactions and behavior determined by them.”[8]

Both Herrington and Freidman recommend facing the aggressor firmly planted in self-identity and personal values. For Herrington, Creech, and Taylor this perspective is found in the example of Jesus as He served others, “But they would not determine his decisions.”[9] He would not entrust Himself to the crowds who were praising Him, because He knew they were fickle.

Self-differentiation can be understood to mean that the surety of one’s place in God’s kingdom and the giftedness with which the assistant to the pastor has been given assures him of the value of his perspective and leadership when facing a “tyrant.”

Whether that leader allows him a place at the table or not. The Assistant can act with integrity, damning the torpedos.

But be prepared to leave…by force or by choice when the abusive leader becomes implacable. It is unlikely the winner will be the underdog – the second-chair.

He rarely is.

Summary

An assistant to the pastor, seeking to be both leader and follower, serving an autocratic senior pastor and leading the people of God, faces a difficult environment. As he depends on God’s gifting, leading, and faithfulness, he can find the solace and shalom necessary to impact the anxiety present in the system or get out of it.

Whichever will mean fruitful ministry in God’s kingdom by God’s sovereign grace.

NOTES:

[1] Edwin Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 238–241.

[2] Ibid., 1523–1524.

[3] Herrington, Creech & Taylor, The Leader’s Journey, 70.

[4] John Maxwell, Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge, 59.

[5] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.

[6] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.

[7] Ibid., 313–315.

[8] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 273–274.

[9] Ibid., 322–323.

The Gag Reflex: How Fear Ruins an Organization

Posted on by
Reply

As I interview and discuss toxic leadership among Christian organization (and church) leaders, it has become apparent that head honchos that “gag” subordinates are encouraging a toxic environment.

These leaders need to be warned that they are heading down a road that will get very difficult to navigate.

There has been much attention given to the actions of Liberty University President, Jerry Falwell Jr., in relation to employees and students. I wrote [Liberty U: Slaves to Image] several months ago in response to a World Magazine article reporting Liberty U’s gag orders to their student newspaper.

Buying the Mission

Fundamental to most gag orders in Christian organizations is the argument that employees should be fully “bought into” the organization’s “Christian” philosophy, goals, and actions. And therefore, should never speak negatively about the organization publicly.

There is often a strong submission element in the stated motives as well. Employees should just submit to their leadership or get out. Romans 13 might even be quoted:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


Romans 13:1-2 (ESV)

Or maybe even the misplaced quoting of Joshua’s famous challenge to the man with the drawn sword standing between Israel and Jericho.

When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?”


Joshua 5:13 (ESV)

“Are you for us, or against us?” A bit of throwing down the gauntlet.

However, not only is quoting Joshua in this case going against the context of this passage [the Lord lays Joshua flat], but I would suggest that demanding submission based on Romans is often a thinly disguised attempt to cover the fears of organizational leadership when the “emporer has no clothes.”

It is fear that drives leaders to require employees to remain silent when finding things afoot in the ministry that do not sit right with them.

Unflinching submission from employees is what most authorities would love to have and it takes self-awareness, humility, and some significant self-differentiation (thick skin) to deal with subordinate challenges.

In 2012, Liberty University’s leadership sought to contact an employee late in the evening to order her to cease and desist from posting her frustration over a lack of parking on the campus (making it necessary for her to walk quite a distance to her office) on social media. When an article was written about the event, the employee no longer was working at Liberty.

The employee had found it necessary to complain publicly about an issue she found important and believed she was not being heard by Liberty U’s leadership.

A complaint about parking? Is a gag order really necessary?

Protectionism

When a leader is more concerned about being agreed with and obeyed than the growth of his leadership skill or organization’s quality, he is forgetting the call Jesus Christ gave to His flock to do unto others [His image-bearers] as they would want to be done to. [loose translation of Luke 6:30-31]

In a lecture for the AACC National Conference in Dallas, Diane Langberg said regarding the church’s poor response to abuse in its midst,

Much of Christendom today is in turmoil, trying deparately to protect her name and reputation and institutions. Such things are not the call of God in our lives. The call of God is in the voice of the little ones. Little in size, age, position, and power. We are called to listen to the voices of the abused. We are called to go to places where souls are damaged.  To go to places where we need to bend, to go slowly, to become little so as to not overwhelm. To have patience as souls who have been chained in dark places adjust to some light for the very first time. And in doing so, we will demonstrate before a power-grabbing, watching world the true nature of our great God who became little on our behalf.

She is challenging Christian leaders to go “small” like Jesus did in becoming flesh and dwelling among crazy humans in weakness. Look out for the little ones, not our own reputation and image. We need to quit “trying desparately to protect” our organizations’ and churches’ reputations.

Missing the Jesus Boat

Christian leaders who rely on gag orders to control their employees are missing the Jesus boat. They are abusing the authority God has given them. They are seeking to create a fortress around their reputations and image.

Unfortunately, many leaders, who at least border on being toxic, fail to realize the damage they actually do to their image and credibility when demanding submission. Rather than protecting their reputation, they are saying to the watching world, “Me and my goals are unchallengeable and righteous.” Rather than welcoming the sometimes, God-given and uncomfortable exhortations to becoming better as a leader or organization, they crush those they consider opponents.

We have watched over and over again the attempted salvaging of company, political, or organizational image at the expense of truth-telling following a moral failure. And we have become jaded and cynical to the marketing machines that have become all-too common seeking to cover up the failings of leadership.

We know instinctively what is going to be said and done by the organization to shift the blame, deny, and be obscurantic.

Consider, for instance, Michigan State University as it continues to squash taking responsibility for its horrifying failure to protect young women athletes from sexual predators in their sports programs. I encourage you to read Rachael Denhollander’s new book, “What Is a Girl Worth?”

As Christian leaders, we are called to much better responses. Again, hear the wisdom of Diane Langberg:

“We have seen it in the church, in missions, in Christian organizations, or communities around the world. There is the cancer of immorality, theft, corruption, or sexual abuse, and all the energy of that system goes to maintaining itself and a good appearance while ignoring the disease. Thinking they are preserving the system they call God’s, they fail to see and deal with the disease hidden within. They actually think that if they acknowledge the presence of disease and work to stop it, they will in fact, destroy the work of God. However, it is not a step toward the recovery of a sickly system to disguise the worst symptoms of that system to itself.”

— Suffering and the Heart of God: How Trauma Destroys and Christ Restores by Diane Langberg

“Sickly systems” need to be healed. The failures of our organizations need to be brought to light to be healed. We need to hear those complaints about our organizations…even in social media.

Then we need to respond by “getting small” and helping our employees have a voice, not gagging them.

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 1

Posted on by
2

Jim was contacted to apply for a position as Youth Director at a medium-size church in the Midwest. He and Mary, his wife, were excited. They were moving out in ministry. Jim had been praying for more opportunity to reach into the community with the Gospel.

The position appeared to be a God-given break.

This is Their Story

At the same time one committee was hiring Jim, another committee at the church was hiring the new pastor, Carl. A lot of change for the church. Jim had a vision for the ministry and was ready to tackle the new position with gusto.

He looked forward to working with the pastor who came on a month after he did. Jim believed he could get along with anyone, particularly, he told himself, someone “who was a spiritual leader.“

But it was not long for the trouble to begin.

Big Plans

The church was realing from its former pastor’s leadership.

But they were moving forward. The pastoral search committee was headed up by a strong leader, and his vision for a pastor who would lead and teach with authority held sway over the other members.

He wanted a pastor that would “command authority.” A sort of “CEO style” of leadership, Jim said.

Jim shared that the initial conversations with the pastor were a little “awkward.” Jim “expressed enthusiasm,” but did not get much “positive feedback” from Pastor Carl.

After a short time, Jim suggested instituting weekly staff meetings, something that had been very helpful to him for planning in the church he had recently served. It was welcomed by the staff, but he noticed that when they talked about the youth ministry and any difficulties he was having Pastor Carl was taking copious notes.

Approximately five months later, the personnel committee called Jim to a special meeting. He figured it was a “job evaluation” kind of meeting. Everyone on the committee was upbeat when Jim arrived except the chairman…the same chairman from the pastoral search committee.

When the meeting began the chairman opened a file folder of notes that the pastor had taken during the staff meetings.

He began to systematically go through the notes and one-by-one turn it into an “indictment of [Jim’s] character.”

After the meeting several of the members came up to Jim and said, “I don’t know what that was about. I think you are doing a good job. I am going to find out what is going on.”

It seemed to end there however. Nothing more was said and ministry went on.

They Will Come

There was a new facility for the youth that was not really being used.

It kind of a harkened back to the “if you build it they will come” idea. One of the church leaders asked him cynically early on, “Will we ever fill this place?“

Jim looked forward to the day they would fill it with youth and began reaching into the Native American community that had been largely ignored in the past by the church. After three years of faithful ministry, God was beginning to fill the building. They had gone from just a few teens attending mid-week youth meetings to over 100, many of whom were from the Native community.

But of course, every cloud with a silver lining also dumps a boatload of rain.

In the midst of this excitement, Jim was driving home one night from a youth meeting and received a call to come back to the church for a meeting. He still had his basketball clothes on and was sweaty. When he arrived it was evident to him that the meeting had been planned for sometime, though he was not told until he would have no choice but to walk in late.

In attendance were Pastor Carl and a few Deacons who were favorable to the pastor’s views. The pastor proceeded to make statement after statement that implied Jim was doing a poor job and that “nobody liked” what he was doing.

The youth leaders were “very upset so they banded together in a Wednesday night prayer meeting and brought it to the surface. They didn’t understand why there was relational conflict.” Jim said, “People would come up and ask ‘why do you have such a hard time with the pastor.’ Like I had a personal grievence with the pastor.“

Jim was careful not to be derogatory in any way in response and following the prayer meeting things calmed down for a season.

Mission Control

As summer approached, Jim wanted to take a mission trip with the students.

He was thinking a sports camp or VBS. He proposed the idea to Pastor Carl and, to Jim’s surprise, the pastor said it would be acceptable.

Jim had heard of a Colorado church planter looking for a sports camp. He made contact and began arranging for his students to lead the camp. However, soon after Jim began planning, the pastor organized a trip with the church planter for an adult group from the church. It appeared to Jim “it was an ego thing. Like he needed to have a trip if I was.“

Before Jim left on the mission trip, Pastor Carl called him to his office and told him he did not feel Jim was responsible or qualified enough to lead the trip and so he “was going to appoint a chaperone.” Jim knew the man chosen and had a good relationship with him, but would not have appointed him because he had alcohol and abuse issues.

Jim said, “[The chaperone] would often talk about his anger issues…he was jailed as a minor for beating someone almost to death. Kind of proud that it didn’t show up in his criminal record because he was a minor.” Jim also noted he made girls feel uncomfortable to be with him. “On the trip he made lots of comments about women’s bodies and what he liked,” Jim explained.

Used Against Him

It seemed to be a common tactic of Pastor Carl to use things against Jim that would never have been considered negative in the first place or were of little consequence.

On the mission trip, Jim drove the entire trip to Colorado because the chaperone had bragged about his “dangerous driving.” Later the pastor suggested Jim was being dangerous by not allowing the chaperone to help drive the long trip.

After the prayer meeting ordeal one of the leaders suggested that Jim and Pastor Carl go through mediation. The denominational leadership suggested they go through individual counseling first.

So, Jim made arrangements for counseling figuring the pastor would as well. He said, “After a couple visits, the counselor said I don’t know why you need to be here.” Jim fulfilled his commitment and then found out the pastor did not attend any counseling.

But later Pastor Carl said Jim had psychological issues because he had gone to counseling.

The pastor also used people against Jim and Mary.

After Jim had left the church, the chaperone of the mission trip came to him and apologized. He said he was glad to have a friendship with Jim. Apparently, Pastor Carl had asked the chaperone lots of questions about Jim after the trip, but the chaperone had nothing bad to say about Jim’s leadership.

The chaperone felt badly that the pastor had used him.

A new woman began coming to the church and applied to be a nursery worker. Jim and Mary got to know her and enjoyed her friendship. She asked if she could help with Jim and Mary’s kids. One night she babysat for them and when Jim and Mary returned from their date she stuck around talking with them. She asked them many questions about their “thoughts on the pastor.” They said very little.

They realized later she was being used by him to determine if they were against Pastor Carl.

Another couple offered to watch their kids and later were “bad-mouthing” Jim’s ministry behind his back despite their sweetness to Jim and Mary.

Final Straws

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2.