Category Archives: justice

Sin or Safety: Where is Our Focus?

Posted on by
1

A comment was made recently by a survivor of sexual assault that really struck me. She said the church tends to focus on the perpetrator at the expense of the victim. I did not really understand at first but then had an “aha” moment.

Are we more focused on sin or safety?

When my wife and I witnessed a verbal abuse attack of a close friend by her husband soon after they were married, we were ignorant of abuse. He began apologizing and hung his head. We immediately began consoling him.

His new wife sat in anger and fear while we consoled him.

We put our arms around him.

We consoled him.

We expected her to forgive and forget.

Years later we realized our horrible mistake.

But we know that this is what the church tends to do in many cases. There is much to be done to help the church become a safe place for those who are suffering under leadership or domestic abuse.

We look back at that experience in shame. We have since learned much about abuse in the workplace and home and realize our failure.

Getting Repentance

We tend to focus on bringing the oppressor to repentance. Rather than doing all we can, first and formost, to provide safety and solace for the victim(s), we begin speaking words of exhortation and God’s promises of comfort to the abuser.

Jeff (not his real name) told me his story of bringing two other ministry leaders (major names in Christian organizations) to the founder of the ministry of which he was a upper-level manager. The founder had sexually harrassed multiple women in the ministry’s employ. They sought the founder’s repentance and suggested he step down for a few months’ time to get counseling.

Seeking the repentance of sinners is most certainly of biblical importance. It is the ultimate work of Christ to bring us to repentance.

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 (ESV)

He has done this work in us and we are called to seek it in others through the preaching of the sweet and welcome message of the Good News. Note the sweet words in the 2nd Timothy passage. “Be kind,” “patiently enduring evil,” correcting with “gentleness.” Romans 2:4  says,

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

What leads to repentance? “God’s kindness!” And we are to mimic the Lord in this good work.

Foundations of Spiritual / Psychological

But it is important for those who come into contact with abusive leaders in the home and workplace to know the spiritual and psychological forces of this particular brokenness in God’s creation. It is Paul’s words to the Romans in the chapter before the one quoted above that helps us understand the dynamics of abuse:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Romans 1:28-32 (ESV)

Even a cursory look at those words gives you a description of an oppressive and abusive individual. “Evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, slanderers, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, heartless, ruthless…“

These are not the descriptions of your average Joe.

The foundational sin of Paul’s words of exhortation are found in verse 25:

They…worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

Idolatry, which is the giving of honor and attention first and foremost to anything other than the Lord Who created the heavens and the earth, is foundational to abuse. Those who have worked tirelessly to bring abusers to repentance can testify to the sense that abusers have been given up to their incredible debasement. They have moved farther and farther away from truly humbling themselves before their Creator.

They are always right. They are always the target of those other people. They always have justification for their sin. They lie. They are heartless and ruthless.

The sin / psychology of the abuser is one of entitlement. HE / SHE is the center of the universe in which he / she lives. He deserves all the good he receives…whether from man, woman, animal, or God.

And in this case, God calls them to account.

Being Pastoral

Therefore, we “pastor” the abuser differently than we do the average Joe. The Bible draws a distinction between the sinner next door and an oppressor as they welcome the Gospel.

  • The average Joe will hear the Gospel and see it as the good news it is. An undeserving sinner has been served by the deserving God and come out smelling like roses. Wow! To grace he is a debtor.
  • To the abuser the Gospel is what he deserves. He is entitled to the good treatment by God and by others. He receives his subordinates’ or wife’s praise as that which is merited. He has been given over to his idolatry – he deeply loves himself.

Pastoring the abuser therefore means calling him to account. It means not giving in to his foolishness and manipulation but kindly and humbly telling him he is wrong and needs to turn from his blame-shifting, justifying, and oppressive behavior.

Jeff and his entourage experienced a common response of abusive leaders following the hearing of a Gospel-like confrontation: The Founder fired Jeff. And a major donor coddled the Founder by threatening to pull his support of the ministry if the board of directors did not keep him in place.

The Founder stayed in his leadership position for 10 more years when the overwhelming evidence of more and more harassment became unbearable to the organization’s good name.

He took advantage of others’ “gentleness” while slaughtering women under his leadership.

Accountability, Not Coddling

Those with experience working with abuser intervention programs do so with an unswerving focus on accountability. They do not allow their counselees to bamboozle or take advantage. They hold them accountable.

We often hear the perpetrator’s words of shame (when caught in his misdeed) with little suspicion and give words of comfort without repentance being evidenced in life. I have been that man who received an abuser’s words of supposed repentance only to see him continue to oppress. [see this for a good list of indicators of repentance]

It is time for the church to work towards educating its masses that they might seek to comfort the oppressed and if possible call the oppressor to account.

This is God’s pattern:

Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them.

Judges 2:18 (ESV)

The Lord stood by the oppressed. He brought them safety. He was on their side. He did not say to the oppressors, “What is your side of the story? How can we help you?” We know how to help them and it is to bring them to account.

He stood unswervingly at the side of the oppressed.

This is a far cry from how many churches have handled reports of abuse. It is not uncommon that in the interest of being “fair,” the church unknowingly sides with the oppressor. By giving the oppressor the opportunity to continue to tear down his target, we are siding with him. To give him a voice, we take away the long-silenced voice of his target.

Do not allow abusive leaders to “presume on the riches of [God’s] kindness and forbearance and patience.”

Call them to account.

Notes:

Consider picking up a free copy of “Becoming a Church that Cares About Abuse.”

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 Virgin Mary: Knowing the Blessing

Posted on by
Reply

The Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you realize how important those words can be to those who have suffered under abusive leadership or domestic violence?

Toxic leaders at home and in the marketplace do not define who you are any more than Mary’s world defined her.

Some think calling the mother of Jesus, “blessed” is particularily Roman Catholic. According to some sources, the Church began “venerating” Mary at least by the 5th Century. However, it is certainly not biblical to worship her . . . there is one God. There is one Mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But calling her “blessed” is a thoroughly Biblical concept found in Luke:

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”

[Luke 1:41-42 (ESV)]

The expression, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” is code for, “God is speaking through her.” Mary was blessed to bear the Son of God. We can all, 2000 years later, exclaim with Elizabeth that indeed, Mary was blessed by God to bear the Savior of the world. What an incredible honor.

But we need to think of what this all meant to a young Jewish girl and her fiance in the first Century.

The Shame of it All

Joseph’s Shame

Luke deals with Mary, but the Gospel of Matthew looks at the birth of Jesus through the eyes of his adopted father, Joseph.

Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, but she and Joseph were not married yet. They were engaged . . . the same as married without consummation at that time. The commitment to marriage was completely there.

But to the watching world, it appeared that she had committed fornication. She obviously, to the watching world, had sex prior to marriage. It would have been expected of Joseph to give her a certificate of divorce—to call off the wedding. She had apparently been unfaithful to him as he was not the father. Had he given her a divorce, it would have said to the watching world,

“I am not the father. I did not commit fornication. I am innocent.”

But the text says he was a godly man and therefore was going to treat Mary with grace and kindness by not making it public. He would “divorce her quietly.” He would not heap more shame on her.

But the angel, Gabriel came to him and told him the truth of the matter. “This is the Son of God! He will save the world from their sins. Do not even think about divorcing Mary.“

So, Joseph willingly moved ahead with the wedding plans.

This meant Joseph was admitting to his community to being the one who committed fornication with Mary. He said, “I am guilty” despite being completely innocent.

Mary’s Shame

The Gospel of Luke tells us Mary is warned in advance of her impending pregnancy by the angel. She is called “favored one.” She is told the Lord is with her. She is told the baby will be “great” and she is to call the baby “Yeshua” – salvation. She is told he will be the “Son of the Most High,” that he will rule on the throne of David and “his kingdom will have no end.”

Wow. What a pronouncement.

But consider what she would go through.

She was not married. Remember the story of the woman who was nearly stoned by the religious leaders [John 8] for committing adultery? Mary had apparently committed fornication. She would be shamed by her community.

Despite her innocence.

Who They Are

But Mary and Joseph rested in knowing who the Lord said they were. They were blessed. They were honored. They would be taking on a work that no one else had or would ever experience.

Raising the Son of God. The future (and actually past) King of the World.

But they would have to rely on what they had been told by the Lord. They would have to trust that God knew exactly what He was doing when He appointed them to that task. Because, the way would not be easy in their culture.

They would face shame from their friends, family, and faith community. Mary may have even been threatened with stoning, though we do not know that from the scriptures.

The Lord is Telling You

If you have been a target of leadership abuse, remember that the Lord Who created you, loves you with an everlasting love. The shame you feel from being told you are worthless over and over was taken by Jesus Christ, Mary’s child.

It is not unusual for the church to get behind the charming abuser whether he is the head of a Christian organization or home. Toxic leaders are masters at manipulation. I have seen women who are abused by their husbands being rejected and excommunicated by churches. I have seen church members fail to support missionaries returning from the field because they could not work with their abusive leaders anymore because they were blinded by the mission’s leadership [fortunately that was not our experience].

But the opinions of a community bamboozeled by your oppressor’s charm are not the opinions of the Creator of the Universe.

It is easy and normal to see yourself as worthless when those who you have trusted and loved are telling you in words and actions that you have no value or have failed. But you must remember it is not true. Toxic leaders at home and in the marketplace do not define who you are.

Jesus Christ does. Just as the angel, Gabriel told Joseph and Mary.

The Lord is telling you,

“You are a child of the King. You are loved. You are blessed.”

Trust Him…He knows what He is talking about.

Amelia and Ethan: Reading the Signs

Posted on by
Reply

Ethan began his pastoral ministry as an Assistant. After the Senior Pastor left the church of approximately 200, the search was on for a new leader. When Pastor Fredrick was hired, he made a strong first impression.

Ethan noted, “Fredrick resonated strongly with some of my focus.”[1] He said that Fredrick focused on Christ and grace and he added that his “emphases were interesting and helpful.”

Amelia said, “Fredrick gave vocabulary to how I was thinking. He commanded a room.”

Pastor Fredrick told the search committee and his new congregation that he was the “victim” of the elders of the church he had served prior to coming. Amelia said she “felt bad for the guy.“

On the other hand, he was very complimentary of Ethan. He said to Amelia that he told the search committee “the only reason he was coming was because of Ethan.”

In hindsight, Ethan said, “He was already grooming me to be his ally.”

Those Dirty Red Flags

Ethan said there were red flags he should have seen, and to this day, several years later, clearly lives with a certain guilt that he failed himself and his congregation.

Pastor Fredrick was not actually about “grace.” Certainly “manipulation,” but not grace.

Early on Pastor Fredrick told them a strange story. A visitor to the church went to lunch with Fred and there was a huge thunder storm. Apparently, Fredrick and the visitor had a disagreement and the visitor dropped him off in the rain. The pastor appeared at the church completely soaked.

The story made no sense, but they figured, “Why would someone make up something like that?“

When Fredrick moved into his office, he immediately put black paper over the small window in his office door. Though they considered it weird, they figured he just wanted his privacy. Later some pornographic videos showed up from Netflix in the church office. He explained to the secretary it was just “some enemy of church” sending them.

One member walked into his office one day and there was male pornography on his screen.

Pastor Fredrick said his office was robbed at one point. But he said the only thing taken was disposable water bottles. Ethan noted, “All his expensive computer equipment? No.”

These stories didn’t make sense to Ethan and Amelia.

Oh, But He Preaches!

“Meanwhile, everyone loved his preaching.” He said, “The church grew considerably.” After three or four years there was around 300 to 400 in average attendance.

He added, “There was a ton of success. Finances were good.”

But Pastor Fredrick “created an environment that the goal was to keep the church successful at all costs.” Amelia noted the church had a lot of pride in itself for its success under Fredrick.

However, about a year and a half after the arrival of Pastor Fredrick, Ethan began to notice things that he had heard Fredrick say, write, and preach that he had seen in other sources. It looked like plagiarism to him.

He then found out that Fredrick was under investigation by the regional church court for plagiarism. Ethan went to Fredrick two times to talk with him about his discoveries.

Amelia told the story of Fredrick teaching a women’s Bible study and providing a handout that was presented as “his own.” She went home and googled the text and found it was someone else’s writing. When Ethan confronted him on it, Fredrick explained the other church, that had it online, had stolen from him.

Just Want to Believe

Ethan explained, “I wanted to believe and support my senior pastor.” He said, “I was confused. I wanted to be the loyal, supportive, associate pastor.“

To add to the confusion, “[Pastor Fredrick] was preaching that love gives the benefit of the doubt.” Ethan added, “He talked about how his assistant in his old church had been hacking him.” He just could not bring himself to be cynical like Amelia was. She explained she was no longer charmed by Pastor Fredrick after about nine months.

As Ethan struggled to make sense of the evils perpetrated by Pastor Fredrick, he did not have a category to recognize what was going on.

Ethan said, “There was a lot of deceit from him in every corner of the church. He seemed to be a sociopath. You could see he was looking for drama.“

He could not believe a pastor would be so deceptive.

Ethan said the pastor was “pitting one person against another.” But few knew what was going on. “People not [in leadership] had a such a hard time understanding how he could preach such good sermons and be so bad.”

It wasn’t until later that church leaders began to connect the dots…only after Pastor Fredrick had resigned. Then the stories came pouring in like an “avalanche.”

Ethan described Pastor Fredrick as having the “seared conscience” that Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 4:2 describes.

He “came to see this as descriptive of the pastor. There’s no conscience. It was burned over.“

Defrocked

The pastor, while under investigation, encouraged his elders and congregation to leave their denomination. The congregation voted to split the sheets, but both Ethan and Amelia struggled with the decision, with Amelia ultimately voting against her pastor.

The denomination, acting on its bylaws, continued the plagiarism trial despite the church vote, keeping Pastor Fredrick from moving out of the denomination and accountability to the denomination.

In the end, he was found guilty and “defrocked” from the pastorate.

Pastor Fredrick was put under the care of another church and not allowed to minister. However, he soon left that church and started his own, independent church.

The Learning Curve

There were a number of things Amelia and Ethan learned in their trial of being under toxic leadership in the church. They told their story that others may be comforted with the comfort they received from the Father of mercies as 2 Corinthians 1:3-5 says.

  • Emelia has found that she is “always leery of someone who plays the victim card” in the wake of this trial. She feels his victimhood should have been a red flag when he criticized his former church.
  • Ethan said he is “skeptical of crazy stories that don’t make sense.” Prior to this experience he had operated with the underlying belief that a pastor could never be so deceptive. However, this incident has formed his understanding of the biblical concept of the seared conscience.
  • Amelia and Ethan ask, “How do you keep your soft heart and at same time maintain a healthy discernment?” Having been burned by Pastor Fredrick and having believed his manipulative assurances, it is now easy to be hardened and see manipulation behind every rock.
  • When speaking of muddling in the mess of the brokenness created by Pastor Fredrick, Ethan said, “There is a natural tendency is to run away. You don’t want to deal with the mess. Just want to get to a healthier place.” But Ethan believes that the “hard work of being with the people was very healing.” It was important to them to work through what had happened with others who went through it with them before moving on to another ministry.
  • Pastor Fredrick always portrayed himself as the “chief of sinners,” as Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:16. But Ethan noted he would not confess specific sin. “There was a shield of humility that was about protecting his postion.”

This particular point was striking to me. In my research [see blog] and hearing story after story, a common denominator in abusive leadership is a lack of humility in the leader. However, I find there is often a veneer of humility that hides an aversion to admitting any particular sin.

Just as one person told me: “I was fine with Jesus dying for the world’s sins, but not so keen on Him dying for my sin.”

Advice to Other Survivors of Toxic Leadership

When asked how they would advise others going through the mess of toxic leadership, Ethan and Amelia gave some helpful comments.

In the end, Ethan expressed his sorrow over not seeing the signs of abusive leadership early on. He explained it cut to the core of his understanding of his calling. He asked himself if the pastorate really was his calling if he was so easily manipulated this way.

He noted that the shepherd of the sheep is called to “protect the sheep” and yet he feels that he was unable to do that.

However, experience teaches us that these trials instruct God’s people and it is rare that people get it right the first time around…or even the second or third time around.[James 1:2-4] God calls us to give the benefit of the doubt to our brothers and to forgive freely.[Matthew 18:23-35]


If grace is our default position, there are bound to be some failures in reading the signs of abusive leadership.

NOTES:

Ethan, Amelia, and Pastor Fredrick are not their real names.

Margo’s Story: Playing Second Fiddle to a Wolf

Posted on by
1

Timothy Witmer said, “The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care.”[1] It is unfortunate when those in authority fail to consider that little detail.

The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt, as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.

A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”

On the other hand, the picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord,” says Richard Rardin, author of The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.[3]

Rardin adds that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4]

This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.

Scripture instructs the sheep to consider the shepherds “worthy of double honor.”[5] Witmer argues that God has called congregant members to live in submission to church authorities, specifically those called as “teaching” pastors. He goes on to say that the arrangement of a leader who dies to self and a congregation giving a “willing response of obedience” is an “advantage to all” involved.[6]

That is in the perfect world.

But church members are very vulnerable to those leaders who would take advantage of their weakness as those under authority. The prophet Ezekiel warned the leaders in Israel in the seventh century B.C.,

“You have not taken care of the weak. You have not tended the sick or bound up the injured. You have not gone looking for those who have wandered away and are lost. Instead, you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty. So my sheep have been scattered without a shepherd, and they are easy prey for any wild animal.”[7]

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The people of God are “easy prey” for wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus refers to false prophets. They may look like sheep, meek and mild, but behind the façade of harmless sheep they are “ravenous wolves”.[8] As the sheep, the nation of Israel, was scattered by the “harshness and cruelty” of the leaders, so church members are at times scattered by autocratic pastors and elders in local congregations.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of pastor’s assistants who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral care position).

The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” [drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra who perform under the “first chair” player] must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.

This becomes treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd. I have been fortunate to serve under a humble and empowering pastor, something not all assistants enjoy.

Margo’s Story

“Margo” served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members and has a Masters of Divinity. She served in a pastoral role under the supervision of the Senior Pastor of the congregation who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

Margo was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint. 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.

Margo resigned from her position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Mission Trip

Margo told me of a time that she was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to a southern African nation. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a group of African churches through short-term trips.

Pastor Pete gave Margo much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization in Colorado, 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. He explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to Eastern Africa, a trip neither Margo, nor her committee, had heard about.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told this, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete. In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had gotten his “feelings hurt.”

After the elder challenged the pastor for his lack of consideration, the pastor continued to laugh at him.

Making Matters Worse

Following the trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the southern African churches in which they ministered.

However, at the close of the service, Pastor Pete gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier. It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and team that had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the southern African churches by Pastor Pete.

The Real Power

Margo’s church had an elder board that 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 pastoral control and poor decision-making.[9]

The practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary 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 be perceived as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes 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 is destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

Coping

As Margo pressed on towards her goal of ministering to the congregation, 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.

She was concerned that sharing her struggles with others in the congregation would be gossiping and missing the point of Matthew 18 where much of the focus is on one-on-one confrontation and reconciliation.

So, Margo focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful for those who are bullied to receive encouragement and, possibly, biblical advice from those removed from the situation.[10]

However, the real problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what the assistant is facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the assistant’s 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 Margo’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire her and was under no real authority of elders. And Margo was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip.

Two to Tango

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” Like in the experience of many who have faced domestic violence, a well-meaning brother may suggest that since both individuals involved are sinful, they are both responsible for the broken relationship. 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.

Having said that, the emotional response of those caught in less than optimal ministry environments must be understood and moderated by principles of self-differentiation. It was clear in my interview with Margo that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success.

Responding to the Situation

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.

Margo took submissive postures with her supervising pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.”

It also provided helpful lessons to Margo to work under Pastor Peter.

She was forced to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gave opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God was sovereign over the future of her ministry. This was true to Margo whether she remained in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or went somewhere else.

NOTES:

“Margo” is not her real name.

[1] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 89.

[2] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 50:6.

[3] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.

[4] Ibid., 102–103.

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Timothy 5:17.

[6] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 92.

[7] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4–5.

[8] Ibid., v. Matthew 7:15.

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

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

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2

Posted on by
1

This is the second part in a series on the experience of Jim and Mary [not their real names] as they navigated the stormy seas of pastoral abuse. Jim was hired as a youth pastor in a medium-size Midwestern church. The youth program grew significantly, but the pastor, who was also newly hired, continually sought to discredit and discourage Jim’s ministry. See Part One before reading this.

Near the end of three years, the Pastor Carl preached a message on Psalm 34. Jim said,

“He preached on how the wicked person would soon be removed! It was clearly targeted at me.”

Jim said after preaching the sermon, Pastor Carl just walked out of pulpit and “left the church angry.”

By this time, there were over 100 students attending youth group on Wednesday evenings. Jim had made the church youth center available to the kids after school until youth group began in the evening. Many did not have good homes to go home to.

One church Deacon, who was a farmer and very “insurance-minded,” expressed worry that a “majority of the students were non-white…new to church.” Pastor Carl told him, “We’re going to get sued” if one of the kids knives someone.

It became policy that youth were not allowed in the church between school dismissal and 5:30 p.m.

And then they appointed Jim to stand guard outside the building and force kids to leave the property.

“The church was their only place to go besides the parking lot of a nearby McDonalds or a row of abandoned storefronts next to the church.” Jim said the after-school ministry went “from three adults supervising 30 students to nothing.”

Finally, Pastor Carl gave the church leadership an ultimatum: if Jim does not go, he would. Jim was offered a severance package to leave but he felt he needed to defend himself so did not resign.

One day Jim was standing outside the church and thought to himself, “This is getting nastier and nastier each time. If I go to youth camp and a student makes a bad decision, it is going to be on my neck.” He felt that at that point Pastor Carl would use anything possible against him.

He finally had complete peace about leaving. Jim went to a deacon that had been ill (like Jim) because of all the conflict and asked him, “Are you okay with giving me a severance?” Jim had three children and was living in a parsonage so would lose everything when he left.

Loss

The day Jim left the church was his hardest day of ministry.

On that Sunday, lots of students were there. It was announced that morning that he was resigning.

The pastor was trying to control the situation – he asked visitors to leave before he announced Jim’s resignation. Jim said, “[Pastor Carl] was excited, shaking hands, smiling.” But the “energy was sucked out of the room” when he made the announcement.

Jim described the horror and loss:

“The majority of the church didn’t have a clue. Everyone was crying in youth group. During the worship one of the members of a church council came to me and said he could fight it. He said, ‘Will you let us fight for you?’ But I had peace about leaving…It was going to be framed as youth pastor against pastor – it was the youth pastor who was insubordinate and angry at the pastor.”

Jim felt he needed to move on so the church could deal with Pastor Carl.

Take Aways

As I heard Jim and Mary’s story, I continually recognized elements in their own story that related to the stories of so many others I have interviewed. There can be comfort in knowing that what you are going through is not new under the sun.

Like those who face spousal abuse, men and women caught in toxic ministry and organizational settings can begin to think they are crazy or their situation is unique and they must just live with it.

But our situations are not unique and below are identifying toxic leadership similarities that stand out in Jim and Mary’s story.

Demanded Authority

It is common in toxic work environments that leadership is authoritarian.

Many people want to follow a “strong” leader. They want someone who will go before, make decisions decisively, and give vision to the ministry.

Jean Lipma-Blumen, author of “The Allure of Toxic Leaders,” said,

“When our freedom unnerves us, we tend to gravitate toward any leader who will make us feel safe, protected, and good about ourselves. Toxic leaders, who promise security and assure us that we are special or ‘chosen,’ become particularly powerful magnets for our unmoored egos.”1

The difficulty is that these kinds of leaders will frequently run rough-shod over the gifts and skills of those under his or her authority. He will tend to make all the decisions. And he will tend to expect others to toe the line.

He will demand authority rather than seek to earn the respect and submission of his subordinates.

We shoudl be suspicious when we hear individuals talk about someone being a “strong” leader. They may indeed be strong in the right ways:

  • Helping subordinates use their gifts, encouraging them to grow in their skills.
  • Sharing authority with those who have leadership potential.
  • Giving voice to those who may disagree with his own views and vision.

But it is all too frequent that they are simply authoritarian…and destructive to the organization, her employees, and its witness to Christ’s love.

Isolating

Domestic abuse is often marked by an abuser who isolates his target.

In like ways, a toxic boss pockets his target’s fellow workers by schmoozing and seeming to be the reasonable one. I have seen multiple abusive husbands become very chummy with their pastor. One even lived in the basement of his pastor’s home for several months. I have observed abusive husbands win over his target’s family leaving her estranged from them.

In doing so, they then enlistist the aid of those whom they have pocketed to stand up for them and spy for them. The target is traumatized even more by well-meaning people who do not understand or identify abuse, but only want to “help the relationship be reconciled.“

In the case of Jim and Mary, Pastor Carl had much of the congregation bamboozeled by his “strong leadership” and sought the aid of the babysitters and chaperone in spying out the lay of the land in order to control Jim.

Another common isolation tactic is for the toxic leader to suggest that “everyone” is against you. Pastor Carl drew on this age-old tool with Jim and Mary arguing that nobody thought he was doing a good job.

Do not be bamboozeled!

One-Ups-Manship

Narcissism is not necessarily part of being an abusive leader, but often is a driving force. Those who are narcissistic in their personality will do everything in their power to keep on top of their subordinates. Jim said,

Pastor Carl was continually spiritually troubled! He was obsessively trying to control his image. Always trying to control perception of the church in the community. Not concerned with evangelism as much as recruiting influential people.

If the subordinate is doing well, he must do better. If the subordinate comes up with a good idea, he must either squash it or take credit for it. Jim said whenever he had success it would “result in a blowup in the office or attempt to get me out.“

The goal of the abusive leader is to be the “big man.” And he will do whatever is in his power to gain and hold that power.

Unfortunately, Jim and Mary learned the hard way.

God Bless the Oppressed

Jim’s understanding of ministry was formed through the poor leadership of Pastor Carl. As we talked he led me to Ephesians 5 where he said scripture gives direction for the “balanced” ministry.

He noted that the pastor is not called to be a CEO or “bully,” but to

  • Feed the sheep [training]
  • Lead the sheep [define direction for church]
  • and Care for the sheep [pastoral care]

He said this “undermines” the CEO view of church leadership.

In the end, Jim realized that Proverbs 19:19 spoke directly to their situation.

A man of great wrath will pay the penalty,
for if you deliver him, you will only have to do it again.

He realized that he had rescued Pastor Carl many times by staying and by leaving the church, “[Pastor Carl] was exposed and it gave him the rope to hang himself.” The pastor left the church a few months later under a cloud.

Forgiveness

It was a long time for Jim to forgive, but he considered it an absolute necessity.

Jim said he needed to “release the things that [Pastor Carl] did that messed” with their lives. Though he noted, forgiving others is not necessary for salvation for the Christian, it is a need and a command.

He said he had experienced forgiveness from the Lord and therefore, like the servant in Matthew 18, he needed to turn around and forgive others.

But it was not a once and done deal. He realized it would take time and the old feelings of anger would resurface. Talking about the situation with others helped in that healing process.

A woman who ministered to children in a Native boarding school nearby shared with Jim while he was in the midst of the battle. The woman’s husband abused her and she understood Jim’s situation.

She gave Jim a book that was a parable on Saul and David’s relationship. Saul and David’s relationship now makes sense to Jim after this experience. The toxic environment Saul created illumines Jim’s understanding of his own life under Pastor Carl.

Jim ended our discussion by saying, “Forgiveness is the most healing thing.”

Do you have a story of abusive leadership? Please contact Pearls And Swine Site so that others may gain from your experience and wisdom learned.

NOTES:

  1. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them (p. 35). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. ↩︎

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.

A Cry for Justice: Judgment and Forgiveness

Posted on by
1

Among those who have been abused there is a constant friction between the belief that God calls us to forgive our enemies and God’s desire for justice to reign.

How are these two seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive attitudes to be reconciled?

In a recent interview of a pastoral leadership abuse survivor, my interviewee said he realized that forgiveness was not an option but necessary in his walk with the Lord. But understanding how it can take place in the midst of such hurt was difficult for him.

When we returned from the mission field, having been beaten up by the leadership of our mission, we struggled with this question. We desired to follow the Lord in his leading; to not be like the master’s servant who had been forgiven much and yet sent his own servant packing to jail [Matthew 18:21-35].

But it was difficult to make theological or emotional sense of justice and forgiveness.

A Cry for Justice

Shelley Hundley, the author of “A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You,” does a marvelous job explaining how we can move from anger and bitterness to forgiveness without forgetting justice.[1]

How is it possible to seek justice for these horrible wrongs committed and forgive?

This blog is in part dedicated to holding abusive leaders accountable [justice] for their actions, a mark of the true church.[2] Biblically, justice is clearly an important attribute of God’s character and a legitimate desire of man having been made in his image.

Yet, the grace found in forgiveness is also characteristic of our Creator who sent his Son to die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and who commands that we go and do likewise.

Finding Forgiveness in Justice

Hundley, who suffered sexual mollestation as a child of missionary parents in Columbia by a pastor, explains that she found forgiveness in God’s justice.

The work of Dr. Robert Burns has been helpful to me for several years in understanding a two-fold approach to forgiveness [see this blog].[3] Hundley adds some helpful perspective.

Often we think forgiveness is sweeping the wrongs we have suffered under the rug. Forgive and forget, just as Psalm 103 seems to say:

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Psalm 103:11-12 (ESV)

However, Hundley points out that it is in the justice of God that forgiveness can truly be offered to our offenders. She explains,

“As believers, we are no longer objects of God’s wrath, but we are objects of His jealous love.” [page 110]

That “jealous love” of Jesus Christ works out in protecting His “bride,” the church. As His bride, I am taken under his care and he will go to the end of the heavens to protect me from evil…in fact, ultimately he died for my protection.

Hundley notes that others tried to encourage her by saying things like there would be “light at the end of the tunnel because ‘things would get better.'” She added, “In the darkest moments of my journey, pats on the back and teary-eyed sympathy brought little consolation.”

God is Judge

What did bring healing for her was the recognition that Jesus was Judge! And as her “groom,” He would stand by her in the injustice of her suffering.

She points to Romans 12:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Romans 12:18-19 (ESV)

She says that knowing God as Judge gives us a totally different perspective.

It enables us to leave room for God to right the wrongs and to trust that our heavenly Judge will make sure we have what we need. [page 153]

But as Christians we are not sitting there, licking our lips, waiting for the gavel to fall on the heads of our tormentors. Rather, we can know and trust that there are three possible judgements God brings on our oppressors and he knows which is best:

  • ultimate judgment,
  • forgiveness through his judgment of the oppressor’s sin on Jesus’ cross,
  • or temporal judgment.

Ultimate judgment is hell. And as Hundley notes, when you recognize the wrath of God on those who reject him, it may be difficult to pray for this kind of judgment even on your worse enemies.

On the other hand, God may forgive him, choosing to save the oppressor from his sin and radically change him. It is for sinners that Jesus died that they may be forgiven.

And finally, temporal judgment may be that the oppressor actually knows the Lord and God determines to take him out of this life so that he will no longer oppress others.

Unlocking the Chains

Dr. Edith Eva Eger, the writer of “The Choice: Embrace the Possible,” was a teenager when her family was imprisoned at Auschwitz. She now speaks on PTSD for “military resiliency training.” [4]

In her book, she discusses her own struggle with forgiveness. She said,

“It is easy to make a prison out of our pain, out of the past. At best revenge is useless…at worst, revenge perpetuates the cycle of hate.” [page 176]

She goes on to say that she forgave Hitler not for him, but for herself. Eger says that the chains she had kept him in encircled her own life. It kept her locked in her grief. She needed to forgive.

She defines forgiveness:

“To forgive is to grieve for what happened, for what didn’t happen, and to give up the need for a different past. To accept life as it was and as it is.” [page 176]

Though not a Christian, Eger recognizes the power and importance of forgiveness. As Christians we can read her words and recognize a call to give up living to meet out justice on our oppressors. Rather, as Christians, we have a loving Groom who is powerful enough and wise enough to wrap his everlasting arms around us and provide justice in his time and way.

Rest in those arms.

 

NOTES:

1  Shelley, Hundley. A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You. Charisma House, 2011.
2  Hyde, Daniel. “Marks of a True Church: Exercise of Church Discipline.” Ligonier Ministries. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/marks-true-church-exercise-church-discipline/.
3  Burns, Bob, and Michael J. Brissett. The Adult Child of Divorce. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books, 1991.
4  Eger, Dr Edith Eva. The Choice: Embrace the Possible. Reprint edition. Scribner, 2018.

Imprecatory Praying: The Mercy of Destruction

Posted on by
7

Our CEO’s wife was a bear. She bragged how she would run off roommates in college so she could have the room to herself. She had not changed in the ensuing years.

On the other hand, her husband was rather charming. You mostly knew where you stood with her—in the doghouse. But, her husband? He manipulated circumstances with great skill. 

There are times when a Christian struggles with what kind of attitude he should have towards a boss who seems quite beyond the reach of the Gospel.

Maybe the boss is unwilling to see his evil behavior. Maybe the power differential between the boss and subordinate makes it non-condusive to confronting the boss’ sin. Maybe attempts have been made to bring reconciliation in the relationship and failed miserably. In fact, maybe the attempts made it even worse.

Christians read the Psalms and find statements that seem to conflict with the open-hearted, mercy-oriented, forgiveness-driven Gospel we preach from our pulpits. King David, a man after God’s own heart, says,

For it is not an enemy who taunts me—
then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me—
then I could hide from him.
But it is you, a man, my equal,
my companion, my familiar friend.
We used to take sweet counsel together;
within God’s house we walked in the throng.
Let death steal over them;
let them go down to Sheol alive;
for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart.

Psalms 55:12-15 (ESV)

Imprecatory Psalms

Psalm 55 is among the Psalms called “imprecatory.” These Psalms are those that call for the destruction of or curses upon the enemy of the writer. An article on the Bible Gateway website lists Psalms 5, 10, 17, 35, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, and 140 as imprecatory Psalms.[1]

One commentary on the imprecatory Psalms said, “These prayers awaken the conscience to the human cry for redress, the cosmic demand for moral order and justice. They can lead one to feel as deeply as one ought the horrendous insult to Yahweh and his creation perpetrated by those who lie and cheat and kill and abuse and blaspheme . . .These prayers awaken that outrage, which is to be offered to God and which motivates to redemptive action.“

Discomfort with Judgment

When I have spoken with Christian employees about Psalm 55, they were clearly uncomfortable with the judgmental character of it. Even among theologians there is obvious discomfort. More often than not, the words of David are ignored or downplayed and it is suggested we should pray for evil people to be redeemed—not destroyed.

It was not until serving under a toxic boss and doing research into the dynamics of abuse that I began to understand the imprecatory Psalms.

In Matthew 7, Jesus calls those who do not respond well to confrontation “pigs,” and suggests silence rather than confrontation. David, in Psalm 55, takes it a step further, praying for the judgment and destruction of his enemies. He says, with apparent assurance, “But you, O God, will cast them down into the pit of destruction.”[2]

A Familiar Friend

To many who have suffered under toxic leadership, David’s struggle is very familiar as it was for my wife and me. David noted that his enemy is not an unknown person. He is David’s friend. David calls him “my equal, my companion, my familiar friend.”[3]

David says he could have tolerated “oppression and fraud,” however “what incurs his wrath is the treachery of a trusted friend.”[4] The psalmist explains it was not an adversary who oppressed him, but an individual with whom he took “sweet counsel together.”

The word counsel “implies intimacy,” according to The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Donald Guthrie says, David “had known unity of heart” with this friend “as they worshipped God” together.[5]

Some of those with whom I have spoken believed they had good relationships with their leader. Many worshiped, worked, recreated, and socialized with their leader. The Christian organization is sometimes a family-like setting. Often the mission station is a tight-knit group living communally.

Adam, a missionary in Africa, believed his relationship with the CEO was professional, but he also recalled being taken to dinner and enjoying family outings together. Graham said, “We really, really thought we were a Christian family.” My family went on vacations, to dinner, concerts, and to church with our leaders.

When abuse became apparent, the participants were often surprised and confused by the dysfunction in the organization. They, like abuse victims Lundy Bancroft describes, were perplexed by the cruelty displayed by these “friends.”[6]

However, like some commentators, the participants were hesitant to pray as David prayed in their situation. Guthrie said David was God’s “anointed king” and so had a get out of jail free card. He distinguished his circumstances from normal relational conflict. Yet, the Psalms were sung in worship by all Israel, not just David.

Graham, an one of my interviewees, specifically sought to keep such thoughts of “adversary” or “enemy” out of the team’s thinking as he and other employees went through the steps of confrontation with the CEO. To this day he refuses to use this terminology. I heard about a well-known pastor’s experience when an elder in his church was creating division and strife. People were praying for the pastor and the elder died unexpectedly. But, the pastor was unwilling to suggest it was due to God’s judgment.

The Prerogative of a Sovereign God

However, one of the commentators on Psalm 55, Gerhard Vos, believes it is appropriate to ask for God’s judgment on evil. He says, “The total destruction of evil . . . is the prerogative of the sovereign God.” Some consider it “loving” to refrain from praying for the destruction of an evil person. But, it is important to consider not only the perpetrator, but his victims.

How loving is it to suggest the diabolical one keep reaping destruction on his followers? Is it not more loving to look out for those under his oppression—a perspective that God seems to lean heavily towards in His Word—rather than in any way supporting the abuser? Even when a deeply, unrepentant, evil person repents, it is likely the abuse will continue for some time while God sanctifies him.

Vos goes on to say,

“It is right not only to pray for the accomplishment of this destruction, but even to assist in effecting it when commanded to do so by God himself.”[7]

The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms

“Assisting” in the destruction, as Vos suggests, may mean seeking his firing. Or calling him to account before others. The final steps of the Matthew 18 principle of confrontation involve group confrontation and shame. This may be the only way others will find relief from his abuse. 

This is loving!

There is a clear distinction in scripture between those who continually refuse repentance and those who have a “heart of flesh” that is teachable. There is a time when trying to “work with someone” comes to an end and public disgrace is necessary to bring justice to the broken-hearted.

This is God-given direction for confronting evil: Praying that God’s mercy will save those suffering from the destruction of the evildoer and doing all in our legitimate power to stop the abuse.

NOTES

[1] “Imprecatory Psalms,” Biblegateway, accessed March 14, 2017, https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Imprecatory-Psalms.

[2] Psalm 55:23.

[3] Psalm 55:13.

[4] Guthrie et al., The New Bible Commentary, 485.

[5] Ibid., 486.

[6] Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?, 68.

[7] Gerhard Vos, “The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 135.