Unfortunately, strength = toxic too much of the time.
The warnings are clear in Scripture for those who rise to positions of leadership. There is a story in 2nd Chronicles that should strike fear into all leader’s hearts–or at least a healthy concern. A sixteen-year old was placed in leadership in Judah. His father, Amaziah had died and it was his turn to rule the nation.
And a long reign he had: fifty-two years.
Uzziah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” as he began his reign. He sought God, was teachable (by the prophet Zechariah), and God made him prosper as he followed the Lord.
Scripture says,
God helped him against the Philistines and against the Arabians who lived in Gurbaal and against the Meunites. 8 The Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah, and his fame spread even to the border of Egypt, for he became very strong.
2 Chronicles 26:7-8 (ESV)
His military might was a result of God’s delight in him. Uzziah was faithful to the Lord. There is so much encouragement here that such a young man should rule with wisdom and faith.
But.
Pride
But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.
2 Chronicles 26:16 (ESV)
The Lord had set up a separation of powers (duties) in the theocracy of the Old Testament. The national political rulers (kings) were not allowed to interfer with the sacrificial system of the temple. Though there were often battles between the kings and priests, where the kings had responsibility to rule the nation, the priesthood made it evident that God ruled over the kings.
Uzziah’s unfaithfulness would be a footnote in his story if what happened next had been different.
17 But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor, 18 and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the LORD God.”
2 Chronicles 26:17-18 (ESV)
The priest, Azariah stood up to the king. Like Nathan in King David’s case (2 Samuel 12). Like all faithful friends and advisors to those in power over the centuries. Azariah was willing to do the messy work of challenging the wicked behavior of the most powerful person in the nation of Judah.
Anger
This is an important point of the story, and what comes next is the frustrating part.
19 Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the LORD, by the altar of incense.
2 Chronicles 26:19 (ESV)
Unfortunately, a reign that was godly and a witness to the Lord of heaven and earth ended in arrogance and entitlement. “He became proud.” Rather than admitting his foolish and arrogant behavior to the Lord (and Azariah), his sin was not a footnote but the fall of his rule in Judah.
In his pride, Uzziah was likely thinking that he could do what he wanted. He was powerful and was likely continually being coddled by his subordinates; told he was the greatest, winning all his battles, a real rock star.
No priest could tell him what to do.
But God did not allow him to continue in his arrogance. The Lord physically struck him, causing him to break out in leprosy.
And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD.
2 Chronicles 26:21
With dishonor and shame he went to the grave; turned out of his primary residence; disallowed entrance to the presence of God (“excluded from the house of the Lord”). Uzziah’s life was turned upside down.
Accountability
It is an important story for leaders. Each of us, in our places of influence, must understand the warnings that the Lord provides through the many stories in Scripture. We need the accountability of others. We need others who will, even if subordinate to us, be able to bring us grace through criticism.
We need to humble ourselves before the gracious and mighty hand of the Lord . . . before it is too late.
What happens down, deep within you when your subordinates, or even friends, begin to praise your holy name?
You are smart. You are skilled. You are important. You help the vulnerable.
Does your heart rise up and meet their praises with praises of its own? Does your heart congratulate itself and take on new proportions?
Being praised and being glad to do a job well, care for people well, or be particularly smart is in no way a bad thing. God is good. He has gifted every one of us with abilities and personalities to suit His important purposes of loving Him and our neighbor well. We are His image-bearers.
We can be praised, be thankful to the Lord for His work, and move on to the next task.
Paul and Barnabas knew what it was to be praised . . . in the extreme. Leaders do well to learn from the Apostles as they, in very godly ways, deflected the praise of man:
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.
Acts s 14:8-18 (ESV)
This is a man that was obviously in need. He had “never walked” so there was no “temporary” paralysis about it. Everyone would know that what came after Paul’s command to “stand upright” was miraculous. There was no chance that Paul was a fraud.
God’s Have Come Down
So, how did the people respond? They responded according to their culture and belief system:
11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.
Paul and Barnabas had done something they would expect the mythological gods would do: heal a man who was unhealable by the society’s greatest doctors.
So, they named Paul and Barnabas according to their gods, fitting to their beliefs about those specific god’s jobs. Zeus and Hermes. Or, in Roman parlance, Jupiter and Mercurius.
According to one commentary,
“The main reason for the assignment of the two names was that the listeners recognised in St. Paul the gift of eloquence, which was the special attribute of Hermes . . . there may have been something in the taller stature and more stately presence of Barnabas which impressed them with the sense of a dignity like that of Jupiter.”1
We laugh at Greek Mythology, but they didn’t. It was a very big deal that the people thought Zeus and Hermes had paid them a visit and healed this man who had suffered since birth having no personal means of getting around, working, playing . . .
It was such a big deal that the priests of these mythological gods brought their wares, including oxen, to begin sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas right there in the street.
Turn Away from Little “g” gods
This is where we learn how God’s people, when in positions of influence and leadership and praised mightly for their skills, need to respond:
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” 18 Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.
Turn away from your little “g” gods – Jupiter and Mercurius – Paul and Barnabas say. They deflected the higest of praise, and redirected the people to the One true God.
Yes, this is an extreme example, yet taken into our Western context, the idolatry present in the hearts of these people can be found just as evident in our hearts as we lift up leaders in our society. Jean Lipmum-Blumen suggests our idolatry of leaders (from a non-Christian perspective) is based on “Our need for security and certainty, which prompts us to surrender freedom to achieve them.”2
Indeed, the people in the New Testament times turned to that which could give them answers to their lives’ most pressing questions.
As Leaders, How Do We Respond?
For our purposes, I want to turn to Paul and Barnabas. Their response is educational for influencers. You cannot always help the idolatry of those who observe your skills as a leader, but how you respond to their praises, both outwardly and inwardly, tell much about your own idolatry and may help them as well.
There is much riding on a leader’s response. In some cases, it is just a matter of redirecting the praise as it seems in the Apostles’ (Paul and Barnabas) case. But there is more riding on a leader’s response than simply redirecting. Lipmum-Blumen helpfully suggests:
“Our fear of physical death is not the sole cause of our anxiety. In fact, the anxiety we feel in the face of social death may be just as great, possibly greater, than our dread of physical death. Social belonging is a powerful drive for which we are willing to sacrifice much.”3
When a leader redirects praise he or she may be bringing on “social death.” This act of humility may also have the effect of your adoring masses being less enamored with you. What happens if suddenly you are not so worshipped anymore by subordinates? Can you live with that?
It is a risk that Paul and Barnabas knew they must take. They had no right to steal praise from the One true God who rules over His world and is the One true Healer (Psalms 47:6-8). No matter the results of their redirection, they needed to give God the honor.
The redirecting of praise, as an act of humility by leaders, may be in a variety of directions:
To the Lord,
To another leader responsible for the work ultimately,
To a subordinate who had the orginal idea,
To someone outside the organization who gave you the idea or means for completing the task.
The list could go on, I am sure. All of it ultimately resides at the feet of Jesus, but He has likely used other people to bring good and praising (not worshipping) them is good and right.
Heart of the Matter
But, now most importantly, get to the heart of the matter: your heart.
It is not enough ever in the Christian life to focus on “acts of humility”–“Acting” like you are redirecting the praise. Sure it is helpful for destroying the idols of your subordinates.
But, the Lord looks on your heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Is your heart redirecting the praise? Do you really believe that you gifted yourself? Do you really believe that ultimately your desire, discipline, and self-direction gave you the ability to be great in the eyes of the worshipping subordinates?
Biblically, this is idolatry. It is giving credit to someone other than the Lord for what He does. Consider the following passages (you can read them in the notes below if you are too lazy, like me to look them up):
So, the prescription for us, as we receive adoration, is to consider how the Lord has blessed us and given us even the opportunity to do good, not just the ability.
Allow that . . . in fact, drive it into your heart. Ask the Lord to bring it to mind every time you are tempted to receive and hold onto the praises of man.
NOTES:
Ellicott C. J. 1897. A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. London: Cassell. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 29. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 39). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 38. ↩︎
Exodus 31:1-5 (ESV) The LORD said to Moses, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. ↩︎
Job 12:7-10 (ESV) “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; 8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. ↩︎
Acts 17:24-25 (ESV) The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ↩︎
Deuteronomy 8:17-18 (NIV) You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today. ↩︎
The Lord gives us all spheres of influence. Family. Friends. Work. Church. Organizations.
And, as a result of the Fall of man into sin, we have an ego to match.
We want the respect of people. At least some of us do. We want to know we are needed. Our insecurities can drive us to new heights of self-defense. Often that defense is in putting on a good show—making our outward image as squeaky clean as possible for the watching world, while rotting away inside.
We see this in Jesus’ critique of the scribes and Pharisees.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
Matthew 23:27-28 (ESV)
One of the ways that a toxic leader can be identified is by simply observing those self-defense mechanisms – how hard is he or she trying to keep up an image?
And at times, one of those mechanisms is found in their rabid hold on titles.
I was raised in a family that was very keyed into college degrees. In general, I would suggest the drive was not so much for egotistical purposes but from the belief that it was the means for being the best person you could be.
However, those degrees can become a foundation for arrogance and in the end toxic leadership that feeds on them.
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matthew 23:2-12 (ESV)
There are several criticisms that Jesus has for the scribes and the Pharisees:
Hypocricy
They say one thing and do another Jesus says. “They preach, but do not practice.” This is true of all people. It is why Jesus died . . . to save sinners like us. However, the Pharisees were unrepentant hypocrites on steroids.
Legalism
The Pharisees expected others to follow all their unbiblical or additional rules for godly living but did not practice those rules themselves. Just the laying these burdens on others was wicked. But, the hypocricy of failing to practice the rules themselves was double the evil.
Keeping Up the Image
They looked good. They put on the clothing of importance. You see, that’s the easy part. It takes little trouble to look good on the outside, throwing on a nice looking uniform, tie, and saying nice things to others (in the presence of others).
But note the motive – “To be seen by others.” Not to serve Christ. Not to love neighbor. But to be “seen” as good or important.
Titles
The “Rabbi” was an important and respected position in their community. Strong’s Dictionary says this title means, “my great one, my honourable sir.” or “Master.” Wow.
Pretty big deal.
Titles are Important, But . . .
Titles are helpful for a couple different reasons:
They establish lines of authority. With titles we know who is in charge in the organization. It provides a job description.
And, they help us know the amount of training an individual has had in a particular area of expertise.
Those reasons are good reasons. Fine. Useful.
However, what Jesus gets at in his scathing criticism of the Pharisees from which we want to learn is that motive matters. The heart matters.
Why do I want to be called Dr.? Why do I desire my subordinates to call me Mr. or CEO? Why does it make me uncomfortable when a parishoner doesn’t call me Pastor?
What is driving my need to sit in a particular seat at the table?
A Little Story
When my family was working for a mission in Africa, my wife was invited along with several other women with the mission to a seminar presented by a diplomat’s wife. The seminar was on social etiquette. Having put on numerous state dinners and the like, this woman presented a variety of things that are expected of those hosting important people.
It included how the host should seat people at the table for dinner. Who is on the right hand of the host, who at the end of the table, etc.
My wife and her fellow missionaries were rather amused by it all. However, our mission Director’s wife took it all in. When we were invited to their home for dinner along with the U.S. Ambassador to the country, she sat us according to these etiquette rules.
After the Director’s wife sat us, the Ambassador said, “I see you know the correct etiquette.”
Jesus’ words about seeking the head of the table and desiring to be noticed and held up as important came flooding to my mind.
As it turned out, image, place of importance, titles . . . all of that, was very important to our mission leaders. And they were toxic.
Do We Reject Titles?
The question for us is do we reject titles all together? It should be apparent that titles themselves are not wrong. It is what lurks underneath that we must consider and of which to be aware.
Why do I want others to know my title? Is it driven by ego? Or is it to provide context for my work that others know my qualifications.
Is it to run roughshod over those under my authority in the church, organization, business, or home? Or is it to clarify my position in the organization as a servant to my subordinates? And then seek to live up to the title with integrity and good character?
The answer to those questions will largely determine yours and my own toxicity. Beware. Writing this has given me an opportunity to take a bit of a dive into my heart.
I hope that it will be helpful to your heart transformation as you seek to be a godly influence in the spheres God has given you.
Jesus miraculously raised his friend named Lazarus from the dead.
Because of that increadible feat, many began to follow Him. And those in power, the chief priests and Pharisees, could not allow their control and authority to slip away.
Jesus had consistently challenged these religious-political leaders of his day. They were abusive leaders, using Scripture and their positions of authority to crush and oppress others rather than as good shepherds (Ezekiel 34).
Their power was slipping with each man, woman, or child who dared follow Jesus, rejecting their false teaching.
So, they had to get rid of the problem. After all they had their image to protect.
Of course, they planned and plotted to destroy Jesus . . . both physically and in carefully worded debates (Luke 20:19-20).
The Tactics
One of the more common tactics for abusive leaders is to destroy, justify, or coverup the evidence of the light that is shown on their abuse.
They sought to kill Lazarus. Destroy the evidence of Jesus’ truth and light and beauty.
“When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.”
John 12:9-11 (ESV)
Maybe it is physical evidence that makes them look bad and their victim good that needs to be destroyed? Emails, letters, recordings, or worse yet, witnesses. One missionary told me that his ministry leader rarely communicated on email. When accused of his abusive leadership, it was a “he said, she said” argument. No one had any evidence.
Maybe it is explaining away the evidence? “I didn’t really mean that. I would never have said that. It is out of context.” I watched as one mission director told his subordinate he “would never say such a thing.” The subordinate looked like the crazy one in the conversation.
Or maybe it is finding a way to discredit the evidence by shifting the focus? “He is taking it too personally. She isn’t submissive enough to authority. He has a spirit of division. She just has an attitude problem.” I have been amazed by how often a leadership team has, rather than investigate and consider carefully the reports of abusive leadership, turned on the whisteblower and resorted to name-calling. I was even complicit with a toxic leader at one time, suggesting those who were struggling with the leader were just “hard to get along with.”
Whatever tactic it may be, Lazarus must die that their image remains intact.
DARVO
Common tactics for those who abuse their authority include DARVO. These are effective means for keeping the main thing (report of abuse) NOT the main thing.
Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. That was a no-no for the Pharisees.
John 9 tells us about this man who was born blind. His age is unknown but according to commentaries, being “of age,” as the text notes, means he was at least 13 years old. He definitely seems older, but we cannot know.
There are many fascinating things about the exchanges that happen between the Pharisees, parents of the man, and the man himself at which you really should look. [Aaron Hann looks more closely in his blog about the spiritual abuse that happens in the story and it can be found here.]
But for our purposes I want to look at the end of the story.
We See
John tells us,
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” 38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.
John 9:35-41 (ESV)
The man had been excommunicated from the synagogue (cast out) because he had the audacity to be healed on the Sabbath and stand up to the Pharisees’ abusive behavior to both him and his parents.
Notice the exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees at the end of the passage quoted above. The Pharisees are mocking Jesus. You can hear their indignant tone of voice in their question, “Are we also blind?” Throughout the story, it is apparent they have no interest in actually knowing the truth.
They are in fact very blind.
However, Jesus’ response is very helpful in challenging the false repentance of abusive people and to the abusers themselves if they would have eyes to see.
Repentance involves seeing your own sin. There must be self-awareness. There must be humility.
Unfortunately, the abusive individuals I have known are not any of those things. Sure, they can put on an act of self-awareness, talking about grace and their need for it in a general sense. But, ultimately they fail to grasp or be willing to admit their sin and the depths of their depravity that reaches to their heart in any specific way.
But because they say, “We see,” their guilt remains.
They think they know their hearts—shifting blame, justifying their attitudes and actions—but their hearts are deceitful beyond all understanding.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)
But they refuse to acknowledge it. Instead they assign the blame to their victim, to the whistleblower, to their parents (whose dysfunction made them do it), or to their personality disorders.
If Only
If only they would seek the Lord . . . truly. If only they would ask Him to open their eyes to their own shame. If only they would humbly seek to know their own hearts.
Ah, the forgiveness and grace that would flow from the hands and heart of the Lord if they would just turn to Him fully, broken and knowing their need.
. . . and in turn, they would love God and neighbor as the Holy Spirit leads.
It is a hard topic for Christians to wrap their heads around. Interpretations of these prayers for destruction abound.
In this article I am looking at Nehemiah’s imprecatory prayer. The ESV Strong’s Bible translation says in its introduction to the book of Nehemiah:
In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. With Nehemiah went the third wave of returning Jewish exiles. There was intense opposition from the other peoples in the land and disunity within Jerusalem. Despite this opposition, Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the walls.
ESV Strongs Bible
That “intense opposition” made many fear for their lives as they worked to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem. Nehemiah, as the leader of the Jews who sought to see the Covenant God had made with His people Israel re-established, gave instructions to the people to take protective measures. “Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:18)
And so they built. With their weapons handy.
The Imprecatory Prayer of Nehemiah
What was particularly interesting to me is found in chapter 4 of the historical account.
Sanballat, of whom we know very little, was a Horonite (possibly from Samaria). He was apparently the leader of those who opposed the rebuilding of the wall. He and his ilk ridiculed the Jews and sought to stop them.
They shamed and humiliated Nehemiah and the Jews. The language in the text is strikingly similar to how those who are under abusive leadership describe their taunters. Toxic leaders in the home, workplace, and church torment their targets with words that belittle, debase, and humiliate. Often those words are coupled with religious language that creates a greater depth of shame and humiliation in the target (spiritual abuse).
Nehemiah responded in prayer . . . just as he had done before approaching King Artaxerxes to request returning to Jerusalem to build the wall (Nehemiah 1). In his prayer here in chapter 4, Nehemiah expressed his desire that the Jews’ tormentors be destroyed.
Nehemiah prays,
Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders.
Nehemiah 4:4-5
No Qualifying
When I normally speak of “imprecatory praying” I give qualifications. Before praying, “Destroy my enemies,” I will pray, “Lord change their heart . . . “
Then I go on with asking the Lord to stop the abusive individual in whatever way the Lord, in His wisdom, wills. I try not to be too specific.
But Nehemiah, in a display of raw emotion, simply asks the Lord to destroy this enemy of God’s people.
Fundamental to his prayer is the understanding that his enemies are enemies of God. Nehemiah was confident of God’s anger at Sanballat. There appears to be no doubt in his mind that Sanballat, and those following him, were evil and that God was opposed to them.
And his prayer is not self-centered. Nehemiah is not praying against someone who simply disagrees with him. He is praying that an enemy of God and one who seeks the destruction of God’s people be stopped.
Dead. In his tracks. No redemption.
That is hard stuff.
But it is the hard stuff from which imprecatory praying grows. Imprecatory prayers are made for those who see no out from the destruction at the hands of evil men. They are the prayers of deeply wounded and hurting people . . . because of the unjust, wicked, and damaging treatment of others.
Forgiveness?
In addition, I want to point out that Nehemiah is not unforgiving as some might think in praying this prayer.
In praying, Nehemiah turns over the judgment upon his (and God’s) enemy, Sanballat to God. This is fundamental to forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean there is no judgment. But rather, as some theologians suggest, it is turning over that judgment to the Lord; releasing our own judgment into the hands of God.
Nehemiah prays for God to judge. Afterall, it is God’s place to judge.
It’s Just So Uncomfortable
There are a significant number of imprecatory prayers in Scripture. So often we gloss over them because they make us uncomfortable.
Because we have so often been taught that a good Christian would never ask the Lord to judge someone, we cannot reconcile the imprecatory prayers found throughout the Psalms and here in Nehemiah with that training.
But those who have suffered abuse may not have as much difficulty understanding why they are in Scripture. Imprecatory prayers are actually a balm to those for whom the Lord continually stands up. We have God’s own word that He despises those who oppress others. And these prayers are a means of turning over the judgment we feel is so needed to the Lord Who judges perfectly.
Why should we not join Nehemiah in asking the the Lord to do what He has promised He will do?
The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. 10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.
Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1
His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“
In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.
Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.
It is our job.
So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.
There are Good Pastors
The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.
“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”
And so, the author says,
“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”
I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?
Greater Accountability
In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.
But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:
Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous
A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.
The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.
Judged with Greater Strictness
James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”
Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.
This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”
On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.
Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.
Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:
“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“
Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)
The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.
Diagnose and Expose
As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:
“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”
Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.
The author goes on,
“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“
I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.
The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.
I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.
And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.
A Critique
The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.
I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.
I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:
Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.
But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.
Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebukeabusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).
Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).
I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.
Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).
Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.
Being confronted in your sin is not abuse (1 Timothy 5:20)
It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.
Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.
I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?
True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.
Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.
This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?
Summary
Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”
Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.
And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.
I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.
But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.
Those who make themselves complicit with toxic leadership will often do so due to fear of loss of prominence or privilage. These are the middle-managers in Christian organizations, businesses, and churches.
One of the most captivating stories in Scripture is the book of Esther. In ten chapters of moving narrative, Esther provides the plot of an epic drama. The twists and turns of God’s sovereign reign in care of His people even while having exiled them for their idolatry, always keeps me fixated to the end.
The story also captures a common problem with toxic leadership.
So often those who lead under the oversight of toxic leaders are complicit with their leader. For a number of reasons they do evil right alongside the head of their organization, business, or church.
An Object for Display
In Esther’s story, Memucan, a manager in King Ahasuerus’s government, saw Queen Vasthti refuse to come like a slave to the king when he commanded her presence. The king wanted her to come “in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at (Esther 1:11).”
Memucan realized his own power and position may be in jeopardy with the Queen’s refusal to obey King Ahasuerus’s making of her an object and display to his subordinates.
King Ahasuerus asked his subordinates who were present,
“According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?”
Esther 1:15
Memucan told the king:
“Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.”
Esther 1:16b-18
Can you imagine that? Other women will see her unwillingness to be treated as property and think it is okay to refuse authoritarianism. In the end, others who have authority, like Memucan, will lose that authority to boss and abuse their own wives.
Analogous with Toxic Complicity
This is an analogy of complicity with toxic leadership, not just poor marital behavior.
There are a variety of reasons why those who act as “middle-managers” in the workplace will refuse to seek accountability for their boss and become complicit in their abuse.
Loss of Prestige for Boards: Members of boards fear the loss of prestige if their leader is the focus of a public scandal. So, they cover it up.
Access to the Leader and Power: Managers fear a loss of access to a leader, from whom they have been empowered, if they report / whistleblow abusive leadership.
Donor Support: Fundraisers may fear being caught supporting a badly run organization and so would rather just keep it quiet . . . continually praising the health of the organization.
Bad Witness: Assistant Pastors may continue to support a wicked Senior Pastor because suggesting he is broken and unworthy of leadership will be a bad witness to the world.
Common Goal: One particular church leader “was picked with the goal of growing the congregation,” and so the “main goal was to keep him as pastor.”1
“Image management” may create difficulty for subordinates to see the leader for who he or she really is. “Weick (1988) and Maitlis and Sonehnshein (2010) found that strong, optimistic statements and justifications produce blind spots that keep organizations from seeing contradictory cues and pieces of evidence. Followers also feel as if they must be bound to those positive outlooks.”2 In other words, subordinates struggle to keep clear sight when their leader has brainwashed them with positive think.
No Access: A close cousin to this positive think is subordinates being continually fed the leader’s narrative and never considering the victims’. Boards are notorious for this kind of mismanagement, as the board of our own mission was. They willingly allowed themselves to be kept from access to the stories of the missionaries and nationals who were being mistreated by the leaders of the mission.
And there are other reasons.
Most, if not all of them are bad.
It is not worth it to be complicit in these ways with abusive leadership. The organizational damage will be much worse because more lives will be broken and damaged by the leader the longer he or she remains at the helm.
He was trained to think of the boss as all powerful. He was even nurtured at his father’s knee to be a manly man who took charge and recognized his entitled place in society.
How do we view the abusive leader of the home or workplace who has seen no other way of relating to people since childhood?
For many of us, we have a certain empathic response to these kinds of situations. Though we may not put it in words, we have given these abusive individuals at least a temporary pass for their wicked behavior.
In the backs of our minds we think, “They cannot help their sin.”
No Pass
However, the Lord, though always compassionate, does not give abusers a pass.
Though ultimately we may be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ in the end, those of us who continue in the sins of our raising will be held responsible for that sin. [see footnote]
We do not get a get out of jail free card.
Ezekiel was a prophet and priest and was exiled to Babylon in 597 B.C. He spoke fearlessly and forcefully to a people who had turned from the Lord. And he spoke with compassion to those who would turn from their sin though raised on the knee of wickedness.
“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live.”
Ezekiel 18:21-22
However, Ezekiel also explained to those who would give others or themselves a pass because they learned to abuse others from their parents (or shall I add business or church leadership models) that they are responsible for their own sin. And the one who rejects those role models will be received as righteous.
“Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise: 15 he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, 16does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17 withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.”
Ezekiel 18:14-18
Ezekiel says, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Responsible
The individual is held responsible for their own sin whether they learned it well from others or not.
As we interact with abusive authority, we need to remember these words. The underlying principles that we can learn are that God does not allow our empathy to give a pass to the horrible wickedness of oppression even if the leader has been taught it from others.
He is responsible for his abuse. He is responsible for turning from it.
His or her only recourse is to fall before the Lord and confess the sin and walk away from it in new life.
Footnote: Those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, dying for man’s sins, as necessary for their eternal salvation do indeed get a “get out of jail free” card. However, the assurance of God’s forgiveness is for those who hate their sin and seek to turn from it (repentance). Abusive people must recognize, confess, and repent of their sins of entitlement and control as a means of oppressing others.
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
