Ben and Casandra’s Story: Grieving Loss Under Toxic Leadership

Posted on August 15, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

It took two years.

Ben taught theology and was a chaplain for a mission college in Africa. In addition, he was responsible for the expansion of the library and development of a master’s degree program. Ben’s wife, Casandra, worked with her husband on the organization of the library and as an administrative assistant.

They served the mission for two years before they resigned.

They grieve the loss of what they had in Africa. Casandra said they loved the “passionate” missionaries with whom they worked and the couple has remained good friends with a number of former African students and co-workers, hearing from them frequently.

It was a very good two years.

The graduate program they designed continues to operate after almost 10 years. They feel they had an impact in their ministry with the mission.

Demeaning and Manipulative

When we talked recently they described a visit they made to the mission the year before they sold their house, quit their jobs, and moved their two children to the African country. Over meals with various missionary families, no one mentioned anything negative about the leadership.

It all seemed like peaches and cream as they prepared to move.

However, after their two years of service, Ben and Casandra described the leaders of the ministry as “demanding,” “demeaning,” “manipulative,” and “harsh.” They described several times that unreasonable “demands” were made by the CEO, including an “email about an additional layer of responsibilities” they received one month prior to moving onto the mission field.

During their first year at the mission, a missionary, who was acting as Director while the CEO was out of country, came to Ben and informed him that the CEO said Ben wasn’t “pulling his weight” and needed to take on night guard duty.

Ben calmly told the intermediary that he wasn’t told that by the CEO and he did not have the time to devote to guard duty.

Ben described that when he would meet with the CEO,

“The moment I walked in, it was not a dialogue. It was a pretend dialogue that I could say what I wanted to say and for as long as I wanted to say it. But, the answer was already etched in stone and was going to be carried out.”

Casandra had few conflicts with the CEO, but when she was helping in one of the other offices, she was “yelled at by [the founder’s wife] to not be involved at all because I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about.’”

Seeking Accountability and Change

Ben did meet with the CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution.

In addition, Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter from a large group of missionaries’ said, “It could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories and make changes.

However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.

Ben explained the “judging” section of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1-5 did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. That passage says,

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Matthew 7:1-6 (ESV)

At that time, following writing letters to the board, CEO, and faculty, he said,

“I recognized that I just needed to forgive them. I was never going to be asked for forgiveness . . . I didn’t need to be putting myself in the seat of judge.”

While still with the mission, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” He explained,

“I began to feel more and more affirmed in my thinking that my job was not to try to change them. I was going to fry myself if I took that campaign on. It was a waste of time and energy to try to change the situation in that sense of casting pearls.”

Dealing with 1 Peter and Matthew

When asked about his consideration of the Matthew 18 principles of conflict management, Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage.

In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives direction for confronting the sin of a brother. The multi-step process includes:

Go in private to the one who has sinned against you.
If unrepentant, bring another person or two to once again confront the sinner.
If continuing in unrepentance, tell it to the church.
If rejecting all these pleas for confession and repentance, they are to be treated as an unbeliever.

He explained,

“I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” He had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply [Matthew 18] to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”

Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”

Ben also said there were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage where it says,

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
1 Peter 2:18-20 (ESV)

Ben explained that they said, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.”

Ben said he thought most about the 1 Peter passage. He said he “went back to it again and again and again. Sometimes looking for a loophole.”

However, Ben argued their positions with the organization were “voluntary” and received no funding from the mission. He suggested their “accountability” was “to those who put us there”; The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.”

As an example, Ben recounted a sermon given in the organization chapel by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters who were his mentors for their advice.

He asked them, “Is it me, people.” Ben wanted to be accountable to those who would be honest about his evaluation of the leader.

Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you . . . something’s broken.” He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He explained, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, [the CEO] is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”

As Ben considered the application of Matthew 18 to their situation, he suggested there was no church authority in place for the third step:

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:17 (ESV)

No Change

Ben noted the CEO always justified or explained away his sin, often blame-shifting. He saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others approached the boss.

Others in the mission had approached the board prior to their families leaving the organization with no success.

According to a Workplace Bullying Institute survey, this experience is not unusual. In a 2012 survey, only 3.5% of those who confronted their bullies at work experienced a change in bullying.[1] They found that there was little recourse for those under toxic leadership. In another WBI survey, 61% of the victims lost their job, while only 15% of the perpetrators lost theirs.[2]

As a parachurch and mission organization, no ecclesiastical governing body had authority to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.

Family Business

Ben called the leadership a “family business.” He said, “[I had] very little sense that I was part of something whose passion was building God’s kingdom. It was very much building ours,” referring to the family.

He had discovered “if you weren’t in the family, you were out of business.” Ben said the “family called the shots and it didn’t matter the thoughts, opinions, the ideas of anybody outside.” He explained, “Real decisions were made around the family table.”

Party to the Abuse

Ben explained the responses of some staff to the toxicity of the CEO, “Some people were the fighters and some people were just apathetic.” As noted above, in his experience, the fighters were “worn out” through a lack of change coming from their battles.

However, the apathetic ones “put their heads down” and “counted the minutes when they could drive out the gates and do what gave them life and meaning, a purpose and joy.”

Ben determined that he did not want to “become apathetic to leadership” or “go find another mission somewhere for survival’s sake.” However, in the end, Ben and Casandra believed remaining at the organization would mean being “a party to the abuse” and did not want to risk joining either of these “camps.”

The Return and the Church’s Response

Ben suggested the negative effects their experiences had were not as great compared to others possibly due to “living off campus” and being there only two years. However, he said, their “jaws were on the floor with what other people needed to do and go through to unwrap their minds, hearts, and spirits from that experience.”

Though they felt somewhat spared from a lot of direct abuse, Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, and noted, “He had lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”

Both shared they “were very fragile for a time. We were looking for and very much needed support and encouragement.”

Ben told the story of returning home from the mission field and experiencing two different responses from church supporters. Some seemed to have little concern and apparently did not understand the difficulties he and his family had faced. Ben and Casandra’s sense of failure due to returning so soon from their mission seemed to be exasurbated by these responses.

Ben said, “Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say; ‘Well thank you for your service. God bless you as you go.’” In fact, they noted that only one of their five supporting churches really sought to minister to them when they returned.

This church welcomed them back, sought them out, spent time with them, and supported them fully. This was a very healing time for them.

When Ben, Casandra, and I first spoke, Ben said, “It has been three years since we have been back” in the United States. He said he had received that day an email from one of his former students, they were going to be hosting another student at their house in a few days, and their church in the United States continues to support the ministry of another former student.

Ben said, “We didn’t cut any ties with [the country], just with the organization. It is very much an ongoing part of our lives and always will be.” In the end, they believed their multiple communications to the leadership and board of directors provided opportunity for corrections to be made had those entities listened to their pleas.

Casandra said,

I came to a point where I knew in my heart that spiritually, emotionally and professionally that ‘the person I am’ did not line up with who and what the organization leadership had demonstrated to me in the past two years. While, I loved the ‘mission of ECU’ and my role at ECU, I could no longer turn a blind eye to the leadership decisions and how the organization leadership treated its students and especially “the help” (ie. nationals in general). The hierarchy of power and status based on race (“we are white and therefore superior”) and the lack of grace, humility, and servant leadership displayed by the organization leadership was directly opposite of everything I believed that God called me to be and how he called me to serve. I could no longer be part of an organization that manipulated Scripture to promote its own agenda.

Ben and Casandra said they never “questioned their decision to leave.” They had comfort in knowing God had called them “there for that time . . . God has equipped us with the mission of what He wanted us to do. We felt we accomplished what we were there to do.”

Healing

An important period of healing came when they returned to the United States. There was a “mission group” at one of their supporting churches who cared for them. Casandra said, “They just really embraced us and were willing to help.”

Ben added, “They wanted to know how we were doing. How they could help us.”

When we spoke recently – eight years after our initial interview – Ben and Casandra explained that the good response they received from this one church was likely due to the church’s intentional development of a relationship with their missionary.

The group asked Ben and Casandra to come meet with them to “debrief with them, not to pick apart the ins and outs of the organization, but for us. It wasn’t about trying to fix what we left behind.” He said most “people didn’t really understand” and that made this mission group’s support so helpful.

Casandra added,

“There was a measure of failure you wrestle with. We moved our entire lives and sold our house . . . and two years? But, we were never made to feel like failures . . . We were able to make a difference at that time and whether it was two years or 20 years, we gave our best and we left when we could no longer operate there in good conscience before God and our supporters.”

Another aid to their healing came with a new vocational direction. They moved to Europe to pastor an international church. There they found it helpful to be in a cross-cultural setting (which they felt called to all along) and among people who did not know them. In addition, they were not in the United States where the failure they felt was so prevelent.

The process of healing has been a longer process for Casandra. She isn’t sure why. She continues to struggle with how to view missions in the church and she has no desire to return to Africa. Ben, on the other hand, jokingly said, “I’m just dead inside.” Remembering his response to leaving the mission mockingly said, “Well that sucked . . . next?”

When they got free from the toxic leadership, Ben and Casandra found healing in the words of scripture, from those individuals who supported them, and in new vocational directions. God has provided good ministry for both Ben and Casandra.

References

[1] Namie, “2013 Instant Poll – D: The Timing & Results of Targets Confronting Bullies At Work.”

[2] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”

Toxic-Free Environment: Finding a Church of Shalom

Posted on August 7, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

It is not unusual for those who have faced off with toxic leadership in the church to turn from the church. In my experience, most do not turn from Christ but have a difficult time squaring the leadership of God’s people with abusive authority.

So, they refuse to darken the doorway of a church building at least for a time.

Ezekiel spoke God’s damning judgment upon Judah as they were taken into exile in 587 B.C. After chiding the toxic Jewish leaders for eating the sheep instead of shepherding them, God said,

So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; ⁶ they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
Ezekiel 34:5-6 (ESV)

It is what is to be expected. When leaders fail, the hurt runs deep. You can expect people to leave, maybe never to return.

Don’t blame them.

But for those who wish to find a church that will carefully and lovingly shepherd them in places of peace (shalom), here are some ways to determine if the leadership is toxic or not:

Plurality of Leaders: Is there a board? Elders? The plurality of leadership is a first step. There can be more accountability if the church has multiple leaders that can challenge one another.
Center of Everything: What kind of praise do people give the pastor? Does he seem to be the center of everything? Does the leadership encourage (or fail to discourage) hero worship?
Pastoral Arrogance: Does the pastor often tell stories that, even in a self-deprecating way, make him the hero of the story?
- “And so I went up to him and told him he was wrong . . . and he turned from his sin.”
Empowering: Does the leadership – all of them – empower the congregation as Ephesians 4 tells them to:
- “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, ¹² to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” (Ephesians 4:11-12) Or do they keep a particularly strong hand on all ministry?
Emphasis on Submission: Look at the titles of sermons posted online. Are there frequent sermons on authority? Is the focus on washing feet or protecting and ruling? Protecting and ruling are not wrong, but a particular emphasis on telling the congregation to submit is telling.
Focus on Image & Competition: Is the ministry of this particular church “so much better than other churches?” Do people talk a lot about how much better their church is than other churches in the area? This can be just how people feel, but it can also be what they are hearing from leadership. Daamgaurd helpfully says, “Although it is natural to want to associate with like-minded individuals, a healthy church welcomes communication from those outside of the church, even if church pastors and members don’t fully agree with the outsiders’ views. Those within the church realize that they can learn much and benefit from these interactions.”
Turnover in Leadership: Is there a significant turnover of leadership? Elders? Deacons? Sunday School teachers? Especially office staff?
Turnover in Membership: Is there a large turnover of people in the pews?
Focus on A Family: Is there one or two or even three families that seem to be the center of all ministry that takes place? They need not even be formal leaders, but the church may be driven by them.
Legalists & Pharisees: Does there appear to be many cultural expectations of members that find little support in Scripture? Dress. Ways of praying. Don’t dance, drink, or go with girls who do?

None of this is guaranteed for determining toxic leadership. There are so many variables and toxic leadership is found in all types of churches with a variety of doctrinal views.

It can be one powerful individual – pastor or member – that causes chaos for the congregation. Or it can be an entire system that continually hires or trains up toxic leaders or brings good leaders down because of their own blindness.

The church is Christ’s bride, but she is deeply broken. I pray that you find a church that loves you as Christ loves you that you may rest in His shalom.

“And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. ²⁰ I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.”
Hosea 2:19-20 (ESV)

NOTES:

Damgaard, Neil. Wounded Faith: Understanding and Healing From Spiritual Abuse (p. 16). Kindle Edition.

This is a good article on finding a church: https://www.spiritualabuseresources.com/articles/choosing-a-church

Serving Under the Authoritarian Pastor: Jim’s Story

Posted on July 13, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

“The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care,” says Timothy Witmer, author of “Shepherd Leader.”[1]

That seems basic to the Christian, and yet how many bosses view their leadership this way?

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

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

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

Rardin says that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4] This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.

Unfortunately, some ministries fail due to shepherds who take advantage of their position and power over the sheep.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of a pastor’s assistant who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach – 1 Tim. 5:17) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral position).

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

This is particularly treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd.

John’s Story

John’s story is very similar to Susie’s [her story]. I heard his story along with Susie’s nearly the same week.

John spent one and a half years serving his congregation before resigning, under pressure, due to the autocratic behavior of the Senior Pastor. He noted, as we talked, that his purpose for accepting the position was that Pastor “Jim” said, “I’ll train you, give you preaching [opportunities], visits . . . the whole gamut of ministry.”

John was very excited to gain valuable experience in ministry following his seminary training and this position appeared to provide the opportunity. However, John resigned from the position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Jim.

Pastor Jim’s toxic leadership came out particularly in “pharisaical” ways which can be understood as practicing (and normally) advocating for extra-biblical rules, treating them as necessary for holiness.

The Pharisee

John described an incident when, as the Youth Pastor, he was encouraged to visit the local crisis pregnancy ministry. He spoke with the director, who had contracted HIV-AIDS from his wife, had experienced his baby (who also had HIV-AIDS) “die in his arms,” was divorced from this wife, and in the end became a Christian.

In the course of the discussion, John decided to bring him to speak to his youth group. There was a 16 year-old mother in the group and he hoped that it would be of real encouragement to her.

He approached Pastor Jim to seek permission. Because the crisis center director had an earring, John decided it would be wise to inform the pastor due to the “fundamentalist” leaning of the church.

After telling him about the earring, Pastor Jim “just killed it right there.”

Stuck in the Middle

In another incident, John was seeking permission to move the 16 year-old mother to the “college group” because “she was still of the mindset that [she was] a teenager” and he believed the college group would provide more maturation for her.

Again, Pastor Jim did not allow him to exercise his authority as the Youth Pastor and John was “stuck in the middle” between the pastor and families that were concerned for their own young children that were in the same group.

John found it necessary, as one under the authority of the pastor, to “come up with some reason of why the pastor [thought it] better to leave her” in the youth group to mediate between his boss and the anxious parents.

Shepherding the Agnostic

John said to me, “Shepherding is my favorite aspect of working in ministry” and related an opportunity he had to shepherd a teenager who had told his parents he was an “agnostic.” The teenager was finding it difficult to believe that his parents loved him and would support him despite his unbelief.

John was able to encourage him and help him through that time of questioning. The young man later turned to the Lord and John believed the Lord has used him in the young man’s life.

However, despite his success, John was placed in awkward positions with the senior pastor, particularly when he was leaving the ministry. His concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in our discussion.

Like Susie, John said, “I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving. I didn’t want to see a schism,” as he described two leaders in the church (Deacons) coming to him to discuss actions by the senior pastor. Though John did not mention the word, “gossip,” he implied that he was very careful with whom he spoke during the crises and when leaving the church.

He also sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about his experiences. Though John was very careful to keep his frustration contained by sharing primarily with family members, he said,

“If I had had more interaction with the deacons, who were also frustrated, it would have been very difficult to stay supportive, to not complain, not gossip.”

The Emotional Damage

John experienced many opportunities to use his giftedness for the building of God’s kingdom in his assistant role in the church. However, he noted that seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging.

John spoke extensively about the emotional difficulties of ministering under Pastor Jim.

Again, like Susie, John observed multiple times when his supervising pastor was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care.

However, he realized the significance of the emotional injury only later, as Susie said when I interviewed her.

Long Time of Healing

John said he and his wife took a year and a half out from ministry to heal from the hurt caused by the pastor.

John noted that he spoke with both his father and uncle who are pastors, to gain perspective emotionally. As he evaluated his response to the toxic leadership of the pastor John noted that he “spent most of that year and half frustrated” and didn’t “have good spiritual disciplines established.”

Because of this, he said, “I didn’t process through things as I would have.” His year and a half out of ministry following his resignation was because he “was more broken than I should have been had I been processing my emotions more effectively.”

John believed that had he had a deeper relationship with the Lord, he would have seen his context more clearly and resigned more quickly.

However, according to John, that time of struggle in ministry was invaluable to his growth as a leader. He said,

“I learned from it that my relationship with Christ needs to be what gives me the confidence and satisfaction rather than my relationships with the pastor, or church . . . it needs to be much more personal . . . that union with Christ. Who am I in Christ?”

His ability to be self-differentiated, while operating in an environment of broken relationships and anxiety was a valuable lesson John learned. He shared that though he “didn’t have the guts to argue with [Pastor Jim] at that time,” he would at this point.

In addition, he learned that much of his training in seminary focused on the idea that the pastor receives the vision from God and passes it on to the congregation. Having experienced this form of leadership from Pastor Jim, he recognizes that it is actually devastating to ministry.

Sharing With Others

There can be many emotional challenges for the assistant as he interacts with members of the congregation and an autocratic senior pastor. John noted that most of the leadership (Deacons) in the church have since left the church primarily due to the autocratic leadership of the senior pastor.

When John was preparing to leave this particular ministry, two of the deacons came to him and asked him about his experiences with Pastor Jim. He said,

“I was much more open with them. I knew I could trust their discretion . . . not go blabbing around. I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving.”

But, to complicate matters, John explained that his supervising pastor was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by him or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail.

When describing the pastor, John said,

“He was convinced of his philosophy of ministry so the problem was the church, it wasn’t him. I don’t feel like that there would have been a way for him to see his own shortcomings in that.”

Pastor Jim rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.

He’s in Charge

John had an amicable relationship with Pastor Jim,

“But, I knew it was very clear, from the moment I got there, he made it very clear he’s the leader of this church. He’s in charge . . . So, the level of authority that he exhibited – that was intimidating to me, because I knew his word was final. So I wouldn’t ever push that.”

John felt “defeated, like my hands were tied. Like I had no authority.” He was given the task of leading the kids, but he had to do exactly what Pastor Jim told him to do.

“But, how exactly is that leadership? I don’t have any authority to make decisions.”

Having come to learn ministry, the actions of the pastor “really took the wind out of my sails.” There was very evident frustration in his voice as he described the inhibiting of his ability to minister to the youth by Pastor Jim’s authoritarianism.

Quitting Leaders

As James Kouzes and Barry Posner say, “People don’t quit their organizations; they quit their leaders.”[5]

It is not an infrequent occurrence that those who are called to gospel ministry find employment in churches led by autocratic pastors. The often devastating emotional effects on those who serve as their assistants are felt for years.

Rather than enter into a joint ministry that provides a learning environment for an inexperienced assistant, the assistant’s gifts are squandered by “self-serving leaders [who] use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves” rather than train and equip their assistant in ministry.[6]

Those caught in these emotional triangles of pastor-assistant-church must navigate relationships that are fraught with emotion, balancing respect and submission to the senior pastor and care and shepherding for the congregation.

Because these senior pastors are often given extensive authority by elder and deacon boards that are more inclined to “herding instincts” – keeping the peace at all costs and doing what the pastor says – the assistant is left to cope with the emotional struggle, sometimes unaided by those in the church.

Assistants that have a high view of the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation have little recourse as the one with whom they seek to correct for the purpose of reconciliation holds the keys to the church humanly speaking and are unresponsive to confrontations described in Matthew 18.

Two to Tango

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango”.

This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25.

Sometimes it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.

References

[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] Maxwell, Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge, 122.

[6] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 52–53.

Spreading Like a Tree: Grace to Rescue the Innocent

Posted on May 30, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

If you have been discipled as I have you might be tempted to believe grace means cutting all people some slack.

Forgive and forget.

Don’t judge.

Remember we are all sinners.

I use the term “tempted” quite intentionally. Because it is not biblical.

At least, not always.

There are actually times when grace (which should never be absent from our hearts or actions) means to pronounce judgment and bring accountability rather than cut them slack. But, there is a distinction in Scripture upon whom those judgments are made.

Spreading Like a Tree

I have seen a wicked, ruthless man,
spreading himself like a green laurel tree.
³⁶ But he passed away, and behold, he was no more;
though I sought him, he could not be found.
³⁷ Mark the blameless and behold the upright,
for there is a future for the man of peace.
³⁸ But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed;
the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psalm 37:35-38 (ESV)

We need to look at some of the words that the psalmist, King David, used.

עָרִיץ (‘ârîyṣ), which is the Hebrew word “ruthless” in the psalm, means “powerful or tyrannical.” Strongs Dictionary goes on to say it means “mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent.”

Do you get the idea? This is why in abuse language “oppression” and “oppressor” are used frequently. David is speaking of a particularly wicked individual. This is someone who is particularly destructive of other people.

We know this in part because other places in Scripture tell us to that when we confront brothers, we can expect a certain amount of humility and willingness to see their sin and repent (Prov. 12:1, Rev. 3:19).

But when Scripture talks about oppressors, generally there is no such expectation and in fact, often the Bible authors tell us to stay clear of them because they are too dangerous to confront or not worth confronting (see Prov. 9:8, 22:24, Matt. 7:6).

Hopelessness

King David in this psalm notes the hopelessness that seems to be the lot of many abuse victims. The ruthless man (oppressor) is like a green laurel tree. One commentary tells us the language refers to a “native tree” which in their interpretation means,

“The idea here is that a tree which thus remains in its own soil is more vigorous, and will attain to a larger growth, than one which is transplanted; and thus the figure becomes an emblem of a prosperous and mighty man. “
Barnes Notes on the Bible

This is part of crushing effects of abuse. The oppressor seems unstoppable. He is large in the victim’s eyes and often he is large in the community’s eyes. He is prospering while the victim shrinks and suffers psychological, spiritual, and physical harm.

Hopefulness

But David does not stop with verse 35. He goes on to say they will be destroyed. In both verse 36 and 38 there is evident judgment and accountability for the oppressor. He is “no more,” “destroyed,” and “cut off.”

And the one of peace – the victim is clearly implied – will have a future. It is like they will instead “spread like a tree.”

I don’t think I have ever talked to a victim of leadership abuse who has not at some point under the crushing weight of abuse felt he or she was without a future. They feel like they have been axed. Cut down and burned up . . . while their oppressor spreads like a tree.

They have maybe tried confronting their boss, manager, or pastor to no avail. They have maybe sought help from HR, the board of directors, the senior pastor, a church elder, or the CEO to no avail.

In fact, often they have received more abuse either by the oppressor or by the foolish ones to whom they reported who ended up being complicit as they failed to support the victim.

The oppressor became large in the eyes of those who should have been helpful.

It’s Really Real

But, the assurance that David gives is real. It may not come about as we hope or envision. But, it is real. There is a future for those who are abused.

God is not mocked by the scoffer (Prov. 9:8).

And it is God’s grace that brings that oppressor down. We ask that the ruthless be destroyed (Ps. 55) not because we lack grace, but that we wish grace to reach the oppressed. The abused. The vulnerable.

Because this is to what we, as God’s people, are called (Isaiah 58:6).

Grace to call evil, evil.

Grace to rescue the innocent.

What is Real Repentance: a Biblical Change of Heart

Posted on May 23, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

We often focus on the actions of man in the process of determining whether real repentance has taken place.

An abusive leader, whether in the home or workplace, has been confronted and recognizes that he must change his actions in keeping with repentance as Jesus said:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
Matthew 3:7-8 (ESV)

To “bear fruit” would indicate a couple things.

To “bear” in Greek carries the meaning to “perform” or “to make or do.” It is taking action.
“Fruit” in Greek means “work, act or deed.”

Considering those words, there seems to be visible actions that are necessary for repentance.

However, repentance is much more than this and our understanding of it will make a significant difference in how we look at our own repentance and that of those who have been called to repentace after crushing others under their authority or power.

I Am Feeble and Crushed

To consider a model of repentence in Scripture we need look no further than David. The king of Israel was a model of wicked behavior – including rape and murder – and he was a model of repentance. David raped, murdered, and failed to bring accountability for others where he had the power to do so.

Yet, it is in his many words that are found in Scripture that we get a picture of a man broken by his sin and repentant.

For my iniquities have gone over my head;
like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me.
⁵ My wounds stink and fester
because of my foolishness,
⁶ I am utterly bowed down and prostrate;
all the day I go about mourning.
⁷ For my sides are filled with burning,
and there is no soundness in my flesh.
⁸ I am feeble and crushed;
I groan because of the tumult of my heart.
Psalm 38:4-8 (ESV)

David recognizes his sins. They have “gone over my head,” he says. He is drowning in his sins. He is “foolish.” And he even feels it in his physical body. His “flesh” is “burning.”

This is a man who knows his sin and I would suggest these words give voice to a true repentance.

In verse 8 he says, “I am feeble and crushed; I groan because of the tumult of my heart.”

His sense of shame goes to his very “heart.” And it is in the use of this term that we begin to see true repentance.

From Within

Recently, I was speaking with an advocate who shared with me some incredible wisdom. She was explaining the distinction between the supposed repentance of an abuser, whose wife she was seeking to help, and her own husband who was once abusive. However, her husband had truly repented and has born the fruit of this repentance for years.

She explained that the victim’s husband had been counseled by a church leader and was much less difficult to live with at home in that his anger was not as apparent. She noted that it gave the appearance of repentance.

However, she said he had yet to confess to his wife the wickedness of his heart and his desire to change. The advocate noted that her husband, on the other hand when coming face to face with his sin, confessed to her the evil that was in his heart and the actions flowed from that just as Scripture describes.

“What comes out of a person is what defiles him. ²¹ For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²² coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. ²³ All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Mark 7:20-23 (ESV)

The Heart of the Matter

It may help to talk about this term, “heart.”

In the west – that is Europe and America – there has been a particularly unhelpful dichotomizing of mind and emotion. “Heart” has referred almost exclusively to our emotions and mind to our cognitive abilities.

However, the biblical use of those terms is not nearly so clean and orderly, nor is neurological science’s findings.

לֵב (lêḇ), which is the usual word translated “heart” in Hebrew, is “used very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect; likewise for the centre of anything.” It really is more accurately describing the whole inner man, the center of our being, and definately not just our emotions.¹

The term καρδία (kardia – heart), which is found in the Mark 7 passage above, refers to “the thoughts or feelings; also the middle.” Again, note the broadness of the term in referring both to what we understand as cognitive ability and emotions.

So, when Scripture tells you the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” it is telling you the whole inner man is deceitful and sick. It may help to remember that the whole man is fallen in sin. Our thinking and emotions, which generally go together, are both broken.

It is why an abuser can think he is always right and feel he is the most important person in the room, even when it makes no sense to anyone else. Everything about his inner man is contrary to reality. Yet, he is quite sure.

So, Mark 7 quoted above makes it evident that from the very center of an abuser’s being, wickedness, deceit, pride, murder and all kinds of evil comes. It is so evil in its intent and expression that their inner being sets them apart from normal people. Mind you, even normal people need the Savior because their wickedness is just as damning. It just is not as destructive to the people they engage.

My advocate friend helps us distinguish between the false repentance of so many abusers and real repentance. Remember that the “cure” rate of abusers is likely around 5% or less. That is a dismal amount of repentance.

But when there is true repentance, a change of heart – the whole inner man including their thinking and feeling and will – is so radical that you know you are safe with them.

NOTE:

¹ The “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” by Kittel notes that it can be translated in English to denote emotion, thinking, or will.

Deal With the Elephant: Whose Sin Is It?

Posted on May 17, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

I have often heard survivors of abusive leaders in the home and workplace confess their sins and in some way suggest the abuse they are living under is somehow a necessary result of their sin. There tends to be an immediate response to hardship (trial), by those who humbly follow the Lord, that there is a tit for tat in the workings of God’s sovereignty.

I am suffering = God is punishing me for my sin.

“I am sinful and so all this abuse has come upon me because of my sin.”

Mind you, it is not that there is no biblical evidence for such a view. Such as,

“When your people Israel are defeated before the enemy because they have sinned against you, and if they turn again to you and acknowledge your name and pray and plead with you in this house, then hear in heaven and forgive the sin of your people Israel and bring them again to the land that you gave to their fathers.”
1 Kings 8:33-34 (ESV)

We certainly suffer because sin of our own making brings about a world of hurt. God uses the evil of others to discipline us. We need self-awareness.

The Sin of Others

But, there are also those times that we face trial not due to our own sin but simply because of the sin of others. Even though as Solomon says in this same prayer in 1 Kings 8 “for there is no one who does not sin,” it is also biblical to interpret trials as not necessarily of our own making.

The wickedness of the abuser’s heart brings all kinds of trouble on those whom he desires to control, manipulate, and crush (oppress).

And this should not be interpreted as the result of the victim’s sin . . . ever.

Aaron Hann’s recent Thesis 96 blog called “Spiritual Abuse Tactics in John’s Gospel” beautifully captures the spiritual abuse found in John 9. There a man, blind from birth, is healed by Jesus. Suddenly, he became the focus of spiritual abuse by the Pharisees. They said, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner” in verse 24 of that chapter. Tit for tat.

Jesus’ disciples say, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [John 9:1-2 (ESV)]

He is suffering, so he (or his parent who bore him) is a sinner. Tit for tat.

Jesus responds that it doesn’t work that way. “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” He says, do not make that correlation. In another place the Lord says, “Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil.” (Is. 50:20)

Mr. Hann skillfully picks the Pharisees’ abuse apart and I encourage you to read his analysis.

A Helpful Example: Psalm 38

In Psalm 38, King David cries out to the Lord, confessing his sin but then seeking his release from the abusive treatment of others. Hear a section of the Psalm:

For I am ready to fall,
and my pain is ever before me.
¹⁸ I confess my iniquity;
I am sorry for my sin.
¹⁹ But my foes are vigorous, they are mighty,
and many are those who hate me wrongfully.
²⁰ Those who render me evil for good
accuse me because I follow after good.
²¹ Do not forsake me, O LORD!
O my God, be not far from me!
²² Make haste to help me,
O Lord, my salvation!
Psalm 38:17-22 (ESV)

Note, David’s confession in verse 18 and then his desire for vindication in verses 19 through 22.

David confesses, “I am sorry for my sin,” and then goes on to say that “many are those who hate me wrongfully.”

I cannot count the times that a victim of abuse has confessed their own sins to me as though it was their sin that created the abuse. But as David notes, their hatred is wrong. It is not due to his sin . . . it is just wrong.

Deal With the Elephant

We must be very careful that we do not create a tit for tat response to the humility of victims of leadership abuse and focus on their sin while missing the elephant in the room.

That elephant is the wickedness of a leader who does not share that humility.

It is rare that abusive leaders will ever humbly admit real sin like the victim will. They may be self-deprecating, saying they feel badly that they have hurt the victim. But, you will not hear them say, “I am so sorry that I have a wicked heart and have thought of the victim as less than human.”

But, this is in fact the heart of the abuser . . . and mind you, their abusiveness comes from the very depths of their being.

All the while, the victim is confessing their sin, beating their breast like the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), taking the abuse upon themselves as if it is a punishment for their own sins.

Hear the confession of the survivor of abuse. But, always seek the heart of the problem and that is in the heart of the abuser, not the victim. Do not be distracted by the wiles of the abuser as he projects his sin upon his victim.

And do not be distracted by the humility of the victim and miss the elephant in the room. The sin of the abuser.

Aaron’s Story: Pastor as Predator

Posted on May 8, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

Having come from a long line of pastors—father, grandfather, and uncle—his calling to the ministry seemed a natural consequence of being born into his family.

Following Bible college and a stint with a traveling ministry, Aaron joined the staff of a large church with a well-known and “successful” pastor. Pastor Gene had been in the ministry for nearly 50 years and had served at all levels of leadership within Aaron’s denomination. Aaron said he and his wife, Joyce trusted him like a grandpa.

Aaron joined the staff as a music minister. He considered it his “dream job” and Joyce was hired in the youth ministry.

I could tell in our discussion that Aaron was the dream employee. A self-described “people-pleaser” and “rule-follower,” he was eager to please both his senior pastor and congregation. He clearly had a heart for ministry.

Just the Way He Is

But, after two years of serving in the church, Aaron came home to his wife and shared with her, “I think Pastor Gene has a man-crush on me.”

Aaron explained that Pastor Gene would do subtle things.

They would go out to coffee and Aaron noticed that when he would put his hand on the table, Pastor Gene would put his hand on Aaron’s. Taken aback, Joyce responded that she thought it was just the way he is. She knew he was very physical in his engagement with others.

These kinds of actions continued over two years and, though Aaron was disconcerted with it at first, he got more and more comfortable with the touching. Over time, however, the amount of physical touch ramped up. Pastor Gene seemed to get more and more “touchy” with Aaron as he described it.

Then one day Pastor Gene leaned in to give Aaron a kiss.

Four months after Aaron shared his suspicions with Joyce, Pastor Gene’s wife, Lee came to him “and exposed everything.” She explained to him that she and her husband “had been having arguments since October.”

Aaron asked her, “What does that mean?”

“Lee shared how Pastor Gene had fallen in love with me.”

Aaron was shocked. He described putting “walls put up instantly.” He said he went home that night and his son, who was only over a year old, came to give him a kiss goodnight and Aaron said he “immediately put up a wall.”

Fortunately, he said he realized his mistake and “brought him in, giving him a kiss goodnight.”

Power of the Pastor’s Presence

According to Wanda Collins of Baylor University,

“Every clergy or minister is a symbol of religious authority. By virtue of the pastoral office, the minister interprets religious truth, the meaning of life, the way of faith, and even the reality of God. Add to that status the power of the pastor’s presence through ministry, and the special influence a minister holds among his or her congregation.”
[“Silent Sufferers,” Baylor University, Wanda Lott Collins, https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/145861.pdf%5D

As I have written before, there is a significant power diferential between pastors and their subordinates or congregant members. As Collins notes, people under their care look to them for guidance that involves eternal life. Sexual advances by a pastor to those under his care are called “harassment” for a reason. It is more than sex that is at play in these cases.

When the pastor’s wife met with Aaron, she said he “needed to go to the church board because she couldn’t.” She feared being the one to bring down her pastor husband.

Yet, by end of week she was telling Aaron, “I’m such a horrible person. I can’t believe I did this.” She had completely “flipped,” confusing Aaron and Joyce. Aaron said, “She told us that everything she had told us was wrong. She asked us to forget about it and forgive her. She said that it was an attack of the enemy on our church and Pastor.”

Aaron and Joyce began trying to prayerfully figure out what to do next. Pastor Gene and his wife were leaving on a vacation at the end of the week and so Aaron arranged a meeting with the four of them before they left.

Aaron described the meeting as a “laying out boundaries” he had determined to enforce. He told the pastor,

He would not be in a room alone with the pastor.
He would not allow the pastor to be with his son.
Aaron would not allow the pastor to touch him.
Their ministry work needed to be in view of others.
The pastor would not enter the prayer room where Aaron kept the music when Aaron was there.

Pastor Gene responded, “Are you calling me a pervert?”

As Aaron explained, this showed Pastor Gene’s hand.

Aaron said, “Nope, never did that. Just laying out boundaries.”

Sacred Trust

Collins notes, “When the male clergy exploits his privileged position for personal sexual satisfaction, he violates a sacred trust that is contrary to Christian morals, doctrine, and canon laws. Because of the respect and even reverence the position carries, there is an imbalance of power and hence a vulnerability inherent in the ministerial relationship.
[“Silent Sufferers,” Baylor University, Wanda Lott Collins, https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/145861.pdf%5D

That “sacred trust” was broken. Aaron knew he was in a very vulnerable position and Pastor Gene was not likely to humble himself. Staying meant further violations and leaving meant the loss of jobs and income.

However, Aaron and Joyce knew they needed to leave the church. Aaron explained to me four perspectives he had as they left:

Aaron said his attitude was, “If Christ forgave me, I have to forgive.”
Many survivors of abusive leadership will understandably struggle with forgiveness in part because they have been taught it means to ignore the sins of their abuser. However, Aaron recognized the need for accountability in leadership. He said that if nobody had come to leadership to report the pastor’s toxic behavior, he wanted to be first. But, if others had, Aaron wanted to corroborate the testimony of those others.
Though it was not their responsibility or burden to bear, Aaron and Joyce sought to leave the church quietly for fear of the sheep scattering. Aaron said he didn’t want it all to blow up and the congregation’s faith to be hurt.
And finally, Aaron said if Pastor Gene wanted help, Aaron was not the one who could give it, but could lead the pastor down that road.

Leaving the Abuse

When Aaron announced his resignation, he saw Pastor Gene begin to cover his tracks.

When Aaron and Joyce met with him a week before his last sunday in the employ of the church, Pastor Gene said, “My wife is Norwegian and I don’t know what I’m going to do with her.”

He blamed her for misreading his actions saying, “I’m a touchy kind of guy. I hug. She doesn’t understand that.”

As Aaron and Joyce left the employ of the church, he spoke with three trusted pastors: his father, Joyce’s uncle, and another local pastor named Troy.

He and Joyce went to her uncle and said they were trying to “get out fast.” The uncle asked why? Aaron said, “It’s just important to get out.”

Joyce’s uncle said, “Is there an issue with pastor?”

Finally Aaron said, “Yeah.”

“Joyce’s Uncle asked her if we were leaving because Pastor was having an affair. Joyce did not respond. He asked if it was with a man. She was shocked and began to cry. Being that they already knew part of the situation, we relayed the whole story to them. They both said they were not surprised.”

The uncle shared about other pastors who had left shortly after working for Pastor Gene. He also spoke of rumors regarding Pastor Gene exhibiting homosexual behavior.

The uncle even described a night “when he got a call and the caller was inappropriate and he thought it sounded like Pastor Gene.”

Up to this point, Aaron and Joyce thought this was an isolated incident. However, the uncle’s comments added to the pastor’s wife’s revelation that it had happened before.

Joyce’s Uncle encouraged them to tell someone what was going on, but Aaron said they felt insecure, embarrassed, and confused.

However, Aaron and Joyce went to Aaron’s father, also a pastor. Aaron explained that his denomination is very concerned about slander and if Aaron accused Pastor Gene of anything, things would not go well for him. His father’s advice was helpful to Aaron. He told Aaron, “Don’t accuse, just share your story when reporting it.”

Blood on His Head

Pastor Troy came to Aaron and asked him why he was leaving the ministry. Again, Aaron tried to hide the true reason, but the pastor kept pushing him.

Aaron asked Pastor Troy, “Why are you pushing?” He replied, “Because I think I know why.” Aaron asked him what he knew and again the pastor said he had heard rumors. The pastor said, “I should have done something about it [when I heard the rumors]. I didn’t, so your blood is on my head. I’m not going to let that happen again.”

As they left the church quietly, they faced the anger and disappointment of family members who didn’t understand their move. How could they leave the church “in a lurch like this,” they asked.

Joyce’s mom shared her suspicions that the pastor had an affair, thinking he was involved in a sexual relationship with a woman. They explained Pastor Gene’s sexual advances. Obviously, it was not an affair as that would imply consent and willing emotional and/or sexual involvement between two adults.

Neither of which applies in Aaron’s case where Pastor Gene groomed and attempted to sexually assault him.

Her father told them they needed to tell others or “Pastor Gene will see it as weakness and he’ll do this same thing again.”

Reporting

After several months, having resigned, Aaron typed up his story and had it notarized. He made two copies “so it wouldn’t be forgotten.” He set up a meeting with the regional leadership of the denomination and read it to them.

Joyce’s father went with them to the meeting along with the other pastor to whom Aaron had shared the story.

The other pastor told Aaron he wanted to tell his own story and not have Aaron in the meeting when he did. He wanted to tell his story seperately from Aaron so the evidence would be presented in an “unbiased way.”

After nearly a year and a half, Aaron and Joyce had heard nothing. The other pastor began pushing the regional leadership to do something.

The leadership called Aaron about meeting with Pastor Gene because the pastor wanted to apologize to him. Aaron agreed to recieving a letter from Pastor Gene, but not a personal visit.

Pastor Gene wrote the letter and it was like so many apologies of abusers. Aaron described it as saying, “I’m sorry you feel badly that I did this to you.” Aaron said there was no actual apology.

The leadership asked Aaron what they should do about Pastor Gene. Aaron shared with them that it was their responsibility to hold him accountable, not Aaron’s.

Accountability

When I asked Aaron what has provided the most healing for him, he said he sought perspective on his ministry. Aaron said, “My dad is a pastor. My gramps is pastor. I have experience knowing that even though people are in the church, they are still people.”

Aaron went on,

“My relationship with God is not dependent on people. It’s got to be my relationship with the Lord . . . We often put people on pedestal because they are in leadership. We honor those people God has given us, but we must primarily honor the Lord. I can’t look to leaders to build my relationship with the Lord. . . Jacob wrestled with god, there is a wrestling we have to have with the Lord to grow.”

Aaron made much of building good and solid boundaries.

Though abuse is never the result of the victim’s sin, but rather the deeply rooted sin in the heart of the abuser, Aaron sought to be humble before the Lord and consider how he could grow, knowing he couldn’t fix Pastor Gene’s heart.

Beauty from Ashes

In parting, Aaron shared that he saw the sovereignty of God in bringing beauty from the ashes of the evil Pastor Gene perpetrated. Though he lost his “dream” job, he was given a beautiful mnistry planting a church, ministering alongside his wife to other broken people.

“He works all things together for our good. I have to believe that and I have seen God’s hand in that.”

Susie and the Dictator: Assisting an Authoritarian Pastor

Posted on April 19, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/jrn51vq49yb

Susie had a Master of Divinity and was working on a Doctor of Ministry degrees when I spoke with her. She had served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with a little under 500 members and served under the supervision of the Senior Pastor.

Pastor Pete was, by her description, the primary authority in the church.

Susie worked three years at the large, multi-campus church and was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks.

In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.

Susie explained to me the position of an assistant to a senior pastor provides unique opportunities and challenges. There is real pleasure of “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” as Susie noted. Susie enjoyed using her gifts to serve people in the church and it was evident that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation.

“You are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before,” as Susie explained.

She said, “I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well.” But her work administratively in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders and helpful procedures for all the teams.

However, her work at the church did not end well. She resigned from her position in large part due to the abusive leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Missions Committee

Not long after joining the staff, Susie was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to an African country. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a particular group of African churches in one country through short-term trips.

The pastor gave Susie much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization through which they would operate.

As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team, but explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany the pastor on a mission trip to a different African country.

Susie and the new committee were quite surprised. Neither Susie, nor her committee, had heard about this new work of the pastor’s. When an elder, who was on her committee, heard about it, he was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete.

Hoping to work with the pastor to straighten out what had to be a miscommunication, the elder explained gently their difficulty with the pastor’s conflicting mission trip. However, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had simply gotten his “feelings hurt.”

The elder, taken aback by the pastor’s callous response, explained the lack of respect shown by the pastor. But the pastor continued to laugh.

The two mission trips went on as planned.

The Financial and Relational Fallout

Following Susie’s trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the African churches with which they worked.

At the close of the service, Pastor Pete stood before the congregation and gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier.

The missions committee and team were astonished. Pastor Pete had personally directed the committee to raise the funds and materials for the churches visited by Susie’s group.

Despite her success, Susie was placed in an awkward position with the senior pastor. Her concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in the interview. She was able, on a day to day basis, to minister to the needs of her little flocks over which she was given authority.

However, seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging. And draining.

Susie observed multiple times when Pastor Pete was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care. The frequency of such events were instrumental in Susie’s resignation from her position. She said she never felt that Pastor Pete “respected” her though he “handed [projects] freely over” to her and never came back to ask how they were progressing.

For Susie, the lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, she realized much of the emotional injury only later. Susie explained,

“I didn’t realize at the time but now looking back and going through some spiritual abuse healing, there’s no question that I was deeply hurt. I felt betrayed.”

According to authors Freyd and Birrell,

“Our preliminary findings indicate that shame is indeed associated with exposure to traumas that have a high level of betrayal, but not to traumas with a low degree of betrayal.”
[Blind to Betrayal, location 485]

Limiting the Damage

Susie sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about their experiences. In order to cope with the emotional struggle, Susie explained,

“I think more than anything I reached out to some family in the mid-west because I really wanted to respect the church and I didn’t want to create any division.”

Despite having been placed in an uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off, Susie recognized that the onus of the failure was the senior pastor’s.

She explained that her concern that her reputation was damaged was limited by her knowledge that others knew her character and integrity. Her self-differentiation was evident in her challenging the pastor during two meetings with him. Self-differentiation [described here], as defined by psychologists and management experts as holding firm to convictions while wading the torrents of anxious, relational environments is a particularly difficult skill for those who are self-described “people-pleasers.”

She suggested to Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior. Susie believed her ultimate authority was God and not the senior pastor and this helped her respond with a significant level of self-differentiation.

There were many emotional challenges for Susie as she interacted with members of the congregation and her autocratic senior pastor. She noted that most of the leadership (Deacons, missions committee and Elders) in the church she served have since left the church primarily due to the authoritarian leadership of the senior pastor.

Because the frustration Susie experienced was not unique to her there was difficulty determining how to respond to the congregation in those times. Susie said she counseled others to “try to understand that even though you are part of a church and you are a part of a Christian organization, sometimes your first answer is to God and to God alone and you need to first and foremost seek Him.”

She also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18. However, as described in other articles, this is not always safe nor biblically necessary.

To complicate matters, Susie explained that Pastor Pete was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by her or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail. She considered Matthew 18 to be the model, yet Susie noted that “there’s nothing you are going to do to change this guy.”

The pastor rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.

In summary, Susie was cognizant that her responses to the pastors and to members of the church could “create a schism” or “division” and so restricted her communication to those either outside the church or directly involved in the conflicts.

Hands Tied

A pastor that leads autocratically may leave little room for those under their authority to use their gifts and practice effective ministry. Susie expressed frustration with having had her “hands tied.”

Susie was subjected to frustrating decisions made by Pastor Pete who had little interest in discussion or consideration of his assistant’s opinions.

When other mission team members sought Susie out to encourage her to talk to Pastor Pete, Susie told them,

“He knows the situation we are in and he has clearly told me ‘this is the decision I’ve made…this is where it’s going, and this is what’s going to happen.’ And so I have no control.”

Pastor Pete had given Susie a substantial amount of freedom to use her gifts in her position, however she had seen enough imposition of his will with church leaders that she was “not surprised,” but rather felt “bamboozled” by his decision.

However, upon her advice several mission team members continued to work with the African churches and mission agency, making other arrangements to continue in their commitment to the churches despite their own pastor having removed the church’s support of that particular mission.

As noted above, Susie also did extensive work to leave a legacy of organizational structure, fulfilling the purpose for which she was employed. Following her final worship service, she said, “I left my keys right in the middle of my desk and I walked out and I never heard a word from him.”

According to her account, ministry happened that has had long term effects on the congregations she served. Yet, the frustrations encountered dulled her hopes that she had effective ministry during those years of service.

What Can Be Learned

In the end, Susie finally considered the ministry “vision” of the senior pastor to be in conflict with her own and resigned her position, leaving with damaged emotions that would take years to heal.

Susie was employed by a church that, in policy, the elder board had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of control and poor decision-making.[1]

It was very apparent that the practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary and unquestioned importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.

Because strong, authoritative leaders can often be seen as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes more and more difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat. Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership appears to be destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

As Susie pressed on towards her goal of ministering to her congregations, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.

As was noted earlier, her coping strategies were focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful as they receive encouragement and possibly biblical advice.[2] However, the focus of the problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what they are facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the emotions is limited.

The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Susie’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire them and was under no real authority of elders. And Susie was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip. This leaves a gap in the healing process.

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor. This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person and there is just no way to get around it.

It was clear in the interview that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success. Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.

Susie took submissive postures with her senior pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.” Susie’s ability to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gives opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God is sovereign over the future of her ministry whether remaining in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or somewhere else, is of absolute importance and a lesson into which she gained valuable insight.

Recommendations for Churches and Organizations

Elders: It is advisable that the church consider seriously the Apostle Paul’s instruction that a plurality of elders be established to guide and shepherd the church.

Accountability: In addition, immediate response should be given to pastors that exhibit authoritarian practices. The church on the whole operates with no category for autocratic leaders. In my experience, it is only the leaders who have a moral failure such as sexual abuse or financial fraud that are held accountable by church boards. Leadership failure is much broader than these select moral faults. Though harder to distinguish, authoritarian leaders are just as damaging to the body of Christ and His witness.

Examinations: There should be much attention given for the identification of autocratic personalities when ordaining and calling pastors. We must understand the destruction caused by broken relationships with both assistants and members.

Seminary Training: In addition, seminaries should consider ways of providing graduates with the tools, emotionally and biblically, to confront autocratic leaders.

Summary

It is my hope that Susie’s story has provided a glimpse into the personal struggle that those under authority have when faced with autocratic leadership. Her story is not uncommon. Her story is an example of a church work environment that is destructive and extraordinarily complex because highly authoritarian leadership is destructive and extraordinarily complex.

The prophet Ezekiel, calling the religious leaders of Israel to repent of their wicked leadership said, rather than shepherding God’s sheep, healing their diseases and seeking after the lost, “you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty.”[3]

As Christian leaders, ministry is marked by both comfortable, life-giving relationships and relationships that are a battleground. Rardin says Christian leadership is to be “motivated by love for the Lord.”[4] This love gives strength in the difficulties pastors face in a job that is largely about relationships.

It is love that gives pastor’s assistants the motivation and roadmap for interacting with and supporting an autocratic senior pastor’s ministry. However, it is also love that knows when to stand firm, grasping deeply held convictions with integrity, when a senior pastor oversteps his biblical authority. This self-differentiation is of primary importance for assistants to authoritative pastors as they cope with the emotions that rise out of the brokenness of sinful man that is both their own and their employer’s.

God, in His grace, has prepared many excellent works for each Christian to accomplish.[5] May the church provide the environment and love necessary that every part of the body does its part for the body.

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

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

[3] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4.

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

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ephesians 2:10.

God’s Definition of Leadership: Concentrating on Responsibility Rather than Authority

Posted on April 10, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.

https://pearlsandswinesite.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/BLOG-41-Responsibility-vs-Authority.mp3

Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.

Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.

We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.

Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.

Is He Successful?

But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”

He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.

I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.

They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.

I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the church I own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.

The Shepherd

The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.

The Strongs Dictionary says,

“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary

We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.

Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.

A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.

But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.

Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13

Responsibility, Not Authority

Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.

A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.

He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.

The sheep do not fear him.

You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.

Not take authority.

Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.

And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.

The Long-Term View: The Lord is a Refuge for the Oppressed

Posted on March 23, 2023 by pearlsandswinesite

https://pearlsandswinesite.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BLOG-40-Long-Term-View.mp3

There is often a significant difference between the short-term and the long-term.

We see our oppressors (as the Bible calls them) winning the battle. Their violence goes unpunished. Their manipulation continues to create more supporters and greater isolation.

They arrogantly assume they have the upper hand. And in the short-term, they do.

Church leadership says, “It’s her story against his.”

Business leadership says, “He just doesn’t buy into our vision.”

The organization’s board says, “He is tough, but he gets the job done.”

None of them realize the damage that is being done. And the abuser continues to win the day.

So said Asaph in Psalm 73. The song writer gives a 3000 year old account of the sufferings of those under abuse in the home, workplace, and organization. He is frustrated by the evil he sees and the seeming hopelessness he finds to be his daily existence.

For I was envious of the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.
They are not in trouble as others are;
they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
violence covers them as a garment.
Their eyes swell out through fatness;
their hearts overflow with follies.
They scoff and speak with malice;
loftily they threaten oppression.
They set their mouths against the heavens,
and their tongue struts through the earth.
Therefore his people turn back to them,
and find no fault in them.
Psalm 73:3-10

But Asaph, like so many survivors of abuse, came to a place when clarity swept him up into the heavenlies.

Asaph sings,

But when I thought how to understand this,
it seemed to me a wearisome task,
until I went into the sanctuary of God;
then I discerned their end.
Truly you set them in slippery places;
you make them fall to ruin.
How they are destroyed in a moment,
swept away utterly by terrors!
Like a dream when one awakes,
O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.

Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

But for me it is good to be near God;
I have made the Lord GOD my refuge,
that I may tell of all your works.
Psalm 73:17-20, 23-26, 28

Asaph entered the sanctuary. We may have that moment in a worship service, or mountain hike, or moment of quiet meditation.

It is in that moment that the long-term saves us from the short-term.

No matter what others say. No matter the attitude of a pastor, elder, or CEO. No matter the short-sighted thinking of a board president. No matter a friend’s ignorance.

The LORD is with the oppressed. He is not with the abuser. They are destroyed in a moment.

The LORD is my strength. No opinion of man. No pride of position.

The LORD is my Refuge.

Do you need some help and encouragement? Go to our Resources page.

Demeaning and Manipulative

Seeking Accountability and Change

Dealing with 1 Peter and Matthew

No Change

Family Business

Party to the Abuse

The Return and the Church’s Response

Healing

References

Share this:

NOTES:

Share this:

John’s Story

The Pharisee

Stuck in the Middle

Shepherding the Agnostic

The Emotional Damage

Long Time of Healing

Sharing With Others

He’s in Charge

Quitting Leaders

Two to Tango

References

Share this:

Spreading Like a Tree

Hopelessness

Hopefulness

It’s Really Real

Share this:

I Am Feeble and Crushed

From Within

The Heart of the Matter

NOTE:

Share this:

The Sin of Others

A Helpful Example: Psalm 38

Deal With the Elephant

Share this:

Just the Way He Is

Power of the Pastor’s Presence

Sacred Trust

Leaving the Abuse

Blood on His Head

Reporting

Accountability

Beauty from Ashes

Share this:

The Missions Committee

The Financial and Relational Fallout

Limiting the Damage

Hands Tied

What Can Be Learned

Recommendations for Churches and Organizations

Summary

Share this:

Is He Successful?

The Shepherd

Responsibility, Not Authority

Share this:

Share this: