One of the most damaging things to an organization is a leader who is a hypocrite.
The Oxford Dictionary defines hypocrisy as
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
This is particularly true for a Christian organization. This is why:
“You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Romans 2:23-24
There Goes the Neighborhood
A recent article I read from the days of yore when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for their party’s nominations for President provides some interesting perspective.1
Leaders play a crucial role in establishing their organizations’ social structures, and successful organizations need to function like a neighborhood.Neighbors look out for each other and rally to work on projects, knowing that when they need help, other members of the community will step up to assist them.
When leaders say one thing and do another, they are destroying the “social structures” that make the organization operate effectively.
The article notes that followers pay attention to the leader’s commitment to their long-term well-being. If the leader’s integrity is questioned, then the “long-term” doesn’t look so good. Who can say what the leader says he will do is what he will indeed do?
If the Christian leader speaks adamantly of God’s Word as the fundamental driving force in his life and yet secretly, or not so secretly, ignores the Word in his everyday life, he is but a clanging gong (1 Corinthians 13). He cannot be trusted.
The “Best Practice Institute” puts it this way:
As the neighborhood dissolves, the organization functions more like a collection of strangers. When strangers interact, they have to settle up their debts in the moment. You can’t go to your local supermarket and borrow a dozen eggs because the supermarket can’t be confident that you’d show up later to pay for them. You can go to your neighbor and borrow eggs, though, because you have a trusted relationship.
The integrity of the leader matters. Hypocrisy, the failure to conform to those beliefs of which the leader espouses, destroys trust, engagement, and even the integrity of followers. Followers follow their leader.
Words and Actions
A consistent part of the Biblical witness and as it turns out, the perspective presented by this article, is that actions really matter; in fact, they show what the leader has purposed in his heart.
We show whether we really believe our beliefs by our actions. And when it is the law of God as Romans says that we are proclaiming as the system of our beliefs, then the breaking of those proclamations destroy our credibility. Leaders are on display nearly everyday of their lives. This becomes incredibly important.
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, goes on to say:
[A]nd if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?
Romans 2:19-21
What it means to be taught in Scripture is that we take the words down deep and live those words in our actions. Both things. It is not about gaining a boatload of knowledge and ignoring it when putting our hands to the plow.
Education in the Hebrew sense meant to be overcome by the words towards behavior that reflected that knowledge.
What is the Impact?
Paul says to the Romans that the witness of those who ignore their beliefs—behaving hypocritically—destroys the witness they have to the watching world.
Paul uses the “Gentiles” as the intended audience to the hypocrisy because at that time, those who were not Jews were those who were mostly outside the newborn Christian religion. They were only beginning to come in faith in Jesus Christ. Paul was deeply concerned that these people who were an important focus of his ministry would not be turned away from Jesus by His followers acting hypocritically.
How do we apply this to our organizational leaders?
We must hold high standards for our leaders. Mind you, our leaders will always fail. We are sinful people, no matter how high our position is. Each will fail in various ways.
However, along with those failures, humility—a common theme for these pages—will be evident in those same leaders who blow it by espousing one belief and acting in another. These leaders will recognize their failure, confess that failure willingly, turn from those failures (repentance), and finally make restitution happily.
These humble leaders are those who truly have a belief they proclaim, but sometimes fall to the temptation of expediency—or concupiscence—and in turn need to confess and make right.
But, keep in mind, there are failures that disqualify our leaders. Depending on the kind of leadership and authority they have been given, the failure may be such that even their humility cannot prevent long-term distrust.
In these cases, the leader should willingly step down from his position and seek a new “calling” in God’s kingdom.
Leaders need the trust of followers and hypocrisy is one sure way to destroy that.
Recently, while attending an abuse conference, I was discussing with another attendee the suffering of those who are having to put on the good face for their mission supporters back home while being tormented by their missionary spouse on the field.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for mission leaders to be abusive to spouses, children, and mission subordinates.
We discussed that there are many seemingly insurmountable difficulties in getting free from an abusive spouse. But when that also involves living in a foreign country and being dependent on mission supporters for income, there seems to be another layer of the insurmountable.
Lisa’s story has a happy ending but it meant years and years of torment for her.
Lisa told me that when she was eleven years old, she knew that God was calling her to be a missionary. She had seen an old black-and-white film about African mission work and she immediately knew it was for her.
She spent the years following that childhood dream leading others to Christ and never imagined being married. She would be married to Christ on the mission field.
But then she met Byron who had aborted his university undergraduate degree in order to embark on a seven-year theological studies course. His seeming commitment to Christ and a future as a missionary “touched” her and they were married.
Addictions
What she didn’t know until much later was Byron’s developing addiction to alcohol and later drugs.
He had been working at a vineyard while doing his theological studies and had full access to the wine cellar. It likely started with “just a small sip of free wine” which Lisa imagined he would describe as “the perfect solution to cope with the stress of the high demands he was subjected to, together with his studies.”
In addition, his smoking, which she did know about, drove her crazy. Lisa explained, “He took an oath on the day we got married, he would stop smoking.”
Lisa and Byron went on the African mission field.
The smoking didn’t stop. In fact, Byron began to shame Lisa that she wasn’t doing enough to help him kick the habit. He told her that she had “failed to help him properly” . . . shifting the blame . . . in spite of his vow at their wedding. She did all she could, even attending a group with him to help him stop.
Then as they pursued the Lord’s work on the mission field he began using tranquilizers. She explained to me,
“As head of the missionary outpost he had free access to the medications of the small mission hospital. Although all missionaries could not have any alcohol whatsoever in their homes, I only years later discovered that Byron always asked visitors from afar, to ‘quietly bring me some alcohol from the village – just please, don’t let Lisa see’ and hid it somewhere.”
Byron insisted, according to Lisa, that every afternoon he needed to sleep and he used the drugs to help him forget his difficulties on the mission.
Lisa sought to convince Byron to exercise and eat healthy foods to help with his stress but he responded, “I simply swallow something – that’s much easier, faster and more effective!”
Brain Damaged Wife
Lisa had two brain aneurysms after nearly 30 years of marriage. She suffered through a 15-hour surgery that saved her life. Their congregation had prayed fervently and they considered it a miracle that she pulled through.
Byron, on the other hand, was now angry that his well-trained wife could not do all she had formerly done for him. Initially, Lisa saw everything double and could not remember things of which she always used to remind him.
Lisa said,
“Byron had no sympathy, just anger about what I left undone, and he angrily humiliated me as ‘brain damaged’ and presented himself as the poor husband of the brain damaged wife, eventually starting to beat me.”
The Physical Abuse
Lisa told me that when she said anything about addiction or dependence he would beat and even kick her. She eventually had “three orthopedic operations: a torn biceps in one arm, a torn triceps in the other arm and a torn knee ligament leading to a full knee replacement.”
“He often used his fists on me when we were alone, still presenting himself as the ‘victim of the brain damaged wife’ for his escalating anger and sarcasm.”
She said, “I was a prisoner in my own house. I did not want my children to know.”
But she held out hope that once Byron “understood the danger of the addiction he was gambling with, he would be willing to go for rehab. This, however, never happened.”
Lisa sought out help from counselors for the physical abuse but she was continually advised to just “love him more.” If a therapist said anything else to the couple, Byron would refuse to see him again, claiming they “don’t know what they are talking about.”
She was not realizing that Byron was “completely addicted and not at all interested in rehab.”
Lisa explained,
“As his beatings became more severe, twice a doctor reported physical abuse to the police, who wanted to arrest him. I refused for the sake of my children, and the officer assured me that the case always remains legal and valid and may be presented at any later sign of abuse. He said, ‘And he will be arrested immediately and sleep in the tjoekie – he must learn!'”
This finally put the physical abuse of decades to an end.
The Children
At the young age of 56 Byron was “respectfully requested” to resign from the mission due to the decline in his work because Lisa was unable to prop up his ministry anymore.
Lisa explained to me, “The children sensed the tension and anger in the house.” Byron kept on emphasizing his wife’s ‘brain damage’ as an explanation for the escalating tension in the house.
But, when the children or anyone visited, Lisa said Byron was the “friendly, good-natured father and loving husband.”
But he “immediately turned into a monster once everyone left.”
Others could see, however. Once a professional she confided in told her, “Lisa, I see nothing of Jesus in Byron! He is a total addict!”
The Narcissist
In time, Lisa was able to put a name to the abusive missionary husband. She described him as a “covert narcissist.” She studied the traits of narcissism and realized that he had all of the traits described in the literature.
And there was the physical abuse and the addictions on top of that.
What she learned was that a narcissist is a perfect actor and liar. He was quite “convincing how much he adored his beautiful wife while abusing her behind closed doors.”
“In the end I had to inform my children of the dark truth that their father is a narcissist, of his addiction and his beatings of me, leading to the orthopedic operations that always ‘had other names.’ It was a huge shock for them, and Byron immediately started doing what all narcissists do: He twisted truths and sadly even told outright lies about me to isolate me from my children . . . leaning on the fact that he is their father and they have a bond of blood with him.”
Lisa sadly said that initially he successfully alienated the children from her, isolating her from them to enable him to posess and control the family.
No More Harm
Lisa noted that what we sow, we reap.
Lisa told me,
“I often prayed to God, relying on the assurance from God that He lets ‘all things work together for our good’ (as promised in Romans 8:28). When I started praising Him for that as in Philippians 4:6, I realized that God had actually allowed and then actually used Byron’s addition and resulting illness in my favor . . . to let him reap what he has sown all his life and now helplessly and harmlessly sit on an oxygen machine and in a wheelchair! Praise Him!”
She said, “Byron’s addiction and lifestyle of 60 years finally led to two heart attacks, ending in heart failure, kidney failure, severe emphyzema, eventually requiring him to be on oxygen full time due to less than 25% lung capacity.”
He now lives in a nursing home, moving about in a wheelchair in which he is pushed outside to get a smoke, then returned “urgently to his oxygen afterwards.”
But now, Byron can no longer harm Lisa.
She takes him his medication or cigarettes every eight days or so and if he makes a “sarcastic remark” she takes her leave.
He can no longer harm Lisa.
She exclaimed, “I am free!”
“The very thing that was my cross for so many years – his addiction and his abuse – has now borne fruit for him to set me free.”
Lisa knows that she did all she could to help Byron.
“And now, after more than a year in the nursing home on oxygen, I can in fact slowly start praying for him, releasing him, for my own sanity, as God teaches me. Because, just like the cruel and sarcastic Roman soldiers mockingly nailing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to the cross, he has no idea whatsoever what he is doing.”
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.”
One of the great [supposed] mysteries of abusive relationships is why a victim continues to return to their abuser? What is it that drives a survivor of domestic violence back to the scene of the crime multiple times?
One survey of domestic abuse survivors discovered that on average, victims return to their abusers 6.3 times.
Why do we do stay under abusive leadership in Christian organizations?
There is a significant difference between being married and serving under a toxic boss in the workplace. But, for those who serve in Christian ministries, there may be some similarities that make it particularly hard to leave an abusive leader behind.
The following are some of the reasons given by domestic violence experts for why a victim returns to her abusive partner. And for each, how these same reasons pop up within the toxic workplace.
Number 1
“The victim feeling that the relationship is a mix of good times, love and hope along with the manipulation, intimidation and fear.”[2]
There are at least a couple ways to look at this when staying with a toxic leader.
First, we know that the Lord turns evil into good on a regular basis. He is gracious in that way.
Unfortunately, we sometimes stick it out, living in fear and suffering because we have a false understanding of suffering for Christ. We might think we are “suffering for Christ” and thinking we have a duty to stay.
It is important to remember firstly that when God’s people are told they may suffer for the Lord and should remain in that place of suffering, it is normally in the context of having no other option.
Being a Christian means we do not deny Him to the world…and that can bring persecution and suffering. (2 Tim. 2:12) We cannot leave the world and so must suffer for Jesus because we are His people.
Also consider Peter’s call to slaves in 1 Peter 2:18f. Peter tells them to hang in there with a good attitude. Where did they have to go? They could not simply quit their jobs. In addition, Peter goes on through the end of his letter talking generally about suffering as a Christian. Again, this suffering was unjust and due to being stuck in their circumstances.
An employee of a Christian organization is not stuck in his place like a slave or a Christian in the first century suffering under a government that outlawed Christianity. Just as Jesus, Paul, and Peter provide examples of fleeing from suffering, we have that option when facing off with a toxic leader. [See Jn. 12:36, Acts 9:23-25, 12:6-17]
Secondly, many feel that the good times outweigh the bad. They continue to look back on their ministry with rose-colored glasses and see all the good they believe they have done. They fail to see all the trauma that it is causing them in the now. They may not realize that every spiritual and emotional wound they suffer carries a bag full of physical effects – negatively changing neural pathways, creating unfounded fears and illnesses from the stress. [See this blog]
It is like the frog who is being boiled. It starts out cold and the progressive increase in temperature is so gradual it is imperceptible to the frog. In the end, he boils to death. So, the one who continually looks back or forward through lenses that make it impossible to see the evil being done to them and others.
Unfortunately, over time, those who remain committed to these toxic leaders find their spiritual, emotional, and physical lives chipped away. Often, when they finally jump out of the pot they despise missions, Christian organizations, the church, or even Christ.
Number 2
“Nowhere Else to Go.In a survey on DomesticShelters.org, 43 percent of respondents said they returned to an abuser after finding out their local domestic violence shelter could not accommodate them. Lack of having somewhere to go (e.g. no friends or family to help, no money for hotel, shelter programs are full or limited by length of stay)”
The variation on this for the employee of a toxic Christian organization is that they have no other job prospects or they fear the shame of returning from the mission field.
This, combined with number 1, can be deadly to the Christian.
It is scary to step out of what you have become accustomed. It was maybe your dream job when you got it, and to admit seeming defeat is frightening.
Be assured, joining a Christian organization is almost always a shock. The red flags are not always visible and rarely are we particularly open to seeing them when looking for a job. It is extremely hard to believe that Christian leaders can be so wicked.
My own parents saw the toxins much sooner than I did in our Christian ministry.
It is important to remember that the Lord has taken you, led you, and provided for you in the past and He can in the future. If this job is causing mental, spiritual, and physical health problems, then trust the Lord and get out.
Number 3
“Fear...Domestic violence is rooted in a desire to control another individual through coercion or threats. An abuser may tell the survivor that if they don’t come back home, the abuser will find them and harm or kill them, their children, their extended family or their beloved pets.”
This is really a variation on number 2. Employees feel trapped in that they know they will not receive a good reference if they leave the organization. Again, they fear being back in the chase for a job…and do so without a good reference from their abusive boss.
Unfortunately, this can be a real problem. Yet, again we have to remember who is in control of our future. Does the Lord know the mess you are in? Yes. Does He care that you are in that mess? Yes. Can He rescue you and bring you to a land of milk and honey? Absolutely.
Trust Him. Get out. Quick.
Number 4
“Psychological Control or Brainwashing.Many abusers use these tactics, which may also be called emotional abuse or coercive control, in order to convince the survivor that the only person who can truly love them or keep them safe is the abuser.”
One toxic organization variation on this one is the development of image. Common to most toxic organizations is the leader’s image building. The leaders will go to great lengths to build up the image of the organization in the minds of anyone who will listen.
And it is likely you have thirsted for that koolaid in your pride of ministry. You wanted to hear how great your ministry was…especially compared to other ministries. You soaked up their boasts.
Leaders say such things as, “We do ministry the best of them all” or “God has specially blessed us in ways other ministries just don’t have” are said over and over until they truly believe their own press.
And you have likely believed the press as well. I remember coming to that realization after six years with our organization. I found myself constantly comparing our wonderful ministry with others.
But, remember, a toxic organization is not particularly blessed. Nor does it do ministry the best of them all. In fact, they are the worst. There really are organizations out there that practice love and integrity with all their stakeholders.
Wouldn’t you rather be part of that?
Get Out. Now.
I can say this because I finally did. But, I know how difficult it really is.
It took me years to get it. I didn’t listen to others. I found great pride in my organization. I couldn’t imagine doing anything else.
Each of the above reasons why a survivor continues to return to her abuser were true of me staying in my organization.
But, it is not too late. Honestly evaluate the benefits of the trauma you are facing and horrendous witness to Christ your organization is displaying.
When I resigned from a toxic mission organization, I needed a friend. I had several, but Sam was an important one and he was there all along preparing me for the stand I needed to take.
Mind you, we knew we were called to our life there. But, how we got there was nearly miraculous.
It was on our early, cool morning walk in September of 2002 when my wife cut through the maze of all my struggles and fears and prayed, “God, show us what you want us to do.” A mission work to Austria we founded been started and was floundering. I was frustrated with God’s planning. What was God doing in a work that I believed to be valuable to Him?
My wife wanted the Lord to show us whereHe wanted us to be.
I wanted Him to get us to Austria.
I thought I had a great idea for the use of my gifts in short-term missions and I wanted the Lord to go along with it. I wanted the Lord to fix the Austria mission and my wife sought God’s guidance in a much bigger way.
Neither of us had any idea God’s answer would be sending us to the continent of Africa.
Thus begins the story of To Africa On a Lark. The book was written to be a readable primer for those preparing to cross-cultures on the mission field. It is not a text but a story of God’s gradual unfolding of his purposes for the Dehnert family. Through their life in Malawi, Africa the Dehnert family learned what it meant to bring a razor to open the presents that their Malawian hosts offered them.
Book by the Editor of The Pearls and Swine Site
Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.
What others say about the book:
[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.
J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English
What a wonderful book! You have beautifully combined storytelling of your and your family’s journey and experiences with scripture, spiritual experiences, music, and observations of Malawian and Western cultures. It is a great reference for anyone working and living in Malawi or those who support programs in Malawi.
Jeanine Jackson – Former United States Ambassador to Malawi, State Department Leadership Consultant
Historians study something called ‘movement’ — how one people group becomes a different people group simply by moving into another people group. The Dehnert tribe is a perfect microcosm of ‘movement’ – and we are all better for it. This book would be helpful for anyone considering cross-cultural service. For everyone else, especially we ‘experts,’ this book is a helpful lesson in humility – learning again the limits of our learning!
Rev. Sam McDonald – Pastor, Faith Presbyterian – Brookhaven, Mississippi and Former Missionary to Malawi
Any time we minister and work in a cross-cultural context —in our churches, communities, or overseas — we have to be aware of the biases and prejudices we bring with us. Very often, almost always, we are blind to them and they keep us from sensing, learning, growing and serving because of our own pride and arrogance that we do not even know are there.
I think [To Africa On a Lark] would be helpful to anyone considering any type of meaningful engagement in a cross-cultural setting. Missions committees would benefit by the “insider perspective” it offers and could help them be more wise and thoughtful in the works they support and encourage. Also, anyone thinking about being called to missions would benefit by reading this.
Brian Carlisle – Former Headmaster and Missionary, ABCCA – Malawi, Africa
This is part 4 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of Matthew 7:1-6. This site is largely based on this passage as evidenced by the title.
In Matthew 7:1-6, Jesus is coming to the close of his Sermon on the Mount. He challenges his hearers, “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.”[1]
In verse six, Jesus goes on to say, “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.”[2]
In my family’s experience under toxic leaders, this passage became very important. For several years it softened our hearts, helping us to give the benefit of the doubt to the founders of the mission, who were toxic in their treatment of missionaries and nationals alike.
When this passage was shared with me by a friend as we struggled with whether or not to engage our leaders, it took on new meaning. My wife and I had never really paid attention to the final 10 words . . . words that made an enormous difference in our engagement with the CEO.
I wanted to know in my research if others saw what we saw in Jesus’ words. I interviewed numerous mission organization managers and asked if they applied this passage when interacting with their toxic supervisor.
Judge Not – Section 1
Deirdre is a missionary in a developing country serving in an orphanage and school.
She focused on the first section of the passage and had not really considered the second. Deirdre noted her discomfort in hers and other missionaries’ lack of application. She said, “We were all judging [the toxic leader] even though we shouldn’t have been.”
However, she explained, “It was so continuous, all the little things she did, that it was hard not to.”
She found it very difficult to simply overlook the leader’s failings in her authoritarian and demeaning treatment of nationals and staff. But, Dierdra believed the passage was teaching that their judgments of the mission leader were inappropriate.
Adam was a faculty member and interim Director of a college ministry in a developing country. He said,
I think I used it privately to calm myself after any perceived wrong doing or pattern of behavior. After grieving and being angry for a time that passage would come to mind and I would use it against myself to call me back into line. That I was as capable of the same kinds of things, same kinds of attitudes and actions, as the [CEO] was.
Again, Adam focused on the first section and sought to calm his anger at the actions of the CEO. He felt that if he would cease from judging, viewing the leader as a sinner just as he was, he could keep his relationship intact with the boss and continue ministering with the mission.
Graham worked for a large Christian organization and confronted the founder with two other Christian leaders. When considering Jesus’ imperative, “take the log out of your own eye,” Graham said, “We tried very hard not to be doing any finger wagging. Like, ‘You are a horrible person and the rest of us are bastions of virtue.’ We tried in all humility to bring him to an awareness of what he had done and its effect on the organization.”
He and his friends were rebutted and he lost his managerial position as a result of their confrontation despite their attempt to apply the first section to their confrontation.
Eugene, who worked with an international evangelical mission agreed, arguing it was “not a judging situation as [much] as a helping situation.” Eugene said he was trying to assist the CEO.
He went on to say he was “trying to help him in his own development of his understanding of himself.” In his evangelistic mission, Eugene also approached the boss, a friend for several years, in humility. He wanted to encourage the CEO as a Christian brother.
But, Eugene was rebuffed and lost his job.
Ben explained the “judging” section of the passage (Matthew 7:1-5) did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. He worked for an educational mission overseas. His application of the first section was to his relationship with his toxic leaders after leaving the organization.
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.” He believed he needed to turn judgment over to the Lord and move on in his own life knowing God would do what was best.
Casting Pearls – Section 2
While still with the organization, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” His application of the second section was based on the pigs trampling the pearls sent their way.
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.”
Ben believed it would do no good to cast his pearls (give godly advice) before the swine (toxic bosses). They would simply ignore or reject his views.
My Opinion
Unfortunately, none of my interviewees attempted to interpret or apply the final 10 words of the passage. This is common for Christians who are suffering under abusive employers. I would suggest there are at least three reasons for this oversight.
Discomfort with making a judgment after Jesus has already said not to judge!
Jesus spends five verses emphasizing that we should not judge others. He provides wonderful metaphors that burn his teaching into our hearts. The second section has only one verse and seems to contradict the first five verses.
However, these two seemingly contradictory teachings actually go wonderfully together. The first emphasizes how we go to a brother who has sinned and humbly instruct him. The second describes the kind of so-called-brother of whom we need to stay clear.
In the first case, we need not fear. He may disagree with us, but generally as we go in humility, he will respond in humility. But, in the second case, we can expect, because of earlier experience or other people’s experiences, the brother will respond very negatively and it is likely we will get hurt as they “turn to attack.”
An excessive attention to the pigs “trampling” the pearls.
I spent many years considering only the fact that the pig may “trample” the good words I bring.
He will ignore and reject. Why waste my time? I received some comments on that from my interviewees, but just like me, they did not read on. If the pig may just trample the pearls, we can always give it a shot . . . what’s the worst thing that can happen? They reject the wisdom . . . no big deal.
But, the passage goes on. It goes on to say that they are dangerous and should be avoided.
A discomfort with calling someone a “dog” or “pig.”
After being told to be careful in our judgments – remember, there has to be judgment if you are going to go to a brother who has sinned – we are told by Jesus to judge that a person is a pig or a dog. This does not seem to fit.
But, as I said above, Jesus is speaking to two different circumstances. We must judge whether our brother is one who may respond in humility to instruction or will turn and hurt us. This is very important in our engagement with toxic bosses. It is a matter of life-giving or not . . . a matter of safety.
Placing ourselves voluntarily in places of abuse is not required by our Lord. We are not normally called to seek out a fight in which we are guaranteed to lose our lives.
Jack and I served the same Christian organization. When he left the mission field, he vowed that he would never work for another Christian organization again. He had developed a distrust for those who name the Name of Christ, but treat their employees (and other stakeholders) like dirt.
Now, after several years of healing and vocational development, Jack has begun looking at job possibilities in Christian organizations once again. His love for what the church of Christ can do for the building of God’s Kingdom is pulling him back. As we talked, his concern was how to determine if an organization is toxic before signing on the dotted line.
What questions can you ask when the typical interviewer says, “Are there questions you have for us?” What steps should you take to identify an organization that is toxic? This is what I found in my research to identify questions you can ask and steps you can take to make wise organizational choices.
If being interviewed by the boss:
Because you are primarily looking for toxic leaders, you may be speaking directly to one in your interview. If that is the case, these questions are hopefully non-intimidating and you might get honest answers that will point to problems if there are any.
What is the average length of employment at the organization?
Does the organization have a seemingly high resignation (or firing) rate? Is it due to the pay or because they are particularly hard to work for? Many Christian organizations pay less, but have high loyalty rates. If they have neither, there may be red flags flying.
If an employee has difficulty with a manager or other employee, is there a policy / process for complaints in the organization?
This commonly overlooked area of ministry development can go a long ways in making the organization toxin-proof. Is there a clear policy that shows respect for individuals and gives the employee a safe way to complain of mistreatment? Of course, the organization may have a policy in place but fail to implement it well.
How do managers in the organization seek to develop and use the God-given gifts of their subordinates?
Ultimately, a Christian organization (or any other for that matter) should be seeking to “take dominion” in the use of employee God-given gifts and talents used for His glory. Leaders in a Christian ministry ought to have considered how they are fulfilling the dominion mandate or they may be seeking to develop their own image and seek their own glory through the work of others.
Ask these questions of Employees:
Discussing the organization with employees is probably the most important step you should take. But, as you begin to gain insight to the organization from the grass-roots level, there is one very important thing to keep in mind: Often employees do not agree on whether a leader is toxic or not. As Kusy and Holloway, in a very helpful book called “Toxic Workplace,” say,
“A tip in recognizing toxicity is that there may be (and likely are) different perspectives about the toxic person; there may even be some people who do not experience the person’s toxicity at all. This is especially true for those who are in a position of power or control access to powerful others, perks, or any number of resources the toxic individual wants.” [1]
There are some big-picture ideas that you need to understand as you interview employees of the organization. Kusy and Holloway say, “When we examined the behavioral items statistically, we arrived at three primary types of behaviors that put a frame around how to identify [toxic leaders] in a simple and straightforward fashion: shaming, passive hostility, and team sabotage.” [2]
Here are some ideas:
Do you consistently feel valued by your bosses?
Is the leader demeaning or derogatory? Do they act like a parent disciplining a child when criticizing their subordinates or other managers? Do they intentionally embarrass others?
Are your ideas asked for and considered in decision-making?
Are the leaders team-oriented? Do they see a win by a subordinate as a win for the team? In Biblical language: Do they believe their subordinates are creative image-bearers of God so they actually believe they can learn from them?
Have you, or someone you know, questioned an idea of the boss / team leader? How did that go?
This could be either a matter of a leader’s sin or simply a leader’s idea that others disagreed with. Usually, toxic individuals will either blow a fuse or shift blame for any implied shortcomings…oftentimes no matter how small an issue it is. In Biblical language: They are unrepentant – unwilling to admit wrong. Be attentive to answers that suggests the managers have little or no humility.
Is there respect shown among leaders and followers for other organizations than their own?
Are the leaders very territorial? Do they suggest, “Our organization does it the very best way.” “If you aren’t for us, you are against us.” Even if you get this sense from the employees, it is possible brainwashing has come from the leadership.
Do the leaders change decisions “and claim no knowledge of the initial conversation and decision.” [3]
This is common to those toxic leaders who are “passive-aggressive.” The employee may think the leader is very busy, has a lot on their plate, and “probably just forgets things.” They may also go behind a co-worker’s back without discussing issues directly with them. These are particularly manipulative people.
Do the leaders trust you to follow through with the details of your job? Do they trust their teams to fulfill the organization’s mission?
Micromanaging is a destructive and toxic approach to management. If the subordinates cannot do their job and will not deal with details, the manager may feel the need to do this. This kind of environment may be or is possibly in process of becoming toxic systemically. This may not mean there is toxic leadership, but by talking to several employees you should be able to get an idea of whether it is employee or leadership induced micromanagement.
There are many other questions that can be asked, keeping in mind the bigger issues and forming questions that get to the heart of those issues. I have found that most people do not really understand when they are in a toxic environment. Often they have drunk deeply from the Kool-aid and refuse to see their organization as toxic. Therefore, you must get the answers by means of non-threatening questions and listen closely for what may be underlying their responses.
Do you have additional ideas born from experience? Please share them with us.
Notes
1 Kusy, Mitchell. Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power (Kindle Locations 378-380). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
