Category Archives: Pastoral Abuse

Followership: Absalom, Mephiosheth, Ziba, and Shimei

Posted on by
Reply

Can you imagine a family member turning against your leadership? But, let’s up the ante…can you imagine your son seeking not only your failure as a leader, but your death?

In this blog I normally write about leadership failure. But in this article I want to discuss a good leader’s “followership.”

Rebel in the Ranks

It is hard to fathom the depth of sorrow the rebellion of a child is to a father.

God’s anointed King David faced off against just such child. Absalom, King David’s son, determined to wrest David’s kingship from him. The story really begins when Absalom’s sister, Tamar, was raped by another of David’s sons, Amnon. Absalom is of course very angry at Amnon, but rather than seek true justice, he conceived of a plan to murder Amnon.

After he has his servants murder Amnon while his brother is drunk, Absalom flees for his life. David, his father, is heartbroken at the loss of Absalom, though 2nd Samuel notes he is “comforted about Amnon, since he was dead.” [2 Samuel 13:39]

Intertwined in the story of Absalom is that of Ziba, Mephibosheth, and Shimei. Like Absalom, they are caught up in the politics of followership. Each has a story to tell.

Absalom

When Absalom is called and welcomed back to Jerusalem by David, he returns the favor and love of his father by conspiring to take away his crown. When it is found out, King David runs for his life, leaving Jerusalem with his family and servants. He says,

“Arise, and let us flee, or else there will be no escape for us from Absalom. Go quickly, lest he overtake us quickly and bring down ruin on us and strike the city with the edge of the sword.”

[2 Samuel 15:14]

He saves his family and servants and in fact the whole city from Absalom’s invading army. He is thinking not just of his own life, but that of the Jerusalem residents. The city would have suffered from a battle between David and Absalom.

Ziba

This is where Ziba comes in. Ziba is the servant of Mephibosheth, who is the crippled son of Saul. David had shown mercy to Mephibosheth, the former king’s son, after he succeeded Mephibosheth’s father as King of Israel.

This, in itself, was an extraordinary act of kindness in that it was common to kill off all relatives of the overcome king. Yet, David brings Mephibosheth into his home and provides all his needs…even a place at his table.

However, as David is leaving the city, Ziba comes to David explaining,

“Behold, [Mephibosheth] remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back the kingdom of my father.’” 

[2 Samuel 16:3]

Ziba throws Mephibosheth under the bus and David hands over all that is owned by Mephibosheth to Ziba as he comes along with David.

Shimei

As David is leaving the city, he is cursed and assaulted by Shimei, another relative of Saul. Shimei comes out and throws rocks at David and calls him a “worthless man.”

One of David’s commanders suggests to David that he take the man’s head off. It certainly was no way to treat the King and any king worth his salt would respond decisively to such disrespect.

A Mixed Bag

Each of these followers were good or bad examples of what it means to be a subordinate.

David’s own son, Absolom is a coniving and wicked son. He clearly cannot see beyond his own desires and lust for power. And yet, David loves him. He weaps for him. He longs for him. David deeply mourns the loss of Absalom when he is killed by Joab, David’s military commander.

And the king was deeply moved and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept. And as he went, he said,

“O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”  

[2 Samuel 18:33]

Can you hear the depth of his sorrow in those words?

I remember studying a motet from the Renaissance era [“Absalom, Fili Mi” by Josquin de Prez] that very beautifully captured David’s emotions. It ends with the the singer (David) singing the lowest note written up to that time in music history describing his desire to die in Absalom’s place.

David loved his son.

Ziba, like Absalom seeks his own desires as well. He appears to look to gain position by standing between Mephibosheth and David. David rewards Ziba’s apparent loyalty to him, but when he finds that he has deceived him he does an interesting thing: he allows him to keep half of what he had promised him. A rather gracious response to one who deserved to be put in jail!

Shimei, another example of rebellion, is treated with extraordinary kindness by David originally. As David flees, is cursed by Shimei, and encouraged to do him in, David instead suggests that God is speaking through Shimei. It is an amazing act of humility on David’s part. Rather than kill Shimei at that time, David trusts the Lord to vindicate him. He says,

“Leave him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look on the wrong done to me, and that the Lord will repay me with good for his cursing today.”

[2 Samuel 16:11-12]

And then there is Mephibosheth.

Mephibosheth

Finally, Mephibosheth, who spends David’s exile under the bus, welcomes David back to Jerusalem following the putting down of Absalom’s rebellion. David clearly questions Mephibosheth with suspicion, but finds out that Mephibosheth had not joined the rebellion but in fact had been deceived by the servant.

Mephibosheth expresses genuine gratitude and love for David and David receives his explanation and returns half of that which he promised to Ziba when he was fleeing. Mephibosheth even expresses his humility and love by saying,

“Oh, let him take it all, since my lord the king has come safely home.”

[2 Samuel 19:30]

Gratitude

It is the example of Mephibosheth that should drive our understanding of following Christ: Gratitude.

There will never be a leader like Jesus Christ [as noted in an earlier blog]. He has given us everything we have without anything required of us.

David, as a quality leader, did similarily for Mephibosheth.

And Mephibosheth sits at his feet in gratitude. He recognizes the prized position he has is one of extraordinary privilege. He does not deserve it. He cannot work for it. It is pure grace.

May we, as leaders, be those who our subordinates look to with gratitude and point them to the ultimate leadership in Christ. And may we, as followers, recognize our God-given leaders as those to be followed with gratitude to the Lord.

Note:

Are you interested in helping Pearls and Swine develop Leadership Curriculum? Click on this link to take a Leadership Survey. It is short and will be very helpful.

Jabez & An Enlarged Heart

Posted on by
Reply

A number of years ago, the “prayer of Jabez” became the in thing. This short prayer recorded in 1st Chronicles 4 became the subject of books and articles globally. 

The chronicler tells of Jabez, a man more “honorable than his brothers.” Jabez prays that God would bless him and “enlarge [his] border.” In addition, he asked that God’s hand would be with him and he would be kept from harm “so that it might not bring [him] pain.” [1 Chronicles 4:9-10]

Scripture says Jabez’ name means pain. His mother gave him the name, she said, “Because I bore him in pain.“

1st Chronicles says, “God granted what he asked.”

Before the Story Begins

But, before this story even begins, we understand that Jabez was truly a God-follower. He was “honorable.” And he was seeking God’s help through prayer, not his own ability, to get more wealth—in essence what enlarging his border would do. He was dependent on the Lord.

So, how did Jabez get to that point?

I would suggest that it came from an “enlarged heart.” The psalmist in Psalm 119 says,

I have chosen the way of faithfulness;
I set your rules before me.
I cling to your testimonies, O Lord;
let me not be put to shame!
I will run in the way of your commandments
when you enlarge my heart!

[Psalm 119:30-32 (ESV)]

Notice, the psalmist says he had chosen “the way of faithfulness” and was clinging to the Word of God. But, note that he ends this paragraph saying he will follow God when He enlarges his heart. What an interesting way to put it, don’t you think?

It is important firstly to note that the word, “heart” [לֵב] in Hebrew means “feelings, will, and even intellect.” The scripture writers do not really distinguish between thinking and feeling.

The enlightened West, and even the Greeks, have done much to separate emotion and thinking, but this comes more from experience than scripture or even neurological studies. Though they come from two different parts of the brain, their interaction is almost as if they are one.

The psalmist is suggesting he follows the Lord because his whole inner man, in the language of scripture, is enlarged by God.

Returning to Jabez, he prays from an enlarged heart for an enlarged territory.

If we love the Lord and therefore, have enlarged hearts, we may wish to seek to have enlarged territories. As leaders, there is much to be seen in the model of Jabez.

Enlarged Influence

Enlarged territory means enlarged influence. Some leaders seek that influence that they may be enlarged. They will be powerful. They will rule with authority. They will control. They will gain fame or fortune. They will be important. [see article]

But, that is not how Jabez’s prayer should be applied. He apparently had an “enlarged heart” to follow the Lord before he ever asked for territory.

Because the Lord answered his prayer and there is no more spoken of Jabez, we can assume that Jabez had motives that were coming from that enlarged heart – from an honorable man who had godly motives.

Though no man is sinless in his motives, and Jabez most likely had some desire to spend it on himself [as James says], he apparently had good motives as well.

And I would imagine those motives were to enlarge his ability to minister to others:

  • His family
  • His servants
  • His world

Do you, as a leader, wish to expand your influence?

First, seek that the Lord would enlarge your heart to follow Him. That you would, with the Psalmist, choose the “way of faithfulness,” cling to God’s Word, and run in the way of His commands.

Secondly, seek greater influence for the good. The good of your neighbor not your own greatness. Make it your motive not to spend your enlarged territory on your pleasures, but on the edification of those around you.

Complicity: Going Along to Get Along

Posted on by
1

What keeps abuse of authority in the workplace and home alive?

    Going along to get along

    It is man’s penchant for crowd-mongering. It is my penchant for pleasing others. While reading the beginning of the book of Proverbs in the Bible, I was struck by the applicability of the very first chapter to the experience most of us have had in a toxic environment.

    The writer, likely King Solomon, warns against throwing in with the wrong crowd. Where I had always understood the passage as applied to throwing in with a bunch of criminals planning and executing a bank heist, it is most certainly broader and more sinister than that.

    Solomon said,

    My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us ambush the innocent without reason; like Sheol let us swallow them alive, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we shall find all precious goods, we shall fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot among us; we will all have one purse”—my son, do not walk in the way with them; hold back your foot from their paths, for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood. 

    Proverbs 1:10-16 (ESV)

    Bad Boys

    These are really bad guys.

    I remember traveling in Germany many years ago. We wanted to get a close-up look at a castle. We saw one at a distance as we tooled along on the Autobahn. We took an exit to a small village that appeared to be near the castle. As we tried to make heads or tales of the street system that originated in the oxcart days, we finally gave up finding the way and stopped to ask directions at a bank.

    In mostly English, with horrible German thrown in, I asked how to get to the castle. The cashiers were baffled by what I was asking, but finally with much pointing and describing, one of them came to a revelation and said, “Oh, bad boys, bad boys!”

    After some moments of confusion it became clear the castle was now used as a prison. We were not welcome there.

    Solomon could easily be referring to falling in with anyone who is leading you into sin. And he is certainly suggesting we should not be complicite with sin. But he also describes really bad boys. Let us ambush the innocent without reason. Like death let us swallow them alive and whole!

    These boys are really bad in his description.

    They are people that abuse specialist, Dan Allendar, classifies as “evil” from the proverbs. He says,

    “All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul.”

    Dan Allender, page 233

    We should not allow ourselves to be sucked into being part of the oppressive behavior of others. Consider how that applies to a Christian organization led by toxic managers, boards, or CEOs.

    Stand Apart

    We firstly cannot join in with the toxic leader. Stand apart from him.

    We cannot stand in agreement with him in his oppressive actions. We cannot laugh at his demeaning comments towards another employee.

    We cannot try to play middleman as we did in our mission context in Africa. 

    As others were beat up by the leadership of our mission, we sought to soften the blows. Until we realized we were complicite in the abuse in doing so.

    We cannot support the toxic leader.

    By giving any credence to their behaviour, we are throwing our lot in among them. We are telling those who are deeply offended by the toxic leader’s lack of Christian witness that the toxic leader’s actions are acceptable.

    Stand Against

    In addition, we should take the next step: stand against him.

    For the good of others and even the toxic leader, confront the sin. Find a way to challenge his meanness.

    • To whom does he report?
    • How can you bring him to accountability?
    • Who has also suffered from his abuse that can go with me to authorities?

    This can be tricky as many abusive authorities, though under someone else’s authority, know how to control those in authority over them through manipulation and charm. It can be difficult to convince the authority of the bosses’ nastiness.

    Often we suggest grace must be extended. If that is how you understand grace, read this.

    Remember that it is grace to confront sin.

    Stand Among

    And finally, stand among those who are targets.

    Though we do not stand with the toxic leader, we need to stand with their victims.

    Though Solomon does not speak to this in his proverb, it is biblical to stand with the oppressed. God calls on his people to bring justice to those who are crushed by the powerful. [Psalm 103:6]

    We can stand by the oppressed by:

    Toxic work environments are not the way it is supposed to be in a Christian organization. It is a broken world, but God has called his people to seek the reversal of the curse that sin brings.

    Be part of the process for de-toxifying your ministry.

    Do you have a story to tell. Contact Pearls and Swine Site and tell it. We want to know how the Lord is using and teaching you.

    Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman III. Bold Love. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.

    Janet’s Story: God’s Man & Misuse of Spiritual Authority

    Posted on by
    1

    According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a Pope speaking ‘ex cathedra’ on issues of faith or morals is infallible. In general use, the phrase has come to be used with regard to statements made by people in positions of authority, and it is often used ironically to describe someone speaking with overbearing or unwarranted self-certainty. [Merriam-Webster dictionary]

    Janet sat under Pastor Joe for several years. He had been hired following the exit of a popular pastor who went on to found another ministry. Pastor Joe was encouraged to spend a few months getting to know his new church before making significant changes in its ministry. 

    Go Slow

    It was a gracious congregation that had always had a stable, small town ministry. The people were friendly and welcoming to the new pastor. However, Joe did not take the advice and proceeded to shake up the church soon after arriving.

    He appointed his own people to a church committee. His intent was to disband the current committee whose members were long-time, committed congregants. Members of the church became fearful of stepping out in ministry as he would possibly disapprove. They had to watch their backs.

    Janet was married to Mike, who had been an elder in the church, and was very careful not to criticize the new pastor. Early on, as the volunteer nursery coordinator, Janet was completely ignored when Pastor Joe decided to make changes in that ministry. She had filled the position when it needed a coordinator, and though committed heavily in other areas of the church, believed she was fulfilling a needed role in the church.

    One Sunday Pastor Joe explained from the pulpit there would be a meeting regarding the “new” nursery. Mike leaned over to Janet and asked if she knew anything about it.

    She was just as surprised as her husband to hear of a ministry meeting to which she, as the coordinator, had not been invited.

    She determined not to allow Pastor Joe’s oversight to bother her, however she, “Expected some acknowledgement of the breach of protocol.”  After all, everyone knew it was her role.

    Janet decided to go to the meeting anyway and be whatever help she could be in the transition.

    It was very “awkward.” It became apparent there was a “team that was recruited to replace her.” She was released of any responsibility and a paid caregiver was let go in that meeting. Janet said she was not terribly disappointed in losing her position, but “took offense at how it was done . . . the process.”

    In addition, the nursery was going to be moved into another room. The Sunday School teacher who held her class in that room had not been notified and no one actually went to her to discuss the move.

    Janet took it upon herself to “run interference,” something at which she became adept in the following years. She “buffered” some of his poor leadership as members of the congregation suffered from his relational bombs.

    Authority & Control

    Janet said she “was trying to make excuses or understand why it was happening this way.” She said she felt like she had “been whopped a little bit and didn’t know why.”

    It was not until later that she could see the pattern. It no longer seemed like an “isolated incident.”

    She realized in an “epiphany moment” that Pastor Joe simply loved exercising authority and control.

    In time she recognized the pulpit was his “bully pulpit” as she came to understand the meaning of that term. “He would just bash from the pulpit as no one could respond.”

    One Sunday Pastor Joe spoke of his authority while in the pulpit. She got the idea from his sermon he was saying,

    “When in pulpit I am God’s man and you must obey. You must not push back.”

    She was shocked. He said he spoke with God’s authority in the pulpit and must be heeded.

    She looked around at the congregation to see if anyone else was shocked. Janet figured out that Joe was using the pulpit to control his congregation.

    Matthew 18

    When asked if the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation came into play in their relationship she explained she was in a difficult situation. Early on she considered his poor leadership “stylistic” rather than sinful and so worked hard on her own attitude. She considered his failures small enough to overlook. Janet said others did not know she was struggling so much with him except those who picked up on her body language.

    In addition, she was hesitant to confront because Janet’s husband had been involved in the ministry before. She believed it would be misunderstood since she was the wife of a former elder.

    In time, her husband Mike became the target of some of his attacks. She then felt even more strongly that she should remain free of the fray. There were others who were confronting who did not have a husband in the battle.

    Prayer

    Janet explained that when she first began to struggle with Pastor Joe she considered her biblical responsibilities to be clear. She said, she “felt like, right or wrong, it was a matter of applying principles and so not so much a matter of prayer.” But, as others were being hurt by his tactics, she began to pray “for the truth to come out” and for her “heart and motives to be clear.”

    Because she was now having to take a position, she jokingly said she prayed that she “would win!”  She prayed that her “position would be vindicated.” [see this article]

    Healing

    When I asked Janet how she has healed since those dark days, she said she “took it to the foot of cross. Put my own sin and others’ there.” She said she still carries a wound. She added, “The first incident was deep enough that I avoided that ministry for a long time.“

    She said she did get some vindication. It was helpful and she is not sure how well she would have healed had there not been some vindication.

    Janet also learned valuable leadership lessons from the experience. She was reaffirmed that she should never “mistreat people under” her ministry.

    Even now Janet tries to “be in a position of forgiveness.” She noted that forgiveness is transactional. There are times when there is no reconciliation in a relationship. The erring party must be ready to admit and seek forgiveness for their sin (Matthew 18:21-22).

    Pastor Joe has never sought her forgiveness, but she would like to be ready to respond in forgiveness should he ever seek it.

    Heads Up

    Janet made several recommendations to those who are suffering under abusive leadership.

    • Pay attention to your instincts: If you continue to struggle with the sense something is off, believe it and act accordingly.
    • Don’t buy into the lie that makes you believe something that isn’t true: Hold to your core values and work it out from there. Consider getting the thoughts of a third party to assess your perspective on the leader.
    • Share: Be careful of gossip, but have one person you can trust to keep it between you to share your struggles. Recovery needs community and there are leaders that cannot be confronted. You need to share it.
    • The church needs educated: The church needs to learn about abusive leadership. Janet noted we are good at extending grace, but need to learn when to confront.

    Because people are tight-lipped for fear of gossiping, the patterns of abuse may be difficult to see as we think we are the only one suffering.

    Janet said, “We teach unity, body, grace, etc . . . but not wolves in sheep’s clothing.“

    3 Biblical Ways to Respond to Toxic Bosses: Head Up, Down, or Out of Town

    Posted on by
    3
    https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/3-Biblical-Ways-to-Respond-to-Toxic-Bosses-Head-Up–Down–or-Out-of-Town-e28il1p

    For the Christian, we know God has given us what we need to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.

    However, we sometimes feel trapped by our understanding of His direction. We may think when we are serving in a Christian ministry that there is a one-way road map when dealing with a self-serving and destructive ministry leader. 

    However, there is more than one response to toxic bosses found in scripture.

    The Bible gives at least three ways by example and instruction for dealing with abusive supervisors:

    • Head Up
    • Head Down
    • Head Out

    Head Up

    There is Nathaniel who, as a prophet, who went to King David (who had the man-given power to destroy him) and confronted him for his sin against Bathsheba and her husband Urriah (2 Sam. 12). Because David was not a toxic boss (though horribly sinful), he responded well to Nathaniel’s challenge. He repented.

    After reposting this blog, a friend pointed out to me the example of Paul when being held by Roman authorities. My friend wrote, “Paul’s response in first submitting, and when wronged, appealing to a higher authority, where his rights were demonstrably violated . . . was helpful in guiding my response as those with authority wronged me . . .” (see Acts 22 for one such story)

    On the other hand, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar and he did not respond as David did. The trio said:

    “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” 

    Daniel 3:16-18

    And the King’s response?

    “Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated.” 

    Daniel 3:19

    The three men trusted in the Lord, and kept their heads high. Nebuchadnezzar was intending to fry them to a crisp, but God saved them. He does not always save those who stand up against oppression, but he did in their case.

    Sometimes, God calls his children to hold their head high when facing abusive authorities so it can be cut off!

    Head Down

    However, there are those who feel there is nowhere for them to go. They feel trapped and unable to make any real change in their circumstances. They fear the results of the heads up approach.

    For example, we see in Peter’s first epistle instructions for the slave dealing with a “unjust” master.

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

    1 Peter 2:18

    When interpreting this passage, we must firstly remember that Peter was speaking specifically to slaves, not your average 21st Century employee. Though there is much to be learned in the passage throughout the ages and in voluntary work situations, these slaves, whether forced into servitude or by choice signed their lives away because of financial need, were not at liberty to leave their place of employment.

    Peter says, “Keep your head down so it will not be any worse for you.”

    I believe Peter is speaking to those who are convinced nothing good can come of responding to the boss. The employee is convinced that any response will only make matters worse, bring greater emotional trauma, and possibly the loss of his job.

    He goes on to say that it is better to be treated badly when doing the right thing than doing wrong.

    I believe he is critiquing responding with abusive tactics to the abusive tactics of the leader. We at times feel justified in striking back in anger and using one-line clever quips to put someone down. However, even engagement with evil people should be a witness to the abuser and others.

    So, we are called to show respect for the image of God in that evil person though they be unjust.

    Peter bases his instruction on the example of Christ when he went before the authorities who unjustly abused Him and he did not strike back . . . though he could have done away with all of them with one word as the Son of God. Jesus did not attack.

    God gives permission to keep your head down and take the abuse at least when you see no other good options in the circumstances.

    Head Out

    Finally, there is one last way to respond to nasty bosses:

    Get out of there.

    Jesus, in Luke 4, chose to disappear into the crowd rather than be thrown over a cliff. His time had not come for Calvary and so He walked away from the abuse. There would come a time when he would keep His head up (responding to the Chief Priest especially) and keep His head down (responding to Pontius Pilot), but in Luke 4 He got out of there.

    Trauma increases with greater and greater exposure to abuse. Distrust in organizations, boards, leaders and all things Christian build over time. Several of my interviewees testified to these results of their experience of staying in a toxic organization.

    My Own Experience

    I have seen all three of these responses from others who have suffered under toxic leadership. My wife and I used all three when working with a mission agency for eight years.

    • I challenged the CEO on one occasion (head up) and he shifted the blame and let me know it was not appropriate for me to challenge his views.
    • We refused to get sucked into a discussion (which would likely be used against us) about our issues with the CEO (head down). He had shown himself to be lacking in humility and to use what was said in meetings with missionaries to hurt them later.
    • And, we finally left the organization knowing there was nothing left to be done about the leadership.

    Rest in knowing that the Lord leads His people and gives wisdom as we ask (James 1:5). Though we can seek justice (head up), there are other options that are just as biblical and should be considered according to the circumstances, the Lord’s leading, and your conscience.

    Keep your head up, down, or head out of town.

    Experiencing Matthew 7 Under a Toxic Boss

    Posted on by
    5

    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.

    Know your pigs and act accordingly. 

    [1]Matthew 7:1-2.

    [2]Matthew 7:6.

    Imprecatory Praying: The Mercy of Destruction

    Posted on by
    7

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Psalms 55:12-15 (ESV)

    Imprecatory Psalms

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

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

    Discomfort with Judgment

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

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

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

    A Familiar Friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prerogative of a Sovereign God

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

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

    Vos goes on to say,

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

    The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms

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

    This is loving!

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

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

    NOTES

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

    [2] Psalm 55:23.

    [3] Psalm 55:13.

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

    [5] Ibid., 486.

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

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

    Matthew 18 & the Toxic Boss

    Posted on by
    8

    This is Part 1 of a 2-Part series on Matthew 18. The second – “Stories of Matthew 18 Under a Toxic Boss” – provides real-life examples of those who sought to apply Matthew 18 in their battles with toxic leaders.

    Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 were a fundamental struggle for my family when we faced toxic leadership in a mission organization.

    Watching as others were run away from the mission for disagreeing with the CEO gave us reason to hesitate to confront him. We had sold our house in the US. We were dependent on the organization to provide housing for our family and school for our children half way around the world. We joined the organization expecting to serve until our retirement. The last thing we wanted to do was jeopardize all of that.

    Most the literature I have read takes for granted the applicability of Matthew 18 to all Christian relationships, as most of the Christians whom I have interviewed took for granted its applicability to their interactions with their toxic supervisor in a Christian organization. Some theologians and some who have experienced abusive leadership however, question the use of Matthew 18:15-20 in conflicts with someone of greater authority.

    Jesus says in this passage:

    “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 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. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    [Matthew 18:15-18 (ESV)]

    There are three steps Jesus encourages when a brother sins against you.

    1. Go one-on-one to confront the brother,
    2. if he doesn’t repent, take one or two more people along to confront him once again,
    3. finally, if he refuses to repent, tell the church.

    Though these seem to be pretty straightforward steps to take, there are a number of questions to be asked when that “brother” is toxic in their behavior and is higher in authority in the organization than you are.

    When I began studying toxic supervisors in Christian organizations, I expected to find more written about this question from a biblical perspective. Would Jesus apply Matthew 18 to an employee under the authority of a Christian boss? I expected to find that most would believe this passage applies only to two brothers, equal in authority, and under an ecclesiastical [church] disciplinary structure.

    One biblical commentator did. France suggested this instruction was intended for professing Christians on “equal footing.” He argued Jesus was giving directions to two professing believers, neither of which had greater authority.[1] In addition, Susan, one of my interviewees, said it did not apply to non-ecclesiastical environments [like a Christian parachurch organization], though she did seek to communicate early in her conflict with the toxic leader in a private, one-on-one manner. Ben, another interviewee, believed he was not responsible to confront his supervisor, the CEO, using these principles.

    However, it is more common for commentaries and sermons to gloss over the application of the passage in the context of unequal power structures.

    But, a mentor of mine shared a third way – neither ignore the passage in such contexts nor take it for granted in its application to the context. He suggested Matthew 18 be applied in these circumstances, but in a more principled nature. Rather than legalistically demanding its application in the three specific steps outlined by Jesus, the process should consider the threats inherent in one-on-one confrontations with a toxic boss, and proceed to broaden the scope of application to those who have the authority to discipline the non-repentant.

    As I have interviewed targets of leadership abuse over the years, this is in fact what I found in their practice of this passage in real life. Though most of the writers and my interviewees believed the process of an employee confronting an erring boss should be modeled on Matthew 18, the steps of going to the toxic boss one-on-one, then taking one or two others along, and then telling it to the church was not a clear or simple process for any of these survivors.

    There was no consistency in how my interviewees applied the passage to their given circumstances except in principle.

    Step One

    In most cases, there were multiple individuals confronting the leader at different times one-on-one.

    But, those with whom I have spoken said it was rare the boss responded with a change of behavior to the one-on-one confrontations. Two of my interviewees, John and Arnold, for example, noted their CEOs always justified or explained away their sin, often blame-shifting. They saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others confronted the boss. Two other interviewees, Martha and Eugene, explained their bosses would not respond at all. Frances’ boss cut off all communication with her.

    This is to be expected when dealing with those who abuse power.

    Mary Alice Chrnalogar has worked with many who have been under the spiritual abuse of churches. In abusive situations she says, “Isolated confrontation of leaders by a layperson is dangerous.”[2] Therefore, Jean-Lipman Blumen helpfully suggests, “Dissenters do better when they have a group standing with them.”[3]

    It is my opinion, the first step of confrontation be seen more broadly than the employee personally confronting the boss.

    If the supervisor has been confronted by others (for possibly different reasons) and continually shows a lack of repentance, the first step has taken place already.

    There is no need to confront an individual who clearly does not have the humility to respond to loving exhortation. It is unnecessary, and unwise, to walk into the lion’s den alone.

    Step Two

    Sometimes the second step of bringing one or two more along to confront the boss was also unclear.

    John said he began immediately with this step when he brought two others with him to confront the CEO on sexual harassment charges. He fully expected the high-profile leader to humble himself, seek forgiveness, and begin the healing process. John said his team had a plan prepared for the leader to get counseling and continue in the ministry. . . a face-saving plan John fully expected to be welcomed by the leader.

    However, the leader refused to admit wrong and in the end fired nearly 40 employees who called for his repentance.

    Unfortunately, in none of the experiences of those whom I have interviewed has the leader repented of their destructive sin after various kinds of confrontations—one-on-one or in groups.

    Step Three

    The third step becomes the most complicated for those serving in Christian parachurch organizations.

    This has been apparent in my study as in every interviewee’s case, no formal church authority was informed such as the local church to which the leader was a member.

    As parachurch and mission organizations, no one ecclesiastical governing body was given authority by the organizations to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.

    Considering this inconsistency in applying the third step of this biblical text to these situations, Arnold suggested the only higher authority he believed he could be accountable to were the stakeholders in his ministry – his donors. Some will consider this route in bringing accountability to their leaders, though most are concerned about gossip. One particular individual contacted several ministry supporting churches with information about the toxic leadership.

    Though none brought any formal ecclesiastical charges against the leader, at least one dropped their financial support of the mission agency. This certainly is a form of accountability in keeping with the “third step” of Matthew 18.

    Generally, employees of Christian organizations are encouraged to fulfill, in principal, the third step of bringing their complaint before the church by reporting to the board of directors of the ministry.

    Few of my interviewees have taken the matter to a higher authority like the ministry’s board of directors. And, as is found in much of the literature, few boards respond to these complaints even if ministry subordinates do bring it to their attention. In one toxic organization, forty missionaries sent a letter to the board asking them to investigate the leader. In response, the CEO encouraged the board to require psychological testing for their missionaries.

    The board did not in turn investigate the matter despite the overwhelming number of complaints.

    Often boards have been handpicked by the founder or CEO and are “indebted” to him. Their egos are often “stroked” by being part of an important mission or having a nice resume entry. In our case, when the going got tough (as missionaries made clear the toxicity of the organizational leadership to the board), board members resigned rather than seeking to bring accountability to the leader.

    There are times when the working conditions get even worse when board members are apprised of the situation because the leader seeks greater control over his employees.

    Clearly, the practice of Matthew 18 is not a simple matter in toxic Christian organizations. But, as one interviewee (Living in Liberty Blog) argued, someone must stand up to toxic bosses. How, who, and when takes wisdom and careful consideration of the dangers involved.

    NOTES:

    [1] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 691.

    [2] Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 67.

    [3] Jean Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them (Oxford University Press, 2004), 149.

    Illustration by Brian Hagen: http://www.brian-hagen.com/latest-art-how-to-overcome-your-fear-of-confrontation/

    [Un]Repentance: The Mark of [Toxic]Leadership

    Posted on by
    8

    For those who want a biblical picture of a toxic leader, there is always Saul, the king.

    Saul was the first chosen King of Israel around 1050 BC. He was tough, good looking, and attractive to the Israelites who sought to be like the nations around them by having a king go out to battle for them (1 Samuel 8-9).

    Unfortunately, he did not turn out to be their dream king.

    Saul repeatedly reminds me of a passage in 2nd Corinthians:

    “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.“ 

    2 Corinthians 7:10 (ESV)

    It is hopefully common among God’s people to recognize our sin, feel genuinely bad about it, and seek to turn away from doing it again (repentance). Sometimes, it (according to Paul in Corinthians) is unclear whether our repentance is based on godly or worldly “grief.”

    But, Paul makes clear the stakes are high. One leads to life and one death.

    Saul’s [Un]repentance

    We are not told in the pages of scripture whether Saul was ever truly repentant for his various sins. But, I get the distinct impression that he is frequently unrepentant.

    Early in Saul’s reign, the Philistines came up to battle with Israel. Saul became concerned as the people were “scattering” in fear of the Philistine army. The prophet Samuel was expected within 7 days, but on the 7th day he had not arrived.

    Maybe thinking he would regain the people’s confidence or commitment to go to battle, King Saul made offerings to the Lord. Or maybe, just get God on his side. But this was unlawful for him to do as the King.

    Samuel arrived just as he had finished making the sacrifices. And he confronted Saul and said,

    “‘What have you done?’ And Saul said, ‘When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.’”

    1 Samuel 13:11-12

    His language is lacking any sense of repentance or fault. Saul shifts the blame to Samuel (for being late) and makes his own actions sound quite spiritual. He explains that he is the hero of the story – “I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.”

    A little later, a story is told of the prophet Samuel telling Saul to “strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

    As one blogger noted [Matthias Media], Exodus 17:16 makes clear that the Amalekites, who were in the line of Essau, would do battle with Israel forever. They sought to destroy Israel at every chance even though Israel was not seeking their land.

    King Saul instead allowed the people to spare the animals and the king. When Samuel confronted him for his disobedience, Saul said,

    “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 

    1 Samuel 15:20-21

    Every now and then we are all prone to defend our honor, even when we are wrong. Most of us would prefer to be right and will sometimes go to battle to prove it. And, sometimes we take the time-honored road of blame-shifting that Adam and Eve did after the very first sin [Genesis 3].

    But Saul takes these to new levels of self-centered foolishness.

    More to the Story

    There is, however, more to Saul’s story and God’s own commentary on his failure.

    When Samuel challenges Saul for this response, Saul expresses grief. He says,

    “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.”

    1 Samuel 15:24-25

    Yet, God speaks through Samuel saying Saul had “rejected the word of the Lord.” Like those who are more interested in retaining control, Saul strikes out physically against Samuel, grabbing his robe and tearing it.

    Maybe Saul has a “worldly” grief rather than a “godly” grief as Paul says. 

    Was Saul repentant? Unlikely. Samuel said Saul had rejected God. Then Saul struck out at the messenger. And he asks Samuel’s forgiveness rather than God’s.

    Leadership = Humility

    These two stories tell us a great deal about Saul. And mixed throughout the chapters that follow are continual moral failures and unrepentance. When compared to the next king, a shepherd boy named David, Saul is toxic in his response to his sin.

    Good leadership is supposed to be done in humility.

    On the other hand, toxic leadership will frequently (I would be willing to bet always) be characterized by the inability or unwillingness to see, admit, and learn from failure and sin.

    A mark of good leadership is godly grief that leads to true repentance.

    Patricia Evans, the author of “The Verbally Abusive Relationship,” shared a conversation she had with an interviewee who had been in an abusive marriage for many years.

    Patricia: “Tell me, did he say he was sorry?”

    Interviewee: “No, I can’t say that he ever apologized, not for the abuse, not once in the sixteen years we were together. Looking back, I can see that he’d convinced me I made him mad. With that going on in my head I was never sure who should apologize!”

    [Un]repentance. A sure mark of [toxic] leadership in the office or home.

    REFERENCE:

    Evans, Patricia. The Verbally Abusive Relationship, Expanded Third Edition: How to recognize it and how to respond (p. 160). Adams Media. Kindle Edition.

    Belly to Belly, Cheek to Cheek

    Posted on by
    Reply

    “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.” Luke 6:27-29 (ESV) 

    Oh, if only Jesus stopped at “pray for those who abuse you.” That would have worked for me. Easy to interpret. Not necessarily easy to implement, but at least doable to some degree on the horizon.

    When a boss abuses his authority by harassing, demeaning, overly controlling, and taking credit for the work of his subordinates, he certainly can be classified as an “enemy.” His hatred is evident in his actions against his employees.

    In this context, how should the target of a supervisor’s abuse “love” him, “do good” to him, and “bless” him? I would suggest Jesus is giving examples of the principle Paul stated elsewhere that we are not to “repay . . . evil for evil.”

    Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 

    [Romans 12:17 (ESV)]

    Rather than strike the abuser back in like manner— “strike on the cheek” —we are to actually return “good” for the evil they perpetrate.

    It Gets Tricky

    It gets more tricky at this point. If it just meant we are to go about our business and continue to be beat up by the boss, taking it on the cheek, it would be a simple, ethical, decision-making process. However, this does not jibe with the rest of scripture.

    Passages such as Matthew 18, that call the Christian to a confrontational response to sin, would suggest that turning the cheek is not meant as pacifistic. Therefore, I would suggest Jesus is calling his people to not respond in kind. We do not respond abusively to the abuser. We do not slap them back on their cheek metaphorically or otherwise. We respond in love as the beginning of our passage states.

    But, love is not mamby-pamby. Love involves looking out for the other’s good. In this context, it is calling the toxic boss to repentance. What is “good” for him is that he turn from his sin and seek forgiveness.

    Bringing a toxic boss to repentance normally takes accountability, not a sweet talking to.

    His self-interest either needs to be appealed to (It will go better for you if you stop harassing your subordinates), needs to be threatened with consequences by someone in authority, or he needs to be fired.

    As abusers are not known for considering the feelings of others[1] appealing to their compassionate side will not work. They do not have one of those sides.

    Make no mistake, this is love bringing them to account. God brings judgment and condemnation on those who oppress others. This was on the list of top reasons for Israel and Judah being sent into exile by Yahweh [Amos 4:1]. For the abusive boss to come to repentance, he will need the loving actions of the oppressed, and those who will stand with them, to bring them to accountability.

    But, again it is not fighting fire with fire, cheek for cheek. It is lovingly seeking out ways to bring them under accountability.

    NOTES

    [1] Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (Berkley Books, 2002), 64.