Jesus miraculously raised his friend named Lazarus from the dead.
Because of that increadible feat, many began to follow Him. And those in power, the chief priests and Pharisees, could not allow their control and authority to slip away.
Jesus had consistently challenged these religious-political leaders of his day. They were abusive leaders, using Scripture and their positions of authority to crush and oppress others rather than as good shepherds (Ezekiel 34).
Their power was slipping with each man, woman, or child who dared follow Jesus, rejecting their false teaching.
So, they had to get rid of the problem. After all they had their image to protect.
Of course, they planned and plotted to destroy Jesus . . . both physically and in carefully worded debates (Luke 20:19-20).
The Tactics
One of the more common tactics for abusive leaders is to destroy, justify, or coverup the evidence of the light that is shown on their abuse.
They sought to kill Lazarus. Destroy the evidence of Jesus’ truth and light and beauty.
“When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.”
John 12:9-11 (ESV)
Maybe it is physical evidence that makes them look bad and their victim good that needs to be destroyed? Emails, letters, recordings, or worse yet, witnesses. One missionary told me that his ministry leader rarely communicated on email. When accused of his abusive leadership, it was a “he said, she said” argument. No one had any evidence.
Maybe it is explaining away the evidence? “I didn’t really mean that. I would never have said that. It is out of context.” I watched as one mission director told his subordinate he “would never say such a thing.” The subordinate looked like the crazy one in the conversation.
Or maybe it is finding a way to discredit the evidence by shifting the focus? “He is taking it too personally. She isn’t submissive enough to authority. He has a spirit of division. She just has an attitude problem.” I have been amazed by how often a leadership team has, rather than investigate and consider carefully the reports of abusive leadership, turned on the whisteblower and resorted to name-calling. I was even complicit with a toxic leader at one time, suggesting those who were struggling with the leader were just “hard to get along with.”
Whatever tactic it may be, Lazarus must die that their image remains intact.
DARVO
Common tactics for those who abuse their authority include DARVO. These are effective means for keeping the main thing (report of abuse) NOT the main thing.
It is a hard topic for Christians to wrap their heads around. Interpretations of these prayers for destruction abound.
In this article I am looking at Nehemiah’s imprecatory prayer. The ESV Strong’s Bible translation says in its introduction to the book of Nehemiah:
In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. With Nehemiah went the third wave of returning Jewish exiles. There was intense opposition from the other peoples in the land and disunity within Jerusalem. Despite this opposition, Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the walls.
ESV Strongs Bible
That “intense opposition” made many fear for their lives as they worked to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem. Nehemiah, as the leader of the Jews who sought to see the Covenant God had made with His people Israel re-established, gave instructions to the people to take protective measures. “Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:18)
And so they built. With their weapons handy.
The Imprecatory Prayer of Nehemiah
What was particularly interesting to me is found in chapter 4 of the historical account.
Sanballat, of whom we know very little, was a Horonite (possibly from Samaria). He was apparently the leader of those who opposed the rebuilding of the wall. He and his ilk ridiculed the Jews and sought to stop them.
They shamed and humiliated Nehemiah and the Jews. The language in the text is strikingly similar to how those who are under abusive leadership describe their taunters. Toxic leaders in the home, workplace, and church torment their targets with words that belittle, debase, and humiliate. Often those words are coupled with religious language that creates a greater depth of shame and humiliation in the target (spiritual abuse).
Nehemiah responded in prayer . . . just as he had done before approaching King Artaxerxes to request returning to Jerusalem to build the wall (Nehemiah 1). In his prayer here in chapter 4, Nehemiah expressed his desire that the Jews’ tormentors be destroyed.
Nehemiah prays,
Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders.
Nehemiah 4:4-5
No Qualifying
When I normally speak of “imprecatory praying” I give qualifications. Before praying, “Destroy my enemies,” I will pray, “Lord change their heart . . . “
Then I go on with asking the Lord to stop the abusive individual in whatever way the Lord, in His wisdom, wills. I try not to be too specific.
But Nehemiah, in a display of raw emotion, simply asks the Lord to destroy this enemy of God’s people.
Fundamental to his prayer is the understanding that his enemies are enemies of God. Nehemiah was confident of God’s anger at Sanballat. There appears to be no doubt in his mind that Sanballat, and those following him, were evil and that God was opposed to them.
And his prayer is not self-centered. Nehemiah is not praying against someone who simply disagrees with him. He is praying that an enemy of God and one who seeks the destruction of God’s people be stopped.
Dead. In his tracks. No redemption.
That is hard stuff.
But it is the hard stuff from which imprecatory praying grows. Imprecatory prayers are made for those who see no out from the destruction at the hands of evil men. They are the prayers of deeply wounded and hurting people . . . because of the unjust, wicked, and damaging treatment of others.
Forgiveness?
In addition, I want to point out that Nehemiah is not unforgiving as some might think in praying this prayer.
In praying, Nehemiah turns over the judgment upon his (and God’s) enemy, Sanballat to God. This is fundamental to forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean there is no judgment. But rather, as some theologians suggest, it is turning over that judgment to the Lord; releasing our own judgment into the hands of God.
Nehemiah prays for God to judge. Afterall, it is God’s place to judge.
It’s Just So Uncomfortable
There are a significant number of imprecatory prayers in Scripture. So often we gloss over them because they make us uncomfortable.
Because we have so often been taught that a good Christian would never ask the Lord to judge someone, we cannot reconcile the imprecatory prayers found throughout the Psalms and here in Nehemiah with that training.
But those who have suffered abuse may not have as much difficulty understanding why they are in Scripture. Imprecatory prayers are actually a balm to those for whom the Lord continually stands up. We have God’s own word that He despises those who oppress others. And these prayers are a means of turning over the judgment we feel is so needed to the Lord Who judges perfectly.
Why should we not join Nehemiah in asking the the Lord to do what He has promised He will do?
The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. 10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Every time I tell the story of someone’s experience under toxic leadership, I am challenged to be more like Jesus.
Recently I read a blog that was bemoaning what the author said was the “proliferation of what some people have dubbed ‘scandal porn’ . . .”1
His argument? “. . . of course, there are bad pastors, and they should be refused the responsibility of leadership among God’s beloved flock. But has the focus on bad pastors been overdone?“
In his blog, the answer is yes. The author suggested that the world (unbelievers) will “cast as negative a light as possible upon Christian pastors,” but he considers it troubling that Christians would do so.
Biblically speaking, the church is, in fact, called specifically to judge within the ranks according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. It should be God’s people calling to the light the darkness of pastoral abuse.
It is our job.
So, to imply that we leave the criticism for the watching, unbelieving world is contrary to our calling. I would suggest that if we take up the mantle of critically evaluating abusive leadership as a church, the watching world will have nothing to watch but our own humble self-awareness bringing glory to Jesus.
There are Good Pastors
The blogger says there are many good pastors. I agree.
“In 35 years of vocational ministry, I have known very few people who can honestly say that they were bullied or abused by their pastor. Again, their stories are real and heart-breaking. No instance of a bad pastor abusing a church member is tolerable. But given the massive number of churches, pastors, and church members, such cases are not nearly as common as the attention given to them suggests.”
And so, the author says,
“What I am calling for is careful consideration as to whether we have made too much of the bully pastor while irresponsibly neglecting the far more common reality of the bullied and wounded pastor. Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?”
I will skip over the unsupportable statement that there are far more bullied and wounded pastors than bullying and wounding pastors. I know of no statistics to support either view, so I see no sense in arguing it. He could be right . . . or not. Who am I to say?
Greater Accountability
In the past seven years, I have interviewed dozens of those who have suffered under toxic leadership in the church or Christian organization. I have talked with dozens more informally. Abusive leadership is not a blip on the radar.
But more importantly than my own experience, we need to allow Scripture to speak. Church leaders are to be held more accountable. There is a reason why there is a focus on bad leaders in social media and blogs. Light must be shown on dark places and in particular on those who lead God’s people.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, written in a time (1600s) that authority was viewed as more important than in our own culture (and therefore more likely abusive authority was given a pass), says this:
Question. 151 What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous [more wicked] than others? Answer. Sins receive their aggravations 1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.
WLC 151 on Aggravations That Make Sins More Heinous
A leader in the Assembly’s analysis is one “whose example is likely to be followed by others.” This is a person of influence.
The answer goes on to list a number of other reasons why a sin is more henious in both content and context. However, the first listed is that of a leader – either in a formal or informal position. When a leader sins, it has more impact on others and is therefore more heinous.
Judged with Greater Strictness
James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1).”
Those who are teachers, those who labor in preaching and teaching in our congregations, have incredible influence on those they lead. Despite our “question authority” culture, pastors continue to be held in high esteem and those under their care are most often hesitant to question the authority of the pastor’s words.
This is my experience in all those interviews and discussions. Because they have so much influence, James says they will be “judged with greater strictness.”
On the other hand, according to Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17), church leaders are to be honored. However, Scritpure makes it clear this honor is due as long as they live up to the standards the Lord has given for those who lead.
Church leaders’ words are incredibly important but those words must come from Christian character that is also described in God’s Word (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-16). In those two places, it is clear that their leadership will be judged more stringently by the Lord than their congregants’ daily lives. And those standards are very high.
Hear what the Lord says about bad pastors – or, I would suggest, any abusive leader of God’s people:
“. . . therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.“
Ezekiel 34:9-10 (ESV)
The entirety of Ezekiel 34 was God’s judgment upon the shepherds of Israel who were toxic. It is descriptive of shepherds who are harsh, uncaring, and self-serving. The Lord will “rescue” His sheep from them . . . take them away.
Diagnose and Expose
As the author of the blog noted, there are abusive pastors. But he minimizes it with the abuse that others heap upon leaders:
“I have never spoken to a pastor who has not been mistreated, slandered, undermined, or run off by church members, an associate pastor, elders, deacons, or all of the above.”
Did you notice how many of those (who mistreated the pastor) he listed are leaders? Associate pastors? Elders? Deacons? It sounds as though there are many leaders out there who should be held accountable for their abuse of fellow leaders.
The author goes on,
“Has the glut of material dedicated to diagnosing and exposing bad pastors been recklessly unaccompanied and counterweighted by the far less interesting fact that most of us have good pastors?“
I would suggest that it is very important to dedicate ourselves to “diagnosing and exposing bad pastors” because we do not want to mix the wheat with the tares.
The elders in my own church receive a significant amount of encouragement from members, not only during October’s “Pastor Appreciation Month.” But, we must do a good job of identifying bad ones and hold them accountable. Those of us who focus on abusive leadership have no intention of mixing the wheat with the tares; ie. bringing down good pastors with the bad.
I hope that as I write about wicked leadership, telling the stories of those who have suffered under it, the church learns to identify what truly abusive is, and what it is not, so that God’s own judgment on abusive leaders will be realized and congregations saved from evil leadership.
And as a result good leaders will be warned just as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. I am continually learning from my research where I fail in my own leadership. I hope that good pastors are reading these various blogs and taking steps to stay on the narrow way by God’s grace.
A Critique
The blogger ended his article with a list of actions taken by pastors that we should not confuse with abuse. It is his attempt to help his readers stay clear of a misdiagnosis of toxic leadership.
I would like to evaluate a few of them. All of them have value. But, in most cases, there are qualifying considerations that should not be overlooked and by making these statements the blogger may be giving a pass to what can be abusive practices. As one friend noted, some of these actions can be good things, but they could also easily be weaponized by abusive leaders to harm their congregants.
I will give some, not all, of his bullet-points followed by my analysis. [You can read all of them in his blog noted below]:
Being led is not in itself abuse, but it can be abusive and it cannot be taken for granted that a leader, who suffers from his own sin, will not be abusive simply because he is a leader. If you read on to verses 19 and 20 in 1 Timothy 5 you will note that those who abuse their positions of leadership may be called out before the whole congregation that others may be warned.
But it can be. I have seen multiple cases of authoritarian behaviors by church leaders that were used simply to control and manipulate members who disagreed with them. I have seen multiple women excommunicated for reporting the abuse of their husbands, many of whom were leaders in the church. I have also seen men who reported abusive pastors excommunicated. When leaders act in these ways, they are practicing abusive leadership. If you excommunicate, you better be right and biblical and doing it in love.
Both the Mark and Timothy passages are, in fact, challenges to leaders. In Mark, Jesus is challenging Peter, a leader and Apostle of the early church, (“Get thee behind me Satan”). In Timothy, Paul is telling Timothy to rebuke an elder who persists in sin. It is a passage giving instructions to rebukeabusive leadership. The Titus passage is a good proof text for the author. However, keep in mind, exhortation and rebuke must always be done in love (1 John 4:7).
Being expected to follow leadership is not abuse (Hebrews 13:17).
I have not spoken with any victim of leadership abuse who would disagree with this. But, as those who “watch for your souls, as they that must give account,” their watching better be biblical, just, and loving for they will “give an account” for their leadership attitudes and actions. We do not need to follow ungodly leadership. In fact, we are told to call them out (1 Tim. 5:20). Being expected to follow abusive leadership is abuse.
Being told you need to mature spiritually is not abuse (Hebrews 5:11).
Shepherding takes more than commanding someone to be better. I am not sure that the preacher (writer of Hebrews) would make this kind of bullet-point statement to pastors to let their congregations have it between the eyes. Consider what 1 Peter 5:3 says: “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” Peter’s charge is that elders should be an example, not simply telling their congregations what’s what.
Being confronted in your sin is not abuse (1 Timothy 5:20)
It can be. This has to be qualified. Spiritual abuse is a pattern (repeated actions) of attempts “to exert power and control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”(PCA DASA Report) Confrontations may be for this purpose and so the motives of the leader need to be considered. Often, shame is a particular tool of an abusive leader. It is not adequate to simply say “being confronted for your sin is not abuse.” It certainly can be.
Being rebuked for holding to errant doctrine is not abuse (Titus 1:9, 13).
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” Note the beginning of the verse. He better be holding firm to what the Word teaches first and how he rebukes can even, when correcting theology, be abusive. It only takes a cursory reading of the Gospels to see the spiritual abuse of the Pharisees. They said many biblical things, but were abusive. Job’s counselors said many biblical things, but were spiritually abusive.
I would be very careful in the use of this term “expected.” The term can be used abusively in that the Hebrews passage uses more positive terms – ie. “encouraging one another.” Is the leader encouraging his members to love the church, God’s bride, or is he trying to shame them into attending? Many people have been deeply wounded by church leadership and need more than another “strong” voice telling them to return. Jesus speaks kindly to his downtrodden flock and leaders are called to follow his example (John 13). If your members aren’t attending, maybe you need to ask why? Could it be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34? Has Jesus himself scattered them because of your leadership?
True, as long as they are honorable. No authority of God’s creatures is absolute (Acts 4:19). Only God’s authority is absolute because he is always right. Leaders in God’s church must win this honor as is evident by instructions for picking elders and deacons. Leaders are not made by their position, but rather rise to the position by their maturity. They must be trustworthy if they are to be obeyed.
Discovering that your pastor can, at times, be in a bad mood is not abuse.
This statement is particularly concerning. What does the leader do when he is in a bad mood? How does that impact his ministry? If he is not temperate in his “mood” then he is not called to be a leader of God’s people as evidenced by the qualifications given in Scripture. Does he show the fruit of the Spirit by immediately repenting and making restitution when that bad mood is expressed in anger?
Summary
Identifying abusive leaders is similar to identifying abuse in the home. “Domestic abuse can be defined as a form of oppression in which one spouse controls and dominates the other through a pattern of coercive, controlling, and punishing behaviors (PCA DASA Report Section Two).”
Notice that it is a “pattern,” not one-offs. If a Christian leader acts this way on a regular basis he is not qualified to lead God’s people. We must bring him to the light both that he may be stopped from damaging God’s people and from a poor witness to Christ in the watching world.
And, that others may be warned and learn from his bad example.
I love to hear stories of pastors who are seeking the good of their flock. I love to hear about the compassion and empathy of shepherds who lead like Jesus. It is encouraging to my own growth and perspective on Christ’s church.
But, amidst all the ravages of broken leadership that we are continually hearing about, there are important lessons for all of us who lead. I need to hear those stories. Every time I write one of these blogs or tell someone’s story, I am challenged to be the godly leader Jesus calls me to be.
Those who make themselves complicit with toxic leadership will often do so due to fear of loss of prominence or privilage. These are the middle-managers in Christian organizations, businesses, and churches.
One of the most captivating stories in Scripture is the book of Esther. In ten chapters of moving narrative, Esther provides the plot of an epic drama. The twists and turns of God’s sovereign reign in care of His people even while having exiled them for their idolatry, always keeps me fixated to the end.
The story also captures a common problem with toxic leadership.
So often those who lead under the oversight of toxic leaders are complicit with their leader. For a number of reasons they do evil right alongside the head of their organization, business, or church.
An Object for Display
In Esther’s story, Memucan, a manager in King Ahasuerus’s government, saw Queen Vasthti refuse to come like a slave to the king when he commanded her presence. The king wanted her to come “in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at (Esther 1:11).”
Memucan realized his own power and position may be in jeopardy with the Queen’s refusal to obey King Ahasuerus’s making of her an object and display to his subordinates.
King Ahasuerus asked his subordinates who were present,
“According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?”
Esther 1:15
Memucan told the king:
“Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.”
Esther 1:16b-18
Can you imagine that? Other women will see her unwillingness to be treated as property and think it is okay to refuse authoritarianism. In the end, others who have authority, like Memucan, will lose that authority to boss and abuse their own wives.
Analogous with Toxic Complicity
This is an analogy of complicity with toxic leadership, not just poor marital behavior.
There are a variety of reasons why those who act as “middle-managers” in the workplace will refuse to seek accountability for their boss and become complicit in their abuse.
Loss of Prestige for Boards: Members of boards fear the loss of prestige if their leader is the focus of a public scandal. So, they cover it up.
Access to the Leader and Power: Managers fear a loss of access to a leader, from whom they have been empowered, if they report / whistleblow abusive leadership.
Donor Support: Fundraisers may fear being caught supporting a badly run organization and so would rather just keep it quiet . . . continually praising the health of the organization.
Bad Witness: Assistant Pastors may continue to support a wicked Senior Pastor because suggesting he is broken and unworthy of leadership will be a bad witness to the world.
Common Goal: One particular church leader “was picked with the goal of growing the congregation,” and so the “main goal was to keep him as pastor.”1
“Image management” may create difficulty for subordinates to see the leader for who he or she really is. “Weick (1988) and Maitlis and Sonehnshein (2010) found that strong, optimistic statements and justifications produce blind spots that keep organizations from seeing contradictory cues and pieces of evidence. Followers also feel as if they must be bound to those positive outlooks.”2 In other words, subordinates struggle to keep clear sight when their leader has brainwashed them with positive think.
No Access: A close cousin to this positive think is subordinates being continually fed the leader’s narrative and never considering the victims’. Boards are notorious for this kind of mismanagement, as the board of our own mission was. They willingly allowed themselves to be kept from access to the stories of the missionaries and nationals who were being mistreated by the leaders of the mission.
And there are other reasons.
Most, if not all of them are bad.
It is not worth it to be complicit in these ways with abusive leadership. The organizational damage will be much worse because more lives will be broken and damaged by the leader the longer he or she remains at the helm.
He was trained to think of the boss as all powerful. He was even nurtured at his father’s knee to be a manly man who took charge and recognized his entitled place in society.
How do we view the abusive leader of the home or workplace who has seen no other way of relating to people since childhood?
For many of us, we have a certain empathic response to these kinds of situations. Though we may not put it in words, we have given these abusive individuals at least a temporary pass for their wicked behavior.
In the backs of our minds we think, “They cannot help their sin.”
No Pass
However, the Lord, though always compassionate, does not give abusers a pass.
Though ultimately we may be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ in the end, those of us who continue in the sins of our raising will be held responsible for that sin. [see footnote]
We do not get a get out of jail free card.
Ezekiel was a prophet and priest and was exiled to Babylon in 597 B.C. He spoke fearlessly and forcefully to a people who had turned from the Lord. And he spoke with compassion to those who would turn from their sin though raised on the knee of wickedness.
“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live.”
Ezekiel 18:21-22
However, Ezekiel also explained to those who would give others or themselves a pass because they learned to abuse others from their parents (or shall I add business or church leadership models) that they are responsible for their own sin. And the one who rejects those role models will be received as righteous.
“Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise: 15 he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, 16does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17 withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.”
Ezekiel 18:14-18
Ezekiel says, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Responsible
The individual is held responsible for their own sin whether they learned it well from others or not.
As we interact with abusive authority, we need to remember these words. The underlying principles that we can learn are that God does not allow our empathy to give a pass to the horrible wickedness of oppression even if the leader has been taught it from others.
He is responsible for his abuse. He is responsible for turning from it.
His or her only recourse is to fall before the Lord and confess the sin and walk away from it in new life.
Footnote: Those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, dying for man’s sins, as necessary for their eternal salvation do indeed get a “get out of jail free” card. However, the assurance of God’s forgiveness is for those who hate their sin and seek to turn from it (repentance). Abusive people must recognize, confess, and repent of their sins of entitlement and control as a means of oppressing others.
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
“The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care,” says Timothy Witmer, author of “Shepherd Leader.”[1]
That seems basic to the Christian, and yet how many bosses view their leadership this way?
The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.
A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”
The picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord” that is expressed by “words and deeds” says Richard Rardin, author of “The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.”[3]
Rardin says that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4] This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.
Unfortunately, some ministries fail due to shepherds who take advantage of their position and power over the sheep.
To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of a pastor’s assistant who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach – 1 Tim. 5:17) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral position).
The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra or jazz ensemble who perform under the “first chair” or lead player, must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.
This is particularly treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd.
John’s Story
John’s story is very similar to Susie’s [her story]. I heard his story along with Susie’s nearly the same week.
John spent one and a half years serving his congregation before resigning, under pressure, due to the autocratic behavior of the Senior Pastor. He noted, as we talked, that his purpose for accepting the position was that Pastor “Jim” said, “I’ll train you, give you preaching [opportunities], visits . . . the whole gamut of ministry.”
John was very excited to gain valuable experience in ministry following his seminary training and this position appeared to provide the opportunity. However, John resigned from the position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Jim.
Pastor Jim’s toxic leadership came out particularly in “pharisaical” ways which can be understood as practicing (and normally) advocating for extra-biblical rules, treating them as necessary for holiness.
The Pharisee
John described an incident when, as the Youth Pastor, he was encouraged to visit the local crisis pregnancy ministry. He spoke with the director, who had contracted HIV-AIDS from his wife, had experienced his baby (who also had HIV-AIDS) “die in his arms,” was divorced from this wife, and in the end became a Christian.
In the course of the discussion, John decided to bring him to speak to his youth group. There was a 16 year-old mother in the group and he hoped that it would be of real encouragement to her.
He approached Pastor Jim to seek permission. Because the crisis center director had an earring, John decided it would be wise to inform the pastor due to the “fundamentalist” leaning of the church.
After telling him about the earring, Pastor Jim “just killed it right there.”
Stuck in the Middle
In another incident, John was seeking permission to move the 16 year-old mother to the “college group” because “she was still of the mindset that [she was] a teenager” and he believed the college group would provide more maturation for her.
Again, Pastor Jim did not allow him to exercise his authority as the Youth Pastor and John was “stuck in the middle” between the pastor and families that were concerned for their own young children that were in the same group.
John found it necessary, as one under the authority of the pastor, to “come up with some reason of why the pastor [thought it] better to leave her” in the youth group to mediate between his boss and the anxious parents.
Shepherding the Agnostic
John said to me, “Shepherding is my favorite aspect of working in ministry” and related an opportunity he had to shepherd a teenager who had told his parents he was an “agnostic.” The teenager was finding it difficult to believe that his parents loved him and would support him despite his unbelief.
John was able to encourage him and help him through that time of questioning. The young man later turned to the Lord and John believed the Lord has used him in the young man’s life.
However, despite his success, John was placed in awkward positions with the senior pastor, particularly when he was leaving the ministry. His concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in our discussion.
Like Susie, John said, “I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving. I didn’t want to see a schism,” as he described two leaders in the church (Deacons) coming to him to discuss actions by the senior pastor. Though John did not mention the word, “gossip,” he implied that he was very careful with whom he spoke during the crises and when leaving the church.
He also sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about his experiences. Though John was very careful to keep his frustration contained by sharing primarily with family members, he said,
“If I had had more interaction with the deacons, who were also frustrated, it would have been very difficult to stay supportive, to not complain, not gossip.”
The Emotional Damage
John experienced many opportunities to use his giftedness for the building of God’s kingdom in his assistant role in the church. However, he noted that seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging.
John spoke extensively about the emotional difficulties of ministering under Pastor Jim.
Again, like Susie, John observed multiple times when his supervising pastor was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care.
However, he realized the significance of the emotional injury only later, as Susie said when I interviewed her.
Long Time of Healing
John said he and his wife took a year and a half out from ministry to heal from the hurt caused by the pastor.
John noted that he spoke with both his father and uncle who are pastors, to gain perspective emotionally. As he evaluated his response to the toxic leadership of the pastor John noted that he “spent most of that year and half frustrated” and didn’t “have good spiritual disciplines established.”
Because of this, he said, “I didn’t process through things as I would have.” His year and a half out of ministry following his resignation was because he “was more broken than I should have been had I been processing my emotions more effectively.”
John believed that had he had a deeper relationship with the Lord, he would have seen his context more clearly and resigned more quickly.
However, according to John, that time of struggle in ministry was invaluable to his growth as a leader. He said,
“I learned from it that my relationship with Christ needs to be what gives me the confidence and satisfaction rather than my relationships with the pastor, or church . . . it needs to be much more personal . . . that union with Christ. Who am I in Christ?”
His ability to be self-differentiated, while operating in an environment of broken relationships and anxiety was a valuable lesson John learned. He shared that though he “didn’t have the guts to argue with [Pastor Jim] at that time,” he would at this point.
In addition, he learned that much of his training in seminary focused on the idea that the pastor receives the vision from God and passes it on to the congregation. Having experienced this form of leadership from Pastor Jim, he recognizes that it is actually devastating to ministry.
Sharing With Others
There can be many emotional challenges for the assistant as he interacts with members of the congregation and an autocratic senior pastor. John noted that most of the leadership (Deacons) in the church have since left the church primarily due to the autocratic leadership of the senior pastor.
When John was preparing to leave this particular ministry, two of the deacons came to him and asked him about his experiences with Pastor Jim. He said,
“I was much more open with them. I knew I could trust their discretion . . . not go blabbing around. I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving.”
But, to complicate matters, John explained that his supervising pastor was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by him or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail.
When describing the pastor, John said,
“He was convinced of his philosophy of ministry so the problem was the church, it wasn’t him. I don’t feel like that there would have been a way for him to see his own shortcomings in that.”
Pastor Jim rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
He’s in Charge
John had an amicable relationship with Pastor Jim,
“But, I knew it was very clear, from the moment I got there, he made it very clear he’s the leader of this church. He’s in charge . . . So, the level of authority that he exhibited – that was intimidating to me, because I knew his word was final. So I wouldn’t ever push that.”
John felt “defeated, like my hands were tied. Like I had no authority.” He was given the task of leading the kids, but he had to do exactly what Pastor Jim told him to do.
“But, how exactly is that leadership? I don’t have any authority to make decisions.”
Having come to learn ministry, the actions of the pastor “really took the wind out of my sails.” There was very evident frustration in his voice as he described the inhibiting of his ability to minister to the youth by Pastor Jim’s authoritarianism.
Quitting Leaders
As James Kouzes and Barry Posner say, “People don’t quit their organizations; they quit their leaders.”[5]
It is not an infrequent occurrence that those who are called to gospel ministry find employment in churches led by autocratic pastors. The often devastating emotional effects on those who serve as their assistants are felt for years.
Rather than enter into a joint ministry that provides a learning environment for an inexperienced assistant, the assistant’s gifts are squandered by “self-serving leaders [who] use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves” rather than train and equip their assistant in ministry.[6]
Those caught in these emotional triangles of pastor-assistant-church must navigate relationships that are fraught with emotion, balancing respect and submission to the senior pastor and care and shepherding for the congregation.
Because these senior pastors are often given extensive authority by elder and deacon boards that are more inclined to “herding instincts” – keeping the peace at all costs and doing what the pastor says – the assistant is left to cope with the emotional struggle, sometimes unaided by those in the church.
Assistants that have a high view of the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation have little recourse as the one with whom they seek to correct for the purpose of reconciliation holds the keys to the church humanly speaking and are unresponsive to confrontations described in Matthew 18.
Two to Tango
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango”.
This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25.
Sometimes it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.
Having come from a long line of pastors—father, grandfather, and uncle—his calling to the ministry seemed a natural consequence of being born into his family.
Following Bible college and a stint with a traveling ministry, Aaron joined the staff of a large church with a well-known and “successful” pastor. Pastor Gene had been in the ministry for nearly 50 years and had served at all levels of leadership within Aaron’s denomination. Aaron said he and his wife, Joyce trusted him like a grandpa.
Aaron joined the staff as a music minister. He considered it his “dream job” and Joyce was hired in the youth ministry.
I could tell in our discussion that Aaron was the dream employee. A self-described “people-pleaser” and “rule-follower,” he was eager to please both his senior pastor and congregation. He clearly had a heart for ministry.
Just the Way He Is
But, after two years of serving in the church, Aaron came home to his wife and shared with her, “I think Pastor Gene has a man-crush on me.”
Aaron explained that Pastor Gene would do subtle things.
They would go out to coffee and Aaron noticed that when he would put his hand on the table, Pastor Gene would put his hand on Aaron’s. Taken aback, Joyce responded that she thought it was just the way he is. She knew he was very physical in his engagement with others.
These kinds of actions continued over two years and, though Aaron was disconcerted with it at first, he got more and more comfortable with the touching. Over time, however, the amount of physical touch ramped up. Pastor Gene seemed to get more and more “touchy” with Aaron as he described it.
Then one day Pastor Gene leaned in to give Aaron a kiss.
Four months after Aaron shared his suspicions with Joyce, Pastor Gene’s wife, Lee came to him “and exposed everything.” She explained to him that she and her husband “had been having arguments since October.”
Aaron asked her, “What does that mean?”
“Lee shared how Pastor Gene had fallen in love with me.”
Aaron was shocked. He described putting “walls put up instantly.” He said he went home that night and his son, who was only over a year old, came to give him a kiss goodnight and Aaron said he “immediately put up a wall.”
Fortunately, he said he realized his mistake and “brought him in, giving him a kiss goodnight.”
Power of the Pastor’s Presence
According to Wanda Collins of Baylor University,
“Every clergy or minister is a symbol of religious authority. By virtue of the pastoral office, the minister interprets religious truth, the meaning of life, the way of faith, and even the reality of God. Add to that status the power of the pastor’s presence through ministry, and the special influence a minister holds among his or her congregation.”
As I have written before, there is a significant power diferential between pastors and their subordinates or congregant members. As Collins notes, people under their care look to them for guidance that involves eternal life. Sexual advances by a pastor to those under his care are called “harassment” for a reason. It is more than sex that is at play in these cases.
When the pastor’s wife met with Aaron, she said he “needed to go to the church board because she couldn’t.” She feared being the one to bring down her pastor husband.
Yet, by end of week she was telling Aaron, “I’m such a horrible person. I can’t believe I did this.” She had completely “flipped,” confusing Aaron and Joyce. Aaron said, “She told us that everything she had told us was wrong. She asked us to forget about it and forgive her. She said that it was an attack of the enemy on our church and Pastor.”
Aaron and Joyce began trying to prayerfully figure out what to do next. Pastor Gene and his wife were leaving on a vacation at the end of the week and so Aaron arranged a meeting with the four of them before they left.
Aaron described the meeting as a “laying out boundaries” he had determined to enforce. He told the pastor,
He would not be in a room alone with the pastor.
He would not allow the pastor to be with his son.
Aaron would not allow the pastor to touch him.
Their ministry work needed to be in view of others.
The pastor would not enter the prayer room where Aaron kept the music when Aaron was there.
Pastor Gene responded, “Are you calling me a pervert?”
As Aaron explained, this showed Pastor Gene’s hand.
Aaron said, “Nope, never did that. Just laying out boundaries.”
Sacred Trust
Collins notes, “When the male clergy exploits his privileged position for personal sexual satisfaction, he violates a sacred trust that is contrary to Christian morals, doctrine, and canon laws. Because of the respect and even reverence the position carries, there is an imbalance of power and hence a vulnerability inherent in the ministerial relationship.
That “sacred trust” was broken. Aaron knew he was in a very vulnerable position and Pastor Gene was not likely to humble himself. Staying meant further violations and leaving meant the loss of jobs and income.
However, Aaron and Joyce knew they needed to leave the church. Aaron explained to me four perspectives he had as they left:
Aaron said his attitude was, “If Christ forgave me, I have to forgive.”
Many survivors of abusive leadership will understandably struggle with forgiveness in part because they have been taught it means to ignore the sins of their abuser. However, Aaron recognized the need for accountability in leadership. He said that if nobody had come to leadership to report the pastor’s toxic behavior, he wanted to be first. But, if others had, Aaron wanted to corroborate the testimony of those others.
Though it was not their responsibility or burden to bear, Aaron and Joyce sought to leave the church quietly for fear of the sheep scattering. Aaron said he didn’t want it all to blow up and the congregation’s faith to be hurt.
And finally, Aaron said if Pastor Gene wanted help, Aaron was not the one who could give it, but could lead the pastor down that road.
Leaving the Abuse
When Aaron announced his resignation, he saw Pastor Gene begin to cover his tracks.
When Aaron and Joyce met with him a week before his last sunday in the employ of the church, Pastor Gene said, “My wife is Norwegian and I don’t know what I’m going to do with her.”
He blamed her for misreading his actions saying, “I’m a touchy kind of guy. I hug. She doesn’t understand that.”
As Aaron and Joyce left the employ of the church, he spoke with three trusted pastors: his father, Joyce’s uncle, and another local pastor named Troy.
He and Joyce went to her uncle and said they were trying to “get out fast.” The uncle asked why? Aaron said, “It’s just important to get out.”
Joyce’s uncle said, “Is there an issue with pastor?”
Finally Aaron said, “Yeah.”
“Joyce’s Uncle asked her if we were leaving because Pastor was having an affair. Joyce did not respond. He asked if it was with a man. She was shocked and began to cry. Being that they already knew part of the situation, we relayed the whole story to them. They both said they were not surprised.”
The uncle shared about other pastors who had left shortly after working for Pastor Gene. He also spoke of rumors regarding Pastor Gene exhibiting homosexual behavior.
The uncle even described a night “when he got a call and the caller was inappropriate and he thought it sounded like Pastor Gene.”
Up to this point, Aaron and Joyce thought this was an isolated incident. However, the uncle’s comments added to the pastor’s wife’s revelation that it had happened before.
Joyce’s Uncle encouraged them to tell someone what was going on, but Aaron said they felt insecure, embarrassed, and confused.
However, Aaron and Joyce went to Aaron’s father, also a pastor. Aaron explained that his denomination is very concerned about slander and if Aaron accused Pastor Gene of anything, things would not go well for him. His father’s advice was helpful to Aaron. He told Aaron, “Don’t accuse, just share your story when reporting it.”
Blood on His Head
Pastor Troy came to Aaron and asked him why he was leaving the ministry. Again, Aaron tried to hide the true reason, but the pastor kept pushing him.
Aaron asked Pastor Troy, “Why are you pushing?” He replied, “Because I think I know why.” Aaron asked him what he knew and again the pastor said he had heard rumors. The pastor said, “I should have done something about it [when I heard the rumors]. I didn’t, so your blood is on my head. I’m not going to let that happen again.”
As they left the church quietly, they faced the anger and disappointment of family members who didn’t understand their move. How could they leave the church “in a lurch like this,” they asked.
Joyce’s mom shared her suspicions that the pastor had an affair, thinking he was involved in a sexual relationship with a woman. They explained Pastor Gene’s sexual advances. Obviously, it was not an affair as that would imply consent and willing emotional and/or sexual involvement between two adults.
Neither of which applies in Aaron’s case where Pastor Gene groomed and attempted to sexually assault him.
Her father told them they needed to tell others or “Pastor Gene will see it as weakness and he’ll do this same thing again.”
Reporting
After several months, having resigned, Aaron typed up his story and had it notarized. He made two copies “so it wouldn’t be forgotten.” He set up a meeting with the regional leadership of the denomination and read it to them.
Joyce’s father went with them to the meeting along with the other pastor to whom Aaron had shared the story.
The other pastor told Aaron he wanted to tell his own story and not have Aaron in the meeting when he did. He wanted to tell his story seperately from Aaron so the evidence would be presented in an “unbiased way.”
After nearly a year and a half, Aaron and Joyce had heard nothing. The other pastor began pushing the regional leadership to do something.
The leadership called Aaron about meeting with Pastor Gene because the pastor wanted to apologize to him. Aaron agreed to recieving a letter from Pastor Gene, but not a personal visit.
Pastor Gene wrote the letter and it was like so many apologies of abusers. Aaron described it as saying, “I’m sorry you feel badly that I did this to you.” Aaron said there was no actual apology.
The leadership asked Aaron what they should do about Pastor Gene. Aaron shared with them that it was their responsibility to hold him accountable, not Aaron’s.
Accountability
When I asked Aaron what has provided the most healing for him, he said he sought perspective on his ministry. Aaron said, “My dad is a pastor. My gramps is pastor. I have experience knowing that even though people are in the church, they are still people.”
Aaron went on,
“My relationship with God is not dependent on people. It’s got to be my relationship with the Lord . . . We often put people on pedestal because they are in leadership. We honor those people God has given us, but we must primarily honor the Lord. I can’t look to leaders to build my relationship with the Lord. . . Jacob wrestled with god, there is a wrestling we have to have with the Lord to grow.”
Aaron made much of building good and solid boundaries.
Though abuse is never the result of the victim’s sin, but rather the deeply rooted sin in the heart of the abuser, Aaron sought to be humble before the Lord and consider how he could grow, knowing he couldn’t fix Pastor Gene’s heart.
Beauty from Ashes
In parting, Aaron shared that he saw the sovereignty of God in bringing beauty from the ashes of the evil Pastor Gene perpetrated. Though he lost his “dream” job, he was given a beautiful mnistry planting a church, ministering alongside his wife to other broken people.
“He works all things together for our good. I have to believe that and I have seen God’s hand in that.”
It was a life-altering experience that she embraced with “enthusiasm and was filled with joy and excitement” at her future.
This new life led to a basic assumption that all new Christians were on that same road, making her “lenient in forgiveness.” She knew her own sin and the forgiveness she received in Christ. Lisa knew she must pass it on.
She met her future husband, Anthony at a coffee shop. He seemed to her to be “sincere, charming, loving, gentle, mature in his faith.” And, his heart for missions took her in.
She fell fast for him and they were married in two months.
“I soon realised something was wrong in my marriage, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. It was very covert, hidden behind the façade of him fulfilling his God ordained role as head of our family. I found it near impossible to have a productive conversation with him. My opinions were mostly not valued or considered as valid. He used sarcastic jokes to poke fun at me, but I felt the sting deeply inside. If I tried to explain how I felt, my feelings were dismissed as being invalid and I was told I was too sensitive and couldn’t take a joke . . . He was jealous of my friendship with other women and wanted my full attention all the time. He did not have close friends. We only ever went out as a couple.”
On Mission
Lisa and Anthony went on the mission field, but after Anthony had a “falling out” with the mission leadership, the couple returned to their home in South Africa.
Three years later they returned to the mission field, serving in Zambia deep in the bush. She said, “We literally hacked our way onto our newly acquired property and set up a mission base.”
They oversaw a fruitful ministry of developing a Bible Training School and church planting endeavours in addition to various other projects.
During this time, Lisa explained that she tried to be the best wife she could be. She tried to be more submissive. She tried to be an obedient wife. She tried praying more. Believing more. She tried marriage counselling and “watched countless DVD’s on better communication and marriage enrichment.”
She attended seminars. She read books.
However, he would be negative and vindictive. He would constantly nit-pick and used character-assassination often obscured as a joke with Lisa and everyone and everything else around him. Lisa said the staff, fellow missionaries, friends, fellow workers, their children (and at times even their pets) were the targets of his abuse.
Keeping the Peace
She said, “I would desperately try to placate him and keep the peace.” She would excuse his behaviour and defend his actions all the while internally she was screaming at the injustice being done to others.
Lisa tried talking to him. She explained, “I desperately wanted him to understand the devastating consequences his words and actions were having on me and on others.”
But nothing she did could fix her troubled marriage.
He would simply deny everything and then shift the blame to Lisa. She said she would walk away more confused, taking on guilt and shame for what had happened.
Anthony was so sincere in declaring his innocence, she thought surely, he must be right. She was to blame.
The Children
She could see that their marriage would have a major impact on the children and determined to protect them in any way she could.
“I wanted them to feel safe and secure and have a firm foundation of trust and respect. . . I over functioned big time. I just wanted to make things okay and normal.”
Still, there were good times too. He could be charming, friendly and sweet. And Lisa sought to extend these times by never rocking the boat. She knew the bad times, that she described as “really bad,” were just around the corner. But, she worked tirelessly to keep those times at bay.
Inevitably, those bad times came to the fore. No matter what, they were never able to discuss any issue and find a resolution. Never. “Anthony was always right, and he had the final word and say in everything” and somehow, she was to blame.
Every time.
So, Lisa said she would “slump back and do intense introspection, cry, and confess before the Lord and determine to do better next time.” After all, she said, “it was my duty as a Christian wife wasn’t it – to stand by my man for better or for worse?”
Silent Tears in the Night
“There were countless nights of silent tears, of crying out to God to help me find a solution, to soften my husband’s heart, to lead me to an answer. I forget how many times I cried in the toilet whilst I ran the shower to cover my loud sobbing. But then, I would pull myself together, put on my happy face and fill my days with busyness to forget the bruises on my soul.”
In time Lisa said this all became her “normal.” She considered it too horrible to face the truth that her husband and marriage were incredibly broken. She said, “I knew it in my heart but didn’t know what to do about it.”
Like others in domestic abuse, she had no idea where she would go. Abusive mission leaders are notoriously difficult to “out.”
She didn’t even really have the words to describe it and so just “secretly carried the burden and pretended all is well.” Lisa said she became “so good at pretending I fooled everyone. Even myself. I was in denial.”
A Mission of Broken Relationships
Lisa said that things were not going well at the mission base and Anthony had “littered” the path behind him with broken relationships of his own making.
The couple resigned from the mission organisation and a few months later Lisa broke down “in total burn out.” She shared that she emotionally and physically crashed.
Anthony was furious.
It was very inconvenient for him.
He sent her to Johannesburg.
There she “semi-recovered.” However, when she returned to Zambia things became worse than before.
They moved to a new mission location, and he now had absolute control. They lived “off the grid” and were completely dependent on inconsistent solar power. Whether she needed the washing machine, the laptop, to switch on a light, use the car, go to town, buy a cool drink, cut her hair, or visit a friend, she needed permission from Anthony. She had no money. Had no access to money.
Lisa described spending many days under the covers in her bed. She felt hopeless and helpless. She was suicidal. But thoughts of her children and grandchildren prevented her from following through.
He Was Suffering Because of Me
Lisa was shamed by Anthony for making his life miserable and difficult. “He was suffering because of me.” He complained to their pastor that her behaviour and attitude were causing him great distress.
The mission was failing and they had lost most of their personal financial support. He was spending much of their support on the ministry but was not well liked by the local community. Anthony attempted “practical training sessions” with local farmers but Lisa thought they “attended out of politeness, and afterwards no one actually implemented any of his teachings or ideas.”
He was critical and depressed and blamed the lack of success on others and Lisa, who, in his view, were ungrateful for his hard work and sacrifice.
Lisa suggested they return to South Africa to be closer to family and find work. Surprisingly, he agreed, and Lisa was thankful to get back home. However, he did not like Lisa spending so much time with her sister and mother and she continually tried to “appease him and live up to his expectations” while also caring for her family.
Lisa and Anthony’s finances were in very bad shape. Fortunately, when Lisa got a part-time job, she also opened her own savings account. Due to his irresponsibility, she did as much as possible to take care of her own needs.
She knew something had to change. She was desperate.
Again, they tried marriage counselling and were both diagnosed with various relational problems. However, as most marriage counselling goes, there was no diagnosis of abuse. She was discovering that marriage counselling rarely fixes an abuser.
Back at Square One
“And so, we were back at square one, except that I now struggled with increased, suppressed anger.”
Late in 2019, Lisa and Anthony had another incident and she determined to take steps to salvage the marriage. She secretly recorded a conversation and “told him that I was done with the status quo and of taking all the responsibility to find a solution to the conflict and unhappiness in our marriage.”
She explained that she drew a line in the sand. He needed to put some effort into finding help for their embattled marriage. Or else.
Anthony did nothing.
But, with Covid lock-down of 2020 came what Lisa described as her liberation.
A mutual friend knew that she was deeply unhappy and stressed in the marriage. She had challenged Anthony at various times and became his enemy number one. She encouraged Lisa to stop trying to fix him, suggesting he was not going to change. Rather, the friend encouraged her to work on her responses to him instead.
Narcissistic
During a conversation, her friend casually mentioned that Anthony displayed “narcissistic behaviour” and at that moment Lisa said “a light went on for me.” She spent time learning about narcissistic, overt and covert emotional and verbal abuse and realised she had a name for what she was suffering.
She was “ecstatic, relieved and elated! I wasn’t crazy after all!”
For a time, Lisa thought she was the only Christian experiencing this. Then she discovered the shocking statistics for abuse in Christian marriages.
But being a victim of abuse did not sit well with her. Lisa said she was determined not be a “victim, but an overcomer and with time, a thriver!”
Lisa sought out a psychologist and for the first time felt that she was heard and believed. She researched and learned as much as possible. She learned how to “grey-rock” – a strategy to survive emotional abuse – and how to create boundaries.
Gaining Clarity
Slowly she gained clarity.
Anthony spent much time away during one year. It gave Lisa time to develop courage to put boundaries in place and by the time he returned she had made some changes to her lifestyle. She hoped the boundaries would be an opportunity for Anthony to become self-aware and take responsibility for his part in the destruction of their marriage.
He did not.
He accepted it because she “no longer reacted negatively and critically to him.” She realized later that this was a typical response for an abuser. “It is all about how things affect him.” Never would he own up to contributing to the situation.
Lisa refused to be intimate with Anthony.
Again, he didn’t protest.
Lisa then asked him to move out of the bedroom and put “house rules and financial adjustments” in place.
They were living like “housemates with separate lives.”
“I asked him to consider therapy for himself and suggested a therapist. He went three times and then stopped going ‘because he didn’t have any problems.”
Bitter, Angry and Resentful
It became clear to Lisa that he was not willing to take responsibility or to change his behaviour or attitudes.
As time went along, Lisa found she was focusing so much on Anthony’s toxic behaviour that she was becoming what she described as “bitter, angry, and resentful.” She had insomnia and was struggling with her health. She longed for Biblically based advice and counsel.
Then she stumbled upon Leslie Vernick’s website, YouTube videos, and blogs.
Lisa was determined to make staying with Anthony work because she could not envision being financially independent. But it became apparent that living this way was unsustainable.
“The covenant had been broken a long time ago and the marriage was over.”
Leaving Well
Rather than “staying well,” it was time to “leave well.”
With the support of Lisa’s children, her family, and some close friends, she sought out a divorce attorney and filed.
“I followed the safety advice from Vernick’s to inform Anthony of my plan. He did not contest it.”
As she walked out of the courtroom this scripture came to mind:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
Lisa was finally free to start rebuilding her life, to heal and see Christ’s restoration and fulfilment of His purposes in her life.
Lisa had gone from victim, to survivor, to thriving as a Conqueror.
Lisa ended by thanking Leslie Vernick and her team for all they did to bring her safely through.
Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.
Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.
Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.
We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.
Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.
Is He Successful?
But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”
He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.
I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.
They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.
I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the churchI own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.
The Shepherd
The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.
The Strongs Dictionary says,
“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary
We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.
Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.
A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.
But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.
Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13
Responsibility, Not Authority
Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.
A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.
He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.
The sheep do not fear him.
You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.
Not take authority.
Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.
And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.
