Category Archives: Pastoral Abuse

Liberty U: Not My Job

Posted on by
Reply

We have had a pandemic, wildfires, drought, political fights, and all manner of mahem it seems over the past six months. Add to those the almost unbearable failure of Christian leaders right and left.

Each of these leaders have portrayed toxic leadership characteristics for some time. But, in each case, they have continued to be held up as gifted and powerful Christian witnesses to the world by the evangelical church.

Gifting should not be the only standard we bear for the support of Christian leaders.

Yet, the horrific sin of these gifted leaders is often overlooked by those who follow them. And, unfortunately, as Jean Lipman-Blumen notes,

“These intriguing leaders first charm but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than they found them.” 1

We are worse off in the end. No matter their gifting.

The church cannot think that all those gifts can overcome toxic, arrogant, self-centered leadership. It will all end. And, it will end in hurt. This rule of life is not established by their followers but by the God Who created His world and continues to rule it.

Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” He answered, “I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD. Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. And I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the anger to which you have provoked me, and because you have made Israel to sin. And of Jezebel the LORD also said, The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel.’ Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the heavens shall eat.”

1 Kings 21:20-24 (ESV)

Pretty harsh. The leaders of God’s people have a great responsibility. It is why those who desire to lead are both encouraged that it is a noble desire and instructed to be noble [1 Tim. 3:1, James 3:1, 1 Peter 5:1-4, Titus 1:7, etc].

And held to high standards.

One of the more recent failures was Jerry Falwell, Jr.. Falwell’s father has been held up as by some as a standard to which Junior did not achieve. But Cal Thomas wrote many years ago that Jerry Senior’s fundamental approach to the Moral Majority’s influence during its heyday was in wielding worldly power.2

This is the legacy that Falwell Jr. caught and bred at Liberty University.

According to Daniel Burke, “Karen Swallow Prior, a former professor at Liberty, said Falwell ruled the campus with virtually unchecked power.” Burke notes that Falwell was interested in creating an academically, financially, and athletically successful university. Not “to live a Christian life.” 3

Karen Swallow also said,

“There have been red flags for a long time…The kind of arrogance and authoritarian leadership that we experience as faculty was really just a symptom of this lifestyle that obviously was one in which he thought he could do anything and get away with it.”

It wasn’t Jerry’s job

Unfortunately for Jerry Jr., God balks at such callousness among those who claim Christ and lead His people. It matters not whether they lead a “Christian” organization or a business or non-profit entity. Those who claim Christ must also claim His life. 

In the church we seem to have low standards for putting in leadership and high standards for removal from that leadership.

Many of the Christian leaders who have fallen from their lofty perches of late have been raising red flags for years. Those in their inner circles either were silenced or turned blind eyes to these leaders’ authoritarian, immoral, and arrogant leadership. Maybe, they overlooked their character while upholding their worldly giftedness.

Burke said, “Falwell Jr. likely assumed that as long as he kept Liberty rolling in money, no one would care much about his personal morality.”

When will it end? Not until Jesus returns to right every wrong and bring his broken and bruised people home. But until then, the church has the high calling of calling our leaders to account. God’s standards for leadership are very high and his standards for removal are actually quite low.

Honor professing Christian leaders who genuinely follow Christ [1 Tim. 5:17].

Take courage and remove those who do not [1 Tim. 5:20].

Notes:

1 Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford University Press, 2004.
 
2 Thomas, Cal, and Ed Dobson. Blinded by Might. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2000.
 
 
 

Book by Editor of P&S

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

Free Preview:

What others say about the book:

Historians study something called ‘movement’ — how one people group becomes a different people group simply by moving into another people group. The Dehnert tribe is a perfect microcosm of ‘movement’ – and we are all better for it. This book would be helpful for anyone considering cross-cultural service. For everyone else, especially we ‘experts,’ this book is a helpful lesson in humility – learning again the limits of our learning!

Rev. Sam McDonald
Pastor, Faith Presbyterian – Brookhaven, Mississippi
Former Missionary to Malawi

Stupid [Toxic] Leaders: Lessons from Proverbs

Posted on by
Reply

A fundamental character trait of good leaders is humility. However, many have experienced quite the opposite in their Christian organizations.

There seems to be a pervading sense of arrogance and hunger for power in our current culture, though I have no statistics to back it up nor do I know the heart of man. Though the business world has made great strides in the development of leadership models that emphasize a form of humility, the Christian community continues to struggle along with the world around them.

We continue to create more James MacDonalds, James Bakkers, Mark Driscolls, Bill Hybels, Jerry Falwell Jrs….etc.

There seems to be a love affair with leaders who thumb their noses at community and authority alike. They operate on the assumption that their way is always right and simply claim persecution when confronted.

My recent reading of Proverbs has given me a glimpse at the kind of people who should be in leadership in Christian organizations and the church. It is chock full of references to humility. And the Proverbs don’t pull punches.

Take for instance:

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Proverbs 12:1

Those who don’t respond to reproof – or criticism – are stupid. I have been on a crusade lately to rid our public discourse, and mine, of words like that. But that word certainly gets to the core of the problem. The leader (or anyone else) who refuses to listen to criticism – who blows off any discussion of how they may have failed – is stupid. They are hurting themselves and hurting others. They are failing to grow and become more what the Lord wants them to be.

Toxic leaders, that are being challenged, market it as persecution. They must retain their image. They must be “right.” But Proverbs has something to say about that:

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12:15 (ESV)

These people see themselves as right. A toxic leader will always see themselves as right. There is no humility that would mold their response to criticism. They can’t possibly be the one in the wrong.

Dan Allendar, a Chritian psychologist, has written many helpful books. One in particular, Bold Love, discusses the “scoffer.” Scoffer is a title given to a particularly evil person in the Proverbs.

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. Often the one who delights in evil is an ordinary, unassuming person who hides behind a facade of normalcy. Few people who are evil ever appear evil, even after the evidence of their deceit, destructiveness, and hardness is exposed.

Bold Love, page 233

These are the scoffers that Allendar describes.

A wise son hears his father’s instruction,
but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Proverbs 13:1 (ESV)

Humility drives out self-interest. Humility answers a rebuke with…well, humility. Exhortation provides an opportunity for growth and community interconnectedness. Not power and self-interest. And in humility, the wise leader will hear it, seaking to grow as a leader and Jesus-follower.

Who are your heroes? Are they like Jesus or arrogant and power-hungry?

Let’s get on top of this. May the church nurture and hold up humble leadership.

Notes

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

The Team: Sharing, Caring, and Respect

Posted on by
1

What should be second nature to Christian organizations has, in some ways, been purloined by business leadership.

Teamwork.

In the course of studying toxic leadership, I have read numerous books on business leadership that helpfully describe a positive and productive work environment. I have also interviewed many Christian organization employees and leaders who have suffered under leaders who have no interest in teamwork.

Business gurus identify various means of creating a respectful and engaging office that gets the best out of the employees. Amy Edmondson, in her excellent work, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, has many valuable things to say. I would like to take her extensive research and knowledge and place it in a biblical context.

Because that is where it belongs.

Command-and-Control

Edmondson notes near the beginning of her book, “Many organizations still rely on the top-down, command-and-control approaches that fueled growth and profitability in the industrial era.” [Edmondson: Kindle 267-268] Henry Ford’s “command-and-control” leadership worked at the time only because employees were treated as cogs in the machinery of industry. They repeated activities over and over and ran as fast as possible on a mindless wheel of production.

However, business leadership writers are seeking a brighter future for the workforce.

Teaming blends relating to people, listening to other points of view, coordinating actions, and making shared decisions. 

[pages 278-279]

Edmondson’s list of teaming characteristics can give hope to Christian organizations wishing to lead their organizations to a place of flourishing. In a toxic organization or one ruled by a toxic leader, these four elements of a positive work environment are often non-existent.

When the IT director and I proposed a digital solution to the problem of printer use in my Christian mission college’s computer lab, the President of the college called me into his office. His wife, the lab’s director, had already explained to me that I was to “keep my nose out of her typing lab.” The President reiterated his wife’s nastiness and proceeded to make clear I had nothing of value to be considered.

Relationships in these organizations are usually deeply fractured. The autocrat has no interest in listening to other points of view. “Coordination” means an employee is told what to do and when to do it. And, there is no discussion or attempted agreement on decisions.

Fear and Control

To be fair, some leaders just haven’t gotten the memo and have little experience in developing these leadership skills. What they have experienced, their personality traits, and what they learned from others are more Henry Ford than a team leader.

On the other hand, some leaders “believe (most of the time, erroneously) that fear increases control. Control reinforces certainty and predictability.” [Edmondson, 508-509] An autocratic, toxic leader knows exactly what he is doing and will use fear to control all things organizational. Unfortunately, “When leaders fall into a default ‘do it my way’ management style, it silences nearly everyone except the person with the loudest voice or the largest office. [Edmondson, 1217-1219] And, a toxic leader always has the loudest voice and largest office.

If you are a leader who wants the most out of her employees, the Bible and Edmondson have much to say.

Gleaning from the Image-Bearer

Edmondson says, “When leaders explicitly communicate that they respect employees, it makes it easier for employees to volunteer their knowledge.” [Edmondson, 1233-1234] Christian organizations should want the knowledge present in their employees. God has created every man (and woman) as an image-bearer. That means they represent God and take after Him in various ways.

We are fools if we do not want to glean all we can from the database of skills and knowledge stored in our employees. The Lord said as much to Moses:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.

Numbers 11:16-17 (ESV)

God provided for his image-bearing servants the Holy Spirit that they were of help to Moses. They were to judge the people. Moses was going to be worn out trying to deal with all his office, as the head-honcho prophet of Israel, was throwing at him. God said, “I will come down and supply other men to help.”

We need to trust that the Lord does that with our employees as well.

Similarly, the Apostle Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to recognize the value of every member of the church. This lesson can easily be transferred to a Christian organization.

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body.”

1 Corinthians 12:14-15 (ESV)

The Lord has, in His purposeful way, provided subordinates for the good of the organization. They need to be treated as gifts rather than objects of control and abjection. The various members of our team should be treated as of equal value to our ministry.

So, how do we use employees of our organization as gifts?

Psychological Safety

We create psychological safety. This kind of environment is safe for relationships to flourish. In this kind of environment employees and bosses listen to other points of view. In this kind of environment, there is a cooperative effort to reach a goal and there is a sharing of decision making.

“When a leader of a team is supportive, coaching oriented, and nondefensive in response to questions and challenges, team members are likely to feel that the team constitutes a safe environment.” 

[Edmondson, 2473-2475]

Leaders and fellow workers must respond to one another without jealousy or arrogance. They cannot act in a way that shuts down the free flow of ideas and suggestions. Trust has to be developed that ideas are welcomed and considered without harsh judgment. And, if that environment of trust is built then more challenging conversations can take place.

“Simply put, psychological safety makes it possible to give tough feedback and have difficult conversations without the need to tiptoe around the truth.” [Edmondson, 2151-2152] 

When employees are psychologically safe, they do not fear broken relationships or getting fired when they disagree or present difficult ideas. There is respect and trust between members of the team. There is no jealousy.

“This belief comes about when people both trust and respect each other, and it produces a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.” 

[Edmondson, 2153-2155]

Jealousy and Gifts

One day the Lord spoke to Moses and He put His Spirit on seventy elders of Israel. The seventy prophesied, giving evidence of the blessing God had given them. They did not prophesy long. However, two men who had not gone to the tent of meeting continued prophesying in the camp. A young man, knowing the normal response of leaders to be jealousy of the successes of their subordinates, came running to Moses. He breathlessly explained to Moses the two men were prophesying.

Joshua, overhearing this exchange, was perturbed and told Moses to stop the men. He feared for Moses’ authority.

“But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!’” 

Numbers 11:24-30 (ESV)

Moses saw the great value in the grace of God being shared with other leaders besides himself. Joshua, one of the greatest leaders of Israel, likely learned an important lesson from Moses.

Subordinates must have the freedom to share their skills and knowledge.

Not Just Allowing Gifts

It is not enough, though to simply allow others to use their abilities. It is the leader’s responsibility to help those under their care to develop their abilities. Paul commands church leaders “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” [Ephesians 4:11-12 (ESV)] Help them grow their ministry skills, not by criticism but by encouragement. Fan their gifts to a flame.

As if taking her cue from Paul, Edmondson finishes saying, “The most successful leaders in the future will be those who have the ability to develop the talents of others.” [5043-5044]

All of this could just be a lot of law-keeping for organization heads who have no love for others.

Gospel Heart

So, having said all that has been said about building a team, I must hasten to add that real teamwork will come from the heart of man. If the leader simply follows some nice guidelines, such as the ones given by Edmondson, but miss the heart of the Gospel, it will all just be a fake.

Jesus always gets to the heart. If a leader doesn’t respect his subordinates. If the employees despise the boss. It will just be a whole lot of acting as a team but not truly functioning that way. It is imperative that the team develop an inner attitude of sharing, caring, and respect. If I put on a facade of respect for my subordinates or co-workers, they will know. It must go to my heart.

Unfortunately, the inner man is desperately foul. It takes a supernatural work of God to help us see our blind spots and respect the image of God in others. So, humbly ask for it. Realize you need it and plead with God for the mercy to see your employees as a gift.

And build a team for God’s glory.

Book by Editor of P&S

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

What others say about the book:

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

References

Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. Kindle Version. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
 
ESV New Classic Reference Bible. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2011.

General Revelation: Look, Listen, and Learn

Posted on by
Reply

I have seen the failure of the Church to respond well to abusive leadership in the home and office. At times I have wondered if one of our difficulties is an ignorance of God’s communication to his people.

In the history of the church, theologians have given names to two different means of communication God uses to speak to his creation: “Special” and “General.”

SPECIAL REVELATION

“Special Revelation” is that communication that is found in black and white on the pages of the Bible. Scriptures are a “lamp to our feet and a light to our path.” [Ps. 119:105] They are inerrant in their original writing and have been faithfully handed down through the millennia. [2 Tim. 3:16]

Normally, evangelicals consider the Bible foundational to how we interpret the world around us. If we have questions about what actions God has taken, His character, or what He requires of His people, we turn to the Bible for answers.

GENERAL REVELATION

“General Revelation” is not so clearly understood. We know about General Revelation from the Bible, in particular from Paul’s letter to the Romans. But it is not discussed with much clarity. In Romans, Paul says,

“His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

Romans 1:20

Evangelicals are much more “wary” of this communication from the Lord. However, God communicates through “the things that have been made.” He has spoken well enough through His creation that all people are “without excuse” for failing to “honor him as God or give thanks to him.” They are culpable for their rejection of His Lordship over their lives because, even though they may never read a Bible, they have his General Revelation in the created things around them to point them to His character and acts.

What Does God Communicate through General Revelation?

But exactly how and what has been conveighed to man through General Revelation? Paul says “his eternal power and divine nature” have been communicated but what exactly does that mean? And, what aspects of creation communicate these attributes?

As we consider all man has learned about the world around us, down to the itty-bitty elements of the living cell, it seems apparent that God’s creative, life-giving work is there for all men to see. He has displayed the building blocks of His ordered creation as we peer into the recesses of nature. Those discoveries of His creative works seem to be coming at faster-than-light-speed in the past two hundred years.

This look at creation under the magnifying glass also shows us the brokenness of the creation and gives guidance on how to bring healing and help to those who are physically broken. As the specializations in science, including psychology, continue to “specialize” with the piling up of information regarding the human body, we know more and more how the fall has broken us in an area the Bible gives little information.

Special Revelation tells us that man brought overwhelming brokenness to a beautifully and perfectly created world through his rebellion in the garden many eons ago (Genesis 3). Every aspect of creation – spiritual and physical – has been broken by that original sin in the garden. Paul says that the whole world around us “groans” awaiting to be renewed.

It is General Revelation that shows us that we can work to redeem the physical brokenness we live with every day of our lives.

Special Revelation gives us the guidance we need to understand the spiritual brokenness of our world – how our relationship to the Creator can be fixed through Jesus’ blood and righteousness – but General Revelation gives us understanding of the physical brokenness of this world. Of course, our interpretation of General Revelation fails at times just as it does of the Word of God (Special Revelation).

Our original sin affects everything.

Understanding Physical Brokenness

But we would never say to an individual who suffers from physical handicaps that they just need to pray and read their Bible more so they can grow out of it. This is an obvious misuse of Special Revelation. We use the wisdom gained by God’s image-bearers, after observing God’s General Revelation of the physical brokenness, to diagnose and prescribe ways of working with the special needs of that person.

Though the church’s understanding of scripture has grown and developed in some ways over the centuries since its writing, man’s understanding of General Revelation has made extraordinary strides, particularly in the past two hundred years.

General Revelation has made it possible to send men to the moon. General Revelation has made it possible to better understand what is happening in the brain of someone “clinically” depressed or suffering from OCD. General Revelation has made it possible to give someone a new heart. And General Revelation helps us understand the effects of trauma on the person.

Special Revelation does not provide those things.

It is really quite extraordinary how those who have been created to be creative and to seek a redeemed world have figured so many things out. Even those who have no interest in glorifying God in their discoveries are serving God’s redemptive plan (much like Pharaoh and the Exodus).

So, as we seek to reach and minister to a world that is deeply broken by the original sin, we cannot ignore God’s General Revelation that tells us much about man. It can help us know how man responds to horrible events like emotional, spiritual, and physical abuse. We can learn more and more by observing God’s General Revelation how to help those suffering from trauma.

REVELATION of Trauma

How do we bring Special and General Revelation together to minister to survivors of abusive leaders? God’s Special Revelation tells us that Jesus considers the trauma of a broken world as He ministers to His creation:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice. 

Isaiah 42:1-3 (ESV)

He handles broken people carefully. He does not snap the bruised stick. He seeks to heal it. He does not quench a small ember but patiently brings it back to full flame. He looks out for the downtrodden.

The affects that minimizing, discouraging, criticizing, and shaming have on people has been studied carefully by neurologists. It actually changes the brain.[2] The sin of others break us. We need to listen to God’s image-bearers who are seeking the redemption of the body. They have learned much about the body that the Bible (Special Revelation) does not tell us but the Lord has told us in General Revelation.

Healing the Through Talk

Scientists have determined that the process for healing those broken neurological pathways is a long and slow process.[2] It involves talking about the event and pain caused by it without others judging your biblical accuracy or lack of willingness to forgive and forget. Healing comes when it seems that the survivor of traumatic events has talked about it from every angle and has worn their listeners out listening to the same things over and over.

I have heard God’s people express frustration at the things an abuse survivor says about God and her seeming lack of forgiveness of the abuser. They are so caught up in the errors of her words that they forget the lessons of Job’s counselors. His well-meaning counselors wanted to clear up his thinking and in the end were required to make a sacrifice for their sin of judging Job in the midst of his incredible suffering.

Rather than listening and comforting, Job’s counselors were determined to critique his thinking.

If we wish to love survivors of abuse, we will listen and seek to empathize. In time, it will bring about the “peaceful fruit of righteousness.” [Heb. 12:11]  But we need to trust that God is at work in them and through his General Revelation as scientists seek to understand how abusers traumatize their targets.

We are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” [Ps. 139:14] And that is a revelation.

Book by Editor of P&S

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

What others say about the book:

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

Notes:

[1] The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Bessel van der Kolk MD. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books, 2014. [Get on Amazon]

[2] Suffering and the Heart of God by Diana Langberg [Get on Amazon]

22 Years of Failure: The Church’s Response to Abuse

Posted on by
Reply

Marsha sought help from leaders of the many churches she and her abusive husband attended over the years.

After 20 years of marriage she told her whole, sordid story to a couple church leaders who seemed to “get it.” As they heard her story, they listened with concern for her. Their initial responses were helpful and safe.

It All Began . . .

Marsha was sexually assaulted twice as a child on the mission field, later by a relative, and then as a young adult by an assistant church pastor. It seems that each time she turned to spiritual leaders or those who should have had her wefare in mind, she was abused.

In her late-twenties Marsha was introduced to her future husband by friends and had a short courtship. Within a few months they were at the altar repeating their vows to love and cherish one another.

Then it began.

There had been no sign of abusive behavior in their short courtship. But on their honeymoon he lost it and “yelled” at her for accidentally crushing the sand dollars collected on the beach, making quite a scene. Marsha explained to me, “Time went on and his anger was very present when conflict arose.”

In each location they lived, she sought help from church leaders. They were moving about every three to four years due to her husband’s job. One pastor, when asked for counsel told her husband to “love her” and told her to “get her parents out of it.” Marsha had shared his raging moments with her parents over time including the time she said, “He was yelling at me with a dog gate held over his head.”

In obedience to the pastor, Marsha faithfully “kept [her parents] out of it” for 17 years.

Bad to Worse

When things finally completely boiled over, she sought out a church that would understand abuse and help her. She had believed, as some of the churches had told her, that she must dutifully submit to her husband and that divorce was one of the worst actions anyone could ever take.

Church leaders, tasked with shepherding her and caring for her spiritual wellbeing, had faithfully taught her to just hang in there…because God hates divorce.

When she told her story to two pastors in the new church, they wrapped their arms around her. The senior pastor advised her to legally separate. She began that process.

Then, the elders met with her husband.

It all seemed to turn on its head. She began receiving communications from the pastors and a woman who was part of a group tasked with helping other women in crisis. They shared with Marsha in emails and conversations such things as:

  • I don’t find grounds for you to divorce your husband.
  • We are hoping that you might be willing to enter into a process to possibly restore your marriage.
  • It seems you have a habit of leaving churches that challenge your views. Sounds like the same ol’ song.
  • We’ve inherited an estrangement that has gone on for 20 years and one in which several churches have not been consistently speaking into.
  • Relational estrangement is far removed from fixing appliances and cars…It requires two willing people.  It requires repentance and forgiveness….And so we need time to make room for all these things.  It demands patience from all involved.

After more than twenty years. “It demands patience” was all the pastor could come up with. We need to make room for all these things.

This is a typical problem for those in abusive situations. It does indeed take two willing people. Apparently, church leaders having not gone through the years of living in hell with an abuser think they need the survivor to slow down for them to catch up.

They hear the abuser’s manipulation and are sucked into his vortex of lies.

Suddenly, a church that knows little of the story wants the victim to “be patient” while they dot their i’s and check off the boxes they need to feel justified in allowing her to divorce (if they will allow divorce). They think they can finally fix the marital problems where others have failed…

My wife calls it ignorance and arrogance.

It is where many of us have been when we had little understanding of abuse. We can be so ignorant and then, thinking we are so knowledgeable of God’s will, arrogantly espouse platitudes about love and mercy and commitment…and forgiveness.

Abuse is not “estrangement”

It was a strange and calming term to use for the violence perpetrated by Marsha’s oppressive and manipulative husband. “Oppression” is the term that scripture uses. My guess is the pastor used the term “estrangement” (consciously or subconsciously) to bring the abuse down to a manageable level with which the leaders could deal.

As we consider why church leaders would care so poorly for targets of domestic violence, I would suggest that there is a fundamental underlying failure in our theology of divorce.

We think all divorce is bad

Some get this from Malachi as he takes God’s people to task for divorce:

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

Malachi 2:16 (ESV)

There are few who have not heard translations of this verse that say “God hates divorce” such as the American Standard Version and King James. Theologian after theologian quote these versions to battle our culture of no-fault divorce.

But notice how the English Standard Version translates it:

“The man who does not love his wife but divorces her…covers his garment with violence.” 

The New International Version says,

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘does violence to the one he should protect,’ says the Lord Almighty.”

There are difficulties in the translation of this passage and scholars disagree. But there is significant evidence that the language used, the context of the culture in which it was written, and traditional rabbinic interpretation would suggest the ESV and NIV likely have it right.[1]

It is not divorce the Lord hates, but the reasons for the divorce; the husband does not love his wife. The husband is not treating his wife well. He has severed the covenant he made with his wife.

That can be evidenced in abusive behavior, adultery, addiction to pornography, and other ways that reject his wife, breaking his covenant to love and protect he made at the altar.

This translation makes more sense when considering God’s own actions. He is said to “divorce” Israel in its rebellion, called adultery. [Jeremiah 3:8]

God hated Israel’s adultery and found it necessary to turn away from them just as a survivor of abuse must turn away from the evil of their covenant-breaking spouse.

If divorce were evil in itself, God would never take part in it.

We hold men and women in bondage as we expect them to “hang in there” when a spouse radically breaks their covenant vows through abuse. Whether it be adultery or abuse, the innocent party has biblical grounds to take the legal steps to put a legal stamp of “divorce” on the actions of divorce. A divorce has already taken place in the marriage by the offending party.

In case of abuse, divorce is not only the safe option but the loving option.  Abusers must be held accountable if there is to be lasting change. The Lord most certainly wants the abuser to change.

The church should stand beside those who are suffering abusive relationships. They should do everything in their power to give aid and safety to the survivor, including “allowing” the decision to divorce should the survivor seek it.

Not begrudgingly. Not hesitantly. But with their blessing.

 

NOTES

1 David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Kindle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 1075.

Go On and Kiss the Girl: People-Pleaser-Ahab

Posted on by
Reply

I think I have King Ahab figured out.

He may have been a pretty nice guy…just don’t tell Naboth that.

He is a people-pleaser.

Scripture describes a particular incident between Ahab, his nasty wife, Jezebel, and a citizen named Naboth. 1st Kings 21 says Ahab saw this great garden right by his palace and it was owned by Naboth. Ahab thought it a good idea to have that garden so he would have veggies close at hand.

What’s a king to do?

Most kings of the time would probably tell Naboth to find a new garden…“It’s mine, all mine!”

But Ahab was actually pretty honorable. He said,

“Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house, and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.”

He offered a better one or cash. That seemed pretty fair.

However, Naboth had good reason to refuse Ahab and told him it was part of his family inheritance. They did not just give away their inheritance back in those days. It was pretty impressive that Naboth felt safe enough to reject his king.

But King Ahab went home and sulked. He accepted Naboth’s rejection but was quite torn up about it. He clearly was lusting after that piece of property.

Go On, and Kiss the Girl

So, in his sulking, that Jezebel (his wife) showed up to save his day. She told her hubby,

“Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”

She reminded him he had absolute power – because that is how she thought of his position of authority. She knew nothing of God’s requirements for the King of Israel (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Jezebel did not put up with insubordination no matter the reason. My guess is she could not allow the image of her family be tarnished by a commoner.

So, she took care of the problem.

She did so by hiring a couple “worthless fellows” and acting suddenly religious. With Ahab’s stamp on the orders, she proclaimed a “fast,” which would normally mean a humbling of the nation before the Lord and prayer. But instead, she used it to bring false accusations against Naboth that he bad-mouthed God (and king).

And he was stoned to death.

Wow.

King Ahab arose from his sorrow and went “down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.” Just like that it was taken care of.

No Mocking God

But that is not all. The Lord will not be mocked by Ahab’s foolish compromise with evil to be done in his name. The Lord proclaimed that,

Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel.

And he told Jezebel,

“The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel.”

The Lord does what he says. Jezebel was indeed eaten by dogs…

But, following this pronouncement, Ahab actually humbled himself before the Lord, though Jezebel did not. He tore his clothes, put on sackloth, and fasted. God noted his humility and promised to withold his judgment during Ahab’s days.

You really get the sense that Ahab was not such a bad guy afterall. He is not the beastly abuser of whom so many stories are told in scripture. He has some humility. He was not going to force himself upon Naboth despite having the power of king.

But his people-pleasing created problems. Especially for Naboth.

Wagging the Dog

As a leader he was unable to stand against that which was evil – an abusive, horrible wife. He could not say, “No” to her. He was willing to submit to horrendous wickedness because of his lust for land and desire to please Jezebel.

There are many leaders out there in this category. Where many leaders that I write about are mean and controlling, Ahab leaders are ineffectual and hurt their organizations not through meanness but through failure to actually lead.

They fear others and will compromise with evil to make them happy.

The tail wags these dogs. Just as Jezebel wagged Ahab.

Note: There is an excellent business text on leadership traits where I first saw this particular type of leader discussed.

Vries, Manfred F. R. Kets de. The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. 1st edition. Wiley, 2009.

Daniel in the Lion’s Den: A Leadership Quagmire

Posted on by
1
painting by Jerry Antolik

Daniel faced off with a toxic Senior Pastor and lost. That is usually the case.

But in Daniel’s denomination there should have been oversight that stopped the abuse. And yet, the abuse of leadership continues in his former church. It should have been Pastor Jim who packed his bags, not Daniel.

But generally, it is never that simple.

Many denominations have little recourse for those caught under abusive leadership in the church. They may be “congregational” in their church polity, meaning the congregation makes all or most of the major decisions and there is no group of individuals who have oversight outside the local church.

However, there are many denominations that do have some kind of board that practices oversight of the local church. They should provide safety to those in a congregation who are blowing the whistle on toxic leadership.

Daniel’s Story

Daniel knew Pastor Jim as a leader of his college ministry. After being fired by the college ministry, Jim planted a church in a bustling metropolis. Following seminary, Daniel was asked to join Jim as an Assistant Pastor. It seemed like a great opportunity to minister with Jim so, he packed up his young family and moved across the country.

For a year things went swimmingly. Daniel was getting all kinds of experience. Upon arrival, he immediately started an adult Sunday school, taught Sunday school for kids, led the college ministry, oversaw communication for the church, and sought nursery volunteers.

He even filled the pulpit in Jim’s absence 10 days after arriving.

Despite the long hours, he saw it as an incredible opportunity to get varied and valuable experience preparing him for future ministry.

Who is He Really?

But things fell apart quite suddenly.

Daniel lost his job, but as he noted, “The real abuse was not in being fired unjustly [which he was], but in [Pastor Jim] having to control the narrative in every situation…the manipulation, gas lighting, and his constant need to fight.”

Missy, Daniel’s wife, had not met Jim when they arrived to begin ministry. Daniel had said, “He is a big personality. People either love him or hate him.” She noted that Jim was very “charismatic.” “People were really drawn to him,” she added.

However, when things went sideways, things got very nasty for Daniel and Missy. There was such a sudden shift in Pastor Jim’s attitude, it deeply hurt the young couple. Daniel said, “In our final months there, he seemed to be driven by anger, fear of losing control, and a desire to have me painted in the worst light so that he looked like the good guy.”

Messy Accountability Model

When Missy, Daniel, and I spoke, she explained they did not know the “right questions to ask” when Daniel interviewed for the Assistant position. They were young and just out of seminary. They were excited to get going in ministry. It was a great opportunity.

As a church plant, it had “borrowed” leadership. There were several elders who were tasked to oversee Jim’s ministry, but were not local. In fact, all were out of state and two were Jim’s close friends.

As his friends, they would simply do Pastor Jim’s bidding. They really did not provide any oversight to the ministry as an elder board should according to Missy and Daniel.

But Missy noted they would not have likely listened to the answers to tough questions about Jim and the leadership structure had they even known to ask them. They were ready to jump into ministry.

The Battle Began…

One Sunday, Pastor Jim and Daniel had a disagreement when preparing for a particular element of the worship. Pastor Jim decided not to go ahead with that part of worship and seemed fairly gracious, in Daniel’s view, in explaining it to the congregation.

The next day, Monday (which happened to be Daniel’s day off), Pastor Jim called Daniel to come meet him in his office. There was a congregant there as well, one of Jim’s good friends from seminary. Pastor Jim explained how disappointed he was in Daniel bringing up his conscience “right before the service” – no matter that it was an hour and a half before and Daniel had provided a solution that had been used another time when the same problem came up and Daniel had for some reason rejected it.

Pastor Jim proceeded to “suspend” Daniel until the elders met the next week. He was not to have any contact with church members (except the elders). Pastor Jim included students returning to college that week with whom Daniel would normally meet.

Daniel summed up the situation, saying, “Our ‘face off’ on that Sunday morning was only made into that because Pastor Jim took a concern that I had and turned it into a black and white, right vs. wrong conflict, instead of listening and discussing our options and moving forward together.”

When he met with the elders over Skype the next week, the board reinstated him but “with caveats.” He was to “obey and follow” Pastor Jim.

From this point on, Daniel and Missy felt they were “walking on eggshells.”

Crazy Managing

A few weeks later, Daniel was presented with a document by Pastor Jim that included a variety of men’s names with whom he was to meet regularly. The pastor had complained to Daniel that he did not do all the things with which he had tasked him. Pastor Jim would regularly give him responsibility for piles of work.

Daniel noted that it was presented to help him grow personally in ministry, but “much of it seemed arbitrary or like busy work.”  The document was not presented as, “Do these things to the letter, or you are out.”  With so many other responsibilities, he had to figure out what was really important to the running of the church.

Pastor Jim struggled with articulating priorities. “Everything was a high priority in his mind,” and so, over the months, these tasks for Daniel’s personal growth became secondary to the weekly operation of the church.

Daniel said he “never received any feedback from the elders on those extensive reports, and only confirmations that they had been received from Jim.”

Following a very hectic summer of leading retreats and a camp, Daniel was once again called into the pastor’s office. Pastor Jim said, “I am very disappointed in your lack of getting things done. The priorities you set. I have been following up with the guys I had you meet with. You didn’t meet as often as I had specified. I will meet with the elders next week and determine what to do with you.”

Again, Daniel was required to refrain from any contact with anyone at the church while awaiting the meeting with the long-distance elder board.

The Resignation

The elders in the end voted to “dissolve” his calling to the church and ask for his resignation.

It was explained that if he chose to go to the hierarchy of the denomination to challenge their decision, he would give up his severance package. After getting much advice from other pastors, he chose to resign and move on from the “nasty situation” it had become. As I have shared this with others, their responses have been like mine: it sounded like blackmail. 

Pastor Jim wanted him to stay on for a few months to help in the transition. Daniel graciously agreed hoping things would settle down. Unfortunately, following a congregational meeting where they were told that Daniel had resigned, he was given
“strict guidelines to not meet with certain people and had to tell Pastor Jim” what was said if he did meet with someone.

Daniel noted, “If I did talk with people at all, my narrative was to be that ‘I fired myself’ by my actions…that I was the only party to have acted wrongly.”

Pastor Jim continued to retain control as Daniel explained,

“He and his close friend on the [board] constantly followed up with me after I resigned, and would call to berate me if they heard that others were dissatisfied with the way things were being handled, even when I hadn’t had any contact with those congregants.  It reached a point where they actively threatened my severance, my ordination, and informed me that they would never recommend me for a position in ministry.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Pastor Jim is driven, a “fighter,” “opinionated,” and “rough around the edges.” But, of course, very talented. He has attracted many to the church.

But this kind of leadership comes with a high price tag. The fallout may largely be in the inner circle of leadership – losing assistant leaders and elders which has happened – but it is very destructive to the whole body nonetheless. I have yet to see a church continue to flourish under such leadership.

It is a cancer.

There is always a reckoning.

Abusive leadership leads to destruction.

It is imperative that an abuser of God-given authority, like Pastor Jim, be brought to account. That accountability in itself can bring him to repentance…but if it does not, at least God’s people will no longer be oppressed.

Daniel said, “The real hurt came from working closely with him in ministry for three years and then having all bridges of our relationship burned so quickly, and then to watch his efforts to burn the bridges between us and the congregation.”

Daniel finished with a hint of hope.

“We trust that God will use our story to bring light to abusive leadership, give comfort to those who are experiencing similar situations, and be a catalyst for the peace and purity of the church.”

NOTES:

  1. Crippen, Jeff. Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church (p. 48). Justice Keepers Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

Sure Signs of Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
1
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Sure-Signs-of-Toxic-Leadership-e27dqg9

One of the occupational hazards of someone who studies and writes about abuse is an ever-present vigilance – often overdeveloped. I am very attentive to leadership failure. I can find it under every rock.

But I guess that is my job so others can think about other things maybe more productive.

Let me share some of those rocks under which I have found toxic leaders in my various interviews and experience. There are a number of indicators of abusive leadership and it is important to be able to diagnose toxic leadership and root it out from your organization.

Because it is nearly guaranteed toxic leaders will kill your organization if left unchecked.

The List

This is meant as a simple list and it is not conclusive. But it can give you something to consider if you are wondering if you serve a toxic leader:

1. Lack of Humility

Recently, a blogger listed the various evangelical leaders who have fallen by the way-side. He noted that each one lacked humility. “He cannot be wrong.” This is my warning to survivors of domestic violence or leadership abuse: run from those who do not have the humility to admit they are wrong. They are wrong at times no matter how often they tell you someone else is wrong.

2. Focus on Control

From micro-managing to mind-control, leaders who abuse God-given authority want to control everything. In Christian organizations control is often hidden behind the “Christianese” of despising gossip. As one ministry under-shepherd said, “He had to control the narrative.” One Christian business leader (of whom I have heard testimonies) makes it his biggest priority to root out gossip from the organization.

Sounds good.

The Lord speaks against gossip. But his hatred of gossip is in one direction. He is entitled to be free from being challenged for wrongdoing. If someone goes to him directly they are either torn apart (Matthew 7) or their complaint is ignored. Where do you go from there?

Wherever you go, it is then considered gossip by these authoritarians.

3. He is the Center

Closely related to number one is the leader who always takes the credit. Rarely is the leader really the reason something got done. Maybe he directed as a good leader should. Maybe it was his idea.

But it is usually the minions who are doing the hard lifting. The abusive leader makes it very clear he is the center of all that is good in the organization. We all want praise but these leaders are seemingly driven by little else.

And, watch out if they do not get it.

4. Blame-Shifter

Closely related to the first and second is the leader who deflects criticism by sending you in another direction. Someone else must be wrong if the leader is always right. Right? Often they create the environment that there has to be a fall-guy. There must be someone else to blame.

Often blame-shifting comes out when the leader talks about the large percentage of resignations from the organization. “They just weren’t supportive of our mission…They just couldn’t handle the hard work…They just couldn’t handle Africa…”

You might want to actually talk to some of those people to get the real story.

5. No Team is a Good Team

As a musician friend of mine noted not long ago, the conductor’s job is to help the orchestra (or choir or band) use their talents to the best of their ability to serve the audience. It is not his job to create a cult of self. The focus should never be on the conductor.

Good leaders build teams that help each other multiply their effectiveness by enjoying and using one another’s giftedness. Toxic leaders are (back to number 2) the center of their universe. And they want to be the center of yours as well.

6. Image, Image, Image

In our day of marketing genius, this may be a bit harder to get. We want to get our ministries out there so we let people know what we do well; that can include some pretty professional marketing. But those who have been part of a mission organization that practiced this will understand.

One Christian psychologist put it this way:

I often think of a narcissistic pastor who served in a rural setting in a very small church, who by all accounts was diligent and godly but who constantly compared his church to other churches with an attitude of judgment, lauding his church’s orthodoxy while quietly condemning other local pastors. 1

There are many mission groups or organizations out there that are doing God-glorifying work. When a leader is constantly comparing his ministry to others and touting that his organization is the very best, there is a problem going back to number 1.

In fact, maybe he believes his organization is the only one doing the work of God. It is ego-gratifying and it will eat you alive. And it fails to recognize the big team of God that is out there seeking to do His work.

7. Sweetness & Hurt

Not all toxic leaders practice this bizarre behavior but it is extremely confusing to those who do not recognize abuse. One moment the leader will go off on a subordinate, tearing him to pieces . . . the next they are sweetness and light. And usually with no acknowledgement that anything happened at all.

This is an indicator of “borderline” personality disorder. It is manipulative and destructive.

8. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

It is really hard for most employees or church members to believe: There are “Christian” leaders out there that lie through their teeth.

It took several years for us to finally realize that our mission leader was intentionally lying to us. We gave all sorts of justifications for his failure to “remember” what he had told us before. We even calmed others with justifications when they pointed out his lies to them. But it finally came down to him covering his own entitled self with lies.

This is not normal behavior!

Run or Confront?

So, those are some indicators of toxic leadership. If your boss is practicing these, have another vocation waiting in the wings and send out that memo. You can run or confront.

If you want to see repentance, your leader will need to be seriously challenged. They do not change through soft-pedling their wrongs. If you care for the organization and the work it is doing, help the organization root out the toxic leader.

NOTES:

1. Vrbicek, Interview by Benjamin. “The Many Faces of Narcissism in the Church.” ChristianityToday.com. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/march/chuck-degroat-narcissism-comes-church.html.

Who Is On the Lord’s Side: Blessing God’s Own

Posted on by
Reply

Often toxic leaders will snear, “If you aren’t with us, you are against us.” They want you to choose their side. But, when it comes to oppression, you better be against them.

In Numbers 23 a fascinating story is told about Balak and Balaam. Balak was the King of Moab and as the people of Israel “camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho,” the inhabitants of Moab were frightened.

They knew the stories of Israel crossing the Red Sea. They knew of the Israelite God who overcame the Egyptians. They expected they would be next at the short end of the stick in the long line of successive military victories for Israel.

So, Balak summoned Balaam, “the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the people of Amaw.”

Unlike, our “enlighted” culture, they understood that God had much to do with these victories – whether it was the true God they looked to or another god made up by the culture. Balak called on Balaam to “curse” the Israelites. He was to call upon God to destroy Israel.

But an incredible thing happened.

To Curse or Not to Curse

Firstly, Balaam was not willing to willy-nilly curse people without God truly wishing them to be cursed. So, he sought the Lord and the Lord said, “No.” But Balak was desparate and said, “I will surely do you great honor, and whatever you say to me I will do. Come, curse this people for me.’”

Balaam said,

“Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God to do less or more. So you, too, please stay here tonight, that I may know what more the Lord will say to me.”

[Numbers 22:18]

The Lord sent him with Balak, but to make a long story a bit shorter, in the end, Balaam actually “blesses” Israel because the Lord told him to do so.

There is a lesson here. I am sorry for taking so long to get to it.

Blessing

  1. Bless whom God blesses

Firstly, we bless whom the Lord wishes us to bless. If you bless whom the Lord chooses, you are on His side.

In fact, Jesus took that idea so seriously he said,

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Matthew 18:5-6 (ESV)

We must never place a burden or a road block in the way of one who is vulnerable. The Lord uses the language of the “widow,” “orphan,” and “child” when speaking of those who are vulnerable. They are the weak ones that must be cared for by those of us who are stronger…in wealth, power, or health.

So, we bless those who are weaker…because the Lord is on their side. On whose side will you choose to be?

    2. Don’t Go Along to Get Along

And secondly, we owe no allegiance to those who would not stand beside the weak. Balak had a choice to be on the Lord’s side. But instead he chose to curse God’s chosen people.

Again, God is on the side of the oppressed…even when they do not know he is. God despises the powerful taking advantage of the poor and weak. On the other hand, Balaam wisely chose to hear what God had to say and only do what the Lord commanded regarding his people.

Even though Balak had the power and wealth to make him miserable or happy.

So, when someone is being oppressed by a toxic leader or spouse, whose side will you join? Being neutral is actually choosing to stand away from the weak. It is choosing to not support the oppressed.

You need to make that choice even when that toxic leader is wealthy and powerful and likely very charming.

Our Own Experience

When we left a mission organization because of abusive leadership, it was common for people to think it “couldn’t be that bad.” Maybe we just didn’t understand the leadership or there was bad communication.

Curse us.

We have learned the language of abuse and in so doing are able to bless those whom the Lord blesses much better than we did before. I encourage you to learn the language. To learn what kind of people abusers are whether in the workplace or the home.

With that learning comes responsibility…and I have not always been willing to stand for the oppressed. Even now I have been encouraged to engage in pursuing justice in a church leadership case and I fear the confrontations that likely will result.

May God give us strength to bless those who are under an oppressor. And stand at the Lord’s side as He brings justice and healing to the hurt.

Mission Agency Leaders & Matthew 18

Posted on by
1

Sandi* has worked for mission agencies almost her entire adult career. In fact, she was the child of missionaries. Japan, Eastern Europe, Africa…she has sought to build Christ’s kingdom on three continents.

And Sandi has experienced multiple toxic leaders in those mission agencies.

I have heard missionaries say many times, “I thought I was working alongside brothers and sisters in Christ with the goal of shining the light of Christ in a dark world.”

But instead they found they were working for men (and women) who abused their authority and expressed extraordinary evil.

Following are a few of her stories

Serving in the Bush

When Sandi was a small child her parents packed up their children, leaving behind a U.S. mission work to travel to Africa. They were headed out to help a former employee of her father’s who was serving in the “bush.” They arrived in the middle of nowhere to discover the family they were there to help was leaving within a week on a year-long furlough.

They had no idea.

It was years later that she would serve under one of the children of that family. I would sit in an office while she confronted her childhood friend and I experienced my first real abuse of leadership firsthand.

The smooth, charming, and reasonable response from the leader while Sandi nearly came unglued turned my allegiance to him. However, several years later I would discover that he was lying through his teeth, a shocking discovery when I thought Christian leaders could not possibly be so evil.

Austria

As a young adult she traveled to work in Austria with a major mission organization. A local supporter of the organization tried to sexually molest her, deeply traumatizing her.

After complaining to leadership, she was told to “wait until he does it again and then tell him no.”

Nothing was done to bring accountability to the molester. It was Sandi’s responsibility to keep from being molested.

Eastern Bloc

Again, as a young adult, Sandi joined a mission work in the Eastern bloc. There were three single woman missionaries “who had been fighting over one man.” They followed Sandi around pretending to be her friend. It became evident they were looking for things they could put on a list of reasons why she “wasn’t fit to be part of their team.”

As she sat in a meeting, the mission leadership allowed the girls to read off their list in front of him making her “look like a fool.” Sandi said she was heart broken and sobbing. The leader “dismissed the girls, then put his arm around my shoulders and tried to comfort me.”

Not long after, they dismissed her from the mission.

Africa

Now serving another mission agency, Sandi is facing more toxic leadership.

Johann*, the country director, became emeshed in a conflict of interest in the hiring of a national board member to provide services for the mission. In addition, the board member had a horrible reputation in the village.

Johann had clearly become so close to the situation he could not see straight.

A young couple joined the mission and was providing excellent ministry. Sandi described them as the best missionaries the agency had on the field in her country.

The couple was informed of “payoffs” to the board member by sub-contractors. The board member was withholding some of their contracted fees as payments to keep their contracts.

Two of them came forward anonymously as they knew they would get little work in the future if it was made known they were complaining.

When the young couple went to Johann he promised to investigate. He went to the board member and asked him. He was told it was all foolishness. Johann told the couple the sub-contractors were jealous.

When Sandi also confronted Johann he began quoting Matthew 18. The sub-contractors needed to go directly to the board member and they needed to come out of the closet. He expected at least three to speak publicly. No matter that they would likely lose the contracts in retribution by the board member.

Johann “pocketed” the board, ordering them to provide all email communications with Sandi and to cut off communication with her. Despite being “under” the authority of the national board, he had clearly taken charge of them and they were afraid of him.

Then two days before the board meeting they sent Sandi an email telling her to come to a board meeting in one day. It was “five hours drive away.”

She said she declined.

Though Johann has admitted that he should not have used the board member, he continues to work with him.

Matthew 18 and Mission Leadership

In the masses of emails Sandi has sent to those in authority in the mission agency, there has been a very clear failure to understand leadership abuse. Matthew 18 – where Jesus explains how a brother in Christ should confront another brother who has sinned against him – has become the centerpiece of their counsel to Sandi.

However, Matthew 18 must be very carefully applied in the context of leader – subordinate conflicts.

Matthew 18 contains Jesus’ instructions to privately confront a “brother” who has sinned against you. Should he fail to respond, then it is taught that one or two others should be brought along to confront once again. Should that fail to get his attention, the church should be informed and involved in the discipline process.

Some commentators caution against using Matthew 18 as guidance in cases where there is a “power differential.” When someone in authority sins against a subordinate, they suggest the same “rules” do not apply. Jesus’ use of the term “brother” in the passage may be making it evident his instruction is intended for those on equal footing – ie. my neighbor coming to me to confront my sin…not my employee.

However, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, it may be more appropriate to apply the principles evident in the instruction Jesus gives even to those cases.

Rather than legalistically following the passage in Sandi’s case, her leaders should be understanding their fiduciery responsibility to the mission organization. They have a responsibility to protect their donors, who have given hundreds of thousands of dollars, from the mismanagement of those funds by one of their leaders.

And they have a responsibility to protect their employees from leaders who are abusing their authority.

They need to investigate the matter. Or, in a case like this consider bringing the legal authorities in to investigate as it may be a matter of breaking the law.

Sandi’s responsibility, as a subordinate, was to share what she knew of the mismanagement to those who have authority over him. Whistleblowers are not ultimately responsible for changing the offender’s heart and should not be expected by those in authority to expose themselves to the possible dangers of confronting a toxic boss.

Many non-profits (and corporations) now have by-law clauses that provide protection for “whistleblowers.” Agencies are beginning to understand their responsibility to protect those who, in good faith, seek to bring accountability to evil leadership.

Read Chapter 18 in Context of Chapter 7

Consideration of Matthew 7, also Jesus’ instructions about confrontation, may also be in order. Confronting dangerous people is not a biblical requirement. Matthew 18 helps those who have no fear of losing their jobs (or lives in some cases) and Matthew 7 speaks to whistleblowing in organizations where there is danger in confronting the toxicity of a leader.

I will not go into more detail as I have written before regarding the interpretation of Matthew 18 in context of Matthew 7.

Sunday School Understanding

Unfortunately, leadership failure is terribly common in mission organizations. Sometimes, they are simply honest mistakes. Sometimes the failures take a more sinister tone.

Either way, leaders need training and a more robust understanding of God’s Word than they received in their Sunday schools. At times they may be just covering the discomfort they have with confronting their subordinate leader by pushing off Matthew 18 on their employee.

It is important these leaders take leadership in holding those mid-level leaders under their authority accountable for their failures.

In the end, Sandi said, “It makes me realize the power of God in my life.” As she noted, many would “fold their tent and go home.” But she is praying that this season of life “will be the most profitable.”

* Not their real names.