Category Archives: Pastoral Abuse

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 1

Posted on by
2

Jim was contacted to apply for a position as Youth Director at a medium-size church in the Midwest. He and Mary, his wife, were excited. They were moving out in ministry. Jim had been praying for more opportunity to reach into the community with the Gospel.

The position appeared to be a God-given break.

This is Their Story

At the same time one committee was hiring Jim, another committee at the church was hiring the new pastor, Carl. A lot of change for the church. Jim had a vision for the ministry and was ready to tackle the new position with gusto.

He looked forward to working with the pastor who came on a month after he did. Jim believed he could get along with anyone, particularly, he told himself, someone “who was a spiritual leader.“

But it was not long for the trouble to begin.

Big Plans

The church was realing from its former pastor’s leadership.

But they were moving forward. The pastoral search committee was headed up by a strong leader, and his vision for a pastor who would lead and teach with authority held sway over the other members.

He wanted a pastor that would “command authority.” A sort of “CEO style” of leadership, Jim said.

Jim shared that the initial conversations with the pastor were a little “awkward.” Jim “expressed enthusiasm,” but did not get much “positive feedback” from Pastor Carl.

After a short time, Jim suggested instituting weekly staff meetings, something that had been very helpful to him for planning in the church he had recently served. It was welcomed by the staff, but he noticed that when they talked about the youth ministry and any difficulties he was having Pastor Carl was taking copious notes.

Approximately five months later, the personnel committee called Jim to a special meeting. He figured it was a “job evaluation” kind of meeting. Everyone on the committee was upbeat when Jim arrived except the chairman…the same chairman from the pastoral search committee.

When the meeting began the chairman opened a file folder of notes that the pastor had taken during the staff meetings.

He began to systematically go through the notes and one-by-one turn it into an “indictment of [Jim’s] character.”

After the meeting several of the members came up to Jim and said, “I don’t know what that was about. I think you are doing a good job. I am going to find out what is going on.”

It seemed to end there however. Nothing more was said and ministry went on.

They Will Come

There was a new facility for the youth that was not really being used.

It kind of a harkened back to the “if you build it they will come” idea. One of the church leaders asked him cynically early on, “Will we ever fill this place?“

Jim looked forward to the day they would fill it with youth and began reaching into the Native American community that had been largely ignored in the past by the church. After three years of faithful ministry, God was beginning to fill the building. They had gone from just a few teens attending mid-week youth meetings to over 100, many of whom were from the Native community.

But of course, every cloud with a silver lining also dumps a boatload of rain.

In the midst of this excitement, Jim was driving home one night from a youth meeting and received a call to come back to the church for a meeting. He still had his basketball clothes on and was sweaty. When he arrived it was evident to him that the meeting had been planned for sometime, though he was not told until he would have no choice but to walk in late.

In attendance were Pastor Carl and a few Deacons who were favorable to the pastor’s views. The pastor proceeded to make statement after statement that implied Jim was doing a poor job and that “nobody liked” what he was doing.

The youth leaders were “very upset so they banded together in a Wednesday night prayer meeting and brought it to the surface. They didn’t understand why there was relational conflict.” Jim said, “People would come up and ask ‘why do you have such a hard time with the pastor.’ Like I had a personal grievence with the pastor.“

Jim was careful not to be derogatory in any way in response and following the prayer meeting things calmed down for a season.

Mission Control

As summer approached, Jim wanted to take a mission trip with the students.

He was thinking a sports camp or VBS. He proposed the idea to Pastor Carl and, to Jim’s surprise, the pastor said it would be acceptable.

Jim had heard of a Colorado church planter looking for a sports camp. He made contact and began arranging for his students to lead the camp. However, soon after Jim began planning, the pastor organized a trip with the church planter for an adult group from the church. It appeared to Jim “it was an ego thing. Like he needed to have a trip if I was.“

Before Jim left on the mission trip, Pastor Carl called him to his office and told him he did not feel Jim was responsible or qualified enough to lead the trip and so he “was going to appoint a chaperone.” Jim knew the man chosen and had a good relationship with him, but would not have appointed him because he had alcohol and abuse issues.

Jim said, “[The chaperone] would often talk about his anger issues…he was jailed as a minor for beating someone almost to death. Kind of proud that it didn’t show up in his criminal record because he was a minor.” Jim also noted he made girls feel uncomfortable to be with him. “On the trip he made lots of comments about women’s bodies and what he liked,” Jim explained.

Used Against Him

It seemed to be a common tactic of Pastor Carl to use things against Jim that would never have been considered negative in the first place or were of little consequence.

On the mission trip, Jim drove the entire trip to Colorado because the chaperone had bragged about his “dangerous driving.” Later the pastor suggested Jim was being dangerous by not allowing the chaperone to help drive the long trip.

After the prayer meeting ordeal one of the leaders suggested that Jim and Pastor Carl go through mediation. The denominational leadership suggested they go through individual counseling first.

So, Jim made arrangements for counseling figuring the pastor would as well. He said, “After a couple visits, the counselor said I don’t know why you need to be here.” Jim fulfilled his commitment and then found out the pastor did not attend any counseling.

But later Pastor Carl said Jim had psychological issues because he had gone to counseling.

The pastor also used people against Jim and Mary.

After Jim had left the church, the chaperone of the mission trip came to him and apologized. He said he was glad to have a friendship with Jim. Apparently, Pastor Carl had asked the chaperone lots of questions about Jim after the trip, but the chaperone had nothing bad to say about Jim’s leadership.

The chaperone felt badly that the pastor had used him.

A new woman began coming to the church and applied to be a nursery worker. Jim and Mary got to know her and enjoyed her friendship. She asked if she could help with Jim and Mary’s kids. One night she babysat for them and when Jim and Mary returned from their date she stuck around talking with them. She asked them many questions about their “thoughts on the pastor.” They said very little.

They realized later she was being used by him to determine if they were against Pastor Carl.

Another couple offered to watch their kids and later were “bad-mouthing” Jim’s ministry behind his back despite their sweetness to Jim and Mary.

Final Straws

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2.

A Cry for Justice: Judgment and Forgiveness

Posted on by
1

Among those who have been abused there is a constant friction between the belief that God calls us to forgive our enemies and God’s desire for justice to reign.

How are these two seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive attitudes to be reconciled?

In a recent interview of a pastoral leadership abuse survivor, my interviewee said he realized that forgiveness was not an option but necessary in his walk with the Lord. But understanding how it can take place in the midst of such hurt was difficult for him.

When we returned from the mission field, having been beaten up by the leadership of our mission, we struggled with this question. We desired to follow the Lord in his leading; to not be like the master’s servant who had been forgiven much and yet sent his own servant packing to jail [Matthew 18:21-35].

But it was difficult to make theological or emotional sense of justice and forgiveness.

A Cry for Justice

Shelley Hundley, the author of “A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You,” does a marvelous job explaining how we can move from anger and bitterness to forgiveness without forgetting justice.[1]

How is it possible to seek justice for these horrible wrongs committed and forgive?

This blog is in part dedicated to holding abusive leaders accountable [justice] for their actions, a mark of the true church.[2] Biblically, justice is clearly an important attribute of God’s character and a legitimate desire of man having been made in his image.

Yet, the grace found in forgiveness is also characteristic of our Creator who sent his Son to die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and who commands that we go and do likewise.

Finding Forgiveness in Justice

Hundley, who suffered sexual mollestation as a child of missionary parents in Columbia by a pastor, explains that she found forgiveness in God’s justice.

The work of Dr. Robert Burns has been helpful to me for several years in understanding a two-fold approach to forgiveness [see this blog].[3] Hundley adds some helpful perspective.

Often we think forgiveness is sweeping the wrongs we have suffered under the rug. Forgive and forget, just as Psalm 103 seems to say:

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Psalm 103:11-12 (ESV)

However, Hundley points out that it is in the justice of God that forgiveness can truly be offered to our offenders. She explains,

“As believers, we are no longer objects of God’s wrath, but we are objects of His jealous love.” [page 110]

That “jealous love” of Jesus Christ works out in protecting His “bride,” the church. As His bride, I am taken under his care and he will go to the end of the heavens to protect me from evil…in fact, ultimately he died for my protection.

Hundley notes that others tried to encourage her by saying things like there would be “light at the end of the tunnel because ‘things would get better.'” She added, “In the darkest moments of my journey, pats on the back and teary-eyed sympathy brought little consolation.”

God is Judge

What did bring healing for her was the recognition that Jesus was Judge! And as her “groom,” He would stand by her in the injustice of her suffering.

She points to Romans 12:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Romans 12:18-19 (ESV)

She says that knowing God as Judge gives us a totally different perspective.

It enables us to leave room for God to right the wrongs and to trust that our heavenly Judge will make sure we have what we need. [page 153]

But as Christians we are not sitting there, licking our lips, waiting for the gavel to fall on the heads of our tormentors. Rather, we can know and trust that there are three possible judgements God brings on our oppressors and he knows which is best:

  • ultimate judgment,
  • forgiveness through his judgment of the oppressor’s sin on Jesus’ cross,
  • or temporal judgment.

Ultimate judgment is hell. And as Hundley notes, when you recognize the wrath of God on those who reject him, it may be difficult to pray for this kind of judgment even on your worse enemies.

On the other hand, God may forgive him, choosing to save the oppressor from his sin and radically change him. It is for sinners that Jesus died that they may be forgiven.

And finally, temporal judgment may be that the oppressor actually knows the Lord and God determines to take him out of this life so that he will no longer oppress others.

Unlocking the Chains

Dr. Edith Eva Eger, the writer of “The Choice: Embrace the Possible,” was a teenager when her family was imprisoned at Auschwitz. She now speaks on PTSD for “military resiliency training.” [4]

In her book, she discusses her own struggle with forgiveness. She said,

“It is easy to make a prison out of our pain, out of the past. At best revenge is useless…at worst, revenge perpetuates the cycle of hate.” [page 176]

She goes on to say that she forgave Hitler not for him, but for herself. Eger says that the chains she had kept him in encircled her own life. It kept her locked in her grief. She needed to forgive.

She defines forgiveness:

“To forgive is to grieve for what happened, for what didn’t happen, and to give up the need for a different past. To accept life as it was and as it is.” [page 176]

Though not a Christian, Eger recognizes the power and importance of forgiveness. As Christians we can read her words and recognize a call to give up living to meet out justice on our oppressors. Rather, as Christians, we have a loving Groom who is powerful enough and wise enough to wrap his everlasting arms around us and provide justice in his time and way.

Rest in those arms.

 

NOTES:

1  Shelley, Hundley. A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You. Charisma House, 2011.
2  Hyde, Daniel. “Marks of a True Church: Exercise of Church Discipline.” Ligonier Ministries. https://www.ligonier.org/blog/marks-true-church-exercise-church-discipline/.
3  Burns, Bob, and Michael J. Brissett. The Adult Child of Divorce. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books, 1991.
4  Eger, Dr Edith Eva. The Choice: Embrace the Possible. Reprint edition. Scribner, 2018.

Humility: Who’s the Chief

Posted on by
6

Recently, my daughter wrote a note to her mother expressing her respect for her mother’s love, faithfulness, and godliness. She noted that she was not perfect but was yet an example.

For a number of years I have been curious how we are to be a “godly” witness to others . . . scars, spots, wrinkles, and all.

The Core of Godliness

I have become convinced after studying abuse in a scriptural context that humility is at the core of “godliness” in a broken world.

The funny thing is, humility comes from a recognition that you are not what you are supposed to be. Being “godly” and not being what you are supposed to be seems like a contradiction. We think of “godliness” as moral perfection.

We are like God.

However, despite what some theologies say, we will never be perfect in this life.

The Apostle Paul, whom we would look up to as maybe “chief” among the apostles, said he was rather chief of sinners.

Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief . . .

1 Timothy 1:15 (ASV)

What does that mean for us, who have not written most of the New Testament nor have thousands of salvation stories from our preaching to tell [as Paul probably had], that we could be any better at righteousness?

Certainly, Paul was morally perfect?

But he was not. And that is not the Lord’s standard for his broken world.

Dependence in Humility

His standard for us is dependence upon him in humility. Dependence because we are not God and humility because we are fallen creatures. The Gospel says Christ is our righteousness…not us.

The difference between toxic and normal leaders will often come down to humility. The difference between good and bad spouses will often come down to humility.

Proverbs 3 has some beautiful and wise words for us. The writer, King Solomon, said,

Do not be afraid of sudden terror
or of the ruin of the wicked, when it comes,
for the Lord will be your confidence
and will keep your foot from being caught.

Proverbs 3:25-26 (ESV)

Dependence. We need not fear. Because we trust in the Lord.

Faith [trust] in God is not a great work of His people. Faith is falling on our faces, recognizing our need for the Lord and His great work, not our own. The Lord is our confidence. Not ourselves.

Solomon goes on to say,

Do not envy a man of violence
    and do not choose any of his ways,
for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord,
    but the upright are in his confidence.
The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked,
    but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
Toward the scorners he is scornful,
    but to the humble he gives favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
    but fools get disgrace.

Proverbs 3:31-35 (ESV)

He says to stay away from “man of violence.” Another meaning of this word in Hebrew is “oppressor.” If you know this kind of person, you know what Solomon is saying when he speaks of him in verse 32 as “devious.”

Oppressive individuals are often liars. To prop themselves up and tear others down, they are manipulative and devious.

But who are the righteous he compares them to in the next verse?

You may be thinking, “Where do I fit? I can be pretty rotten? I look out for myself an awful lot of the time. I have pretty horrible thoughts about others at times.”

But notice the very next verse. The Lord “gives favor” to the “humble!“

Do you recognize that you are unrighteous? If so, I believe you are favored.

King Ahab’s Story

When Ahab, a really horrible King of Israel, was told he and his wife Jezebel would be severely judged by the Lord, he turned in humility to the Lord. God’s response?

And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days…

1 Kings 21:28-29 (ESV)

The Lord responded in kindness to a really bad guy who recognized his need for the Lord and humbled himself, admitting his unrighteousness. [In the end, King Ahab returned to his evil and faced God’s judgment, being killed in battle despite trying to deceive the enemy and place his partner king in danger.]

King Josiah’s Story

Josiah became king when he was eight years old. Unlike Ahab, the writer of 2nd Kings says Josiah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.“

When the “book of the law” was found in the Temple, having been lost to use in Judah for many years, it was brought to King Josiah and read to him. As he heard the words of God’s law he evidently was cut deeply by his own unrighteousness, despite being a faithful follower of God.

2 Kings says,

When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes…

2 Kings 22:11 (ESV)

Tearing of clothes means humility. It is placing yourself in a posture of repentance. It is an outward expression of being the least of the least, particularly for a king who wore the finest apparel.

God’s response?

Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Regarding the words that you have heard, because your heart was penitent, and you humbled yourself before the Lord, when you heard how I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before me, I also have heard you, declares the Lord. Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring upon this place.’”

2 Kings 22:18-20 (ESV)

Do you want to be a testimony to the Creator of this world? Do you want to create a toxic workplace or one of peace and blessing. Do you want to have a home of chaos or home of peace?

Humble yourself.

You are sinful. I do not even know you, but I know this full well. I am in the same swamped boat with alligators up to my ears.

Do you recognize your sinfulness?

This is godliness.

Guarding the Gates: Interviewing for Toxicity

Posted on by
2

Early in my research on toxic leadership of Christian organizations, another researcher and I discussed the feasibility of developing interview questions that would weed out the toxic leaders among candidates.

So often, organizations or churches suffer under toxic leaders for years, years that the organization wishes it had to do over again. Without a toxic leader.

I let the idea drop for awhile, but recently began considering it once again. Each time I brought it up to others, their response was, “That would be the best thing since French Toast.”

Maybe not those exact words.

Things to keep in mind

As I have learned about abuse and how abusers interact and respond to confrontation, I have begun to create some possible questions that may be of help to those who are in a position to guard the gates of their organization or church from abusive leaders.

Firstly, it is important to remember that those who are far to the end of the abuse continuum [as explained in this article] are master manipulators.

They will lie without blinking an eye, something that is very difficult for Christians to believe possible of another professing Christian. Therefore, asking direct questions about toxic leadership is unlikely to get answers that will be of any help. An abuser is more likely to answer in such a way that asuages your concerns, even if it is an out and out lie.

Secondly, it is unlikely there are interview questions that assure you that you will get the information you need to make an absolute judgment.

There may possibly be research out there that will give you more information than this article is giving you [and I ask that you pass it on to me if you know of it], but the broadness of the human condition and psyche is unlikely to allow for any cookie-cutter solutions.

And finally, when I discussed the possibility of this questionnaire with one of the most respected authorities on abuse, he said, “There isn’t any reliable way to detect an abuser in an interview.” [Lundy Bancroft]

Discouraging. However, he did give some helpful suggestions. There is hope.

With those caveats, here goes

Recently, I have had the opportunity of interviewing men who are seeking leadership in my church denomination. I decided to experiment with this idea.

Because abusive individuals are known for blame-shifting and rarely, if ever, admitting their own wrongs, I sought to ask questions that gave them plenty of opportunity to do just that. In discussions with an FBI interogator, I have learned that the friendly way works better than washboarding. Giving the interviewee the sense you understand and appreciate them will open loose lips much more readily than threats.

So, as one candidate spoke of struggles with his wife, I asked him to describe how the arguments develop and the results. My expectation was that if he was abusive, he would describe his rightness and her wrongness and how she, in the end, came around to his view of things.

This particular candidate had been before my committee several years ago and I had concerns that he could possibly be abusive in the home. How he handled my questions now several years later was quite remarkable. He explained to the committee that he usually responds to his wife suggesting that he is upset, “I am NOT upset.” But he noted that he usually thinks it through over a bit of time and realizes that she is right and he apologizes to her.

His response calmed my fears. He did not in any way blame-shift or act entitled.

Suggested questions from Bancroft

Bancroft gave some additional ideas of questions:

  • Describe two or three past relationships you were in and why they didn’t work out.

Bancroft says this may get at whether he “always blames others for everything or speaks disrespectfully of others.” An additional question may point more to his past positions of leadership: Describe your former employment experiences and why you left. 

  • Why do you think so many marriages are failing these days?

Bancroft suggests this may “reveal attitudes that women have become too resistant to men’s ‘leadership’ or other woman-blaming attitudes.”

  • Why do you think that domestic violence complaints have become so common in churches?

He notes this may “reveal whether the interviewee thinks domestic violence reports are often exaggerated or are often being used for nefarious purposes.” Because it is common in the church to believe many or even most reports of abuse are exaggerated, even among those who are not abusive, I would add that you need to be looking for a particularly callous attitude in the interviewee’s response.

Its a start

No guarantees, but as Bancroft noted in our discussion, “Someone who has worked with abusers for a long time develops quite a powerful intuitive radar, often picking up on things that we wouldn’t even be able to put into words.” He went on to say, “But even then we miss some people.”

It is important that those who are interviewing candidates for leadership in church and parachurch organizations get to know abusive leadership. Read all you can about domestic violence and leadership abuse [there are many similarities]. Get to know their psyche and sense of entitlement. Do all you can to understand their tactics and how they think.

In so doing, you can begin developing that “intuitive radar” of which Bancroft speaks. But be careful not to label without proof positive. As Christians we are still in the job of recognizing our own sin before extracting the speck from our brother’s eye [see article].

But we are also in the job of protecting the peace and purity of the church.

Guard the gates.

Recommended Reading

These are just a few recommendations. Many others may be found here.
 
Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002.
 
Crippen, Jeff, and Anna Wood. A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church. Greenville, SC: Calvary Press, 2012.
 
Lipinski, John, and Laura M. Crothers, eds. Bullying in the Workplace: Causes, Symptoms, and Remedies. 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.
 
Enroth, Ronald M. Churches That Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
 
Simon, George K. In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People. 2nd ed. Little Rock, AR: Parkhurst Brothers Publishers Inc, 2010.

David vs. Nabal: Hothead Meets Jerk Saved by a Beaut

Posted on by
Reply

In 1 Samuel 25, the story is told of David, Nabal, and Abigail. You can really feel the tension in this little triangulation.

You have the village idiot, a wise woman, and a bit of a hothead. And in the end, the confrontations of toxicity work together swimmingly.

The story goes a little something like this

David, anointed king of Israel but not yet in place to do his thing, is running from King Saul. Saul, a toxic leader, is jealous of David’s exploits and continually jumps back and forth between murderer and penitent.

Meanwhile, David and his band of loyal followers are living off the land on the run and come across a wealthy landowner named Nabal. Nabal had a boatload of goats and sheep and quite a few employees looking after them.

Chapter 25 describes Nabal as “harsh” and “badly behaved.” He is our second toxic leader in the story.

On the other hand, his wife, Abigail, was a beauty and is described as “discerning.” And that makes for the big face off and a great story.

A Man Scorned

David and his men had been hanging out and a “feast day” is upon them. He sends his men to Nabal to ask that his men be allowed to join Nabal’s feast. He tells his men to make mention that in all the time he and his men were chilling with Nabal’s shearers, there was no stealing from Nabal’s herds or other such nonsense.

Nabal, because he is harsh and badly behaved [aka village idiot], told David’s men,

“Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse? There are many servants these days who are breaking away from their masters. Shall I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have killed for my shearers and give it to men who come from I do not know where?” 

[1 Samuel 25:10-11 (ESV)]

Nabal was not lacking for resources…he was just a downright scoundrel. In that culture, this was the height of offense to decline hospitality to travelers. And unbiblical to boot.

David, because he is a bit of a hothead, tells his men to gird up their loins…actually, he said to strap on their swords (no AK47s back in those days) and prepare to wipe the idiot off the face of the earth.

But a wise servant of Nabal’s went to the woman of the house, who you will remember is discerning and beautiful, and told her of her husband’s inhospitableness. And he explained that David’s men not only did not steal from them, but was a protective “wall to [them] both by night and by day.“

Abigail, wise and wonderful as she was, made haste with a boatload of wine, bread, raisins, figs, and sheep and had a visit with David.

Her speech is really quite something

She bows before David and begins by taking the blame for her “worthless fellow” of a husband, Nabal. She praises David’s wisdom for not killing Nabal (though David has just noted before she got there, that he was going to do just that). She asks David to forgive her worthless husband.

Now, the best part.

David recognizes and admits his foolish hotheadedness. He says,


“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand! For as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there had not been left to Nabal so much as one male.”

[1 Samuel 25:32-34 (ESV)]

I love that.

A toxic leader would have either ignored Abigail or come up with a way to suggest he would never have done such a thing as attack Nabal, taking the praise for being so wise.

  • David notes first of all his sinful desires to murder Nabal.
  • He, secondly, gives Abigail the honor of having been the one to challenge his sin.
  • And, thirdly he recognizes that the Lord, Himself has protected Abigail where David may have let his wrath fly on one so intimately connected to the worthless fellow…thereby being under judgment for a great evil himself.

There is a fourth thing David recognizes

Abigail stopped him from bringing what he thought was justice by his own hand rather than trusting God to do what was true justice. And in so doing, he had the opportunity to see the Lord bring judgment on Nabal.

In the end, when told that David would have destroyed him if it were not for his wife, Nabal dies.

God indeed brought vindication and we (and David) get to see the hand of the Lord working on his behalf, strengthening the faith of his people for millenia to come.

The Benefit of the Doubt: The Ethics of Confrontation

Posted on by
4

It is a strange concept, but scripture actually instructs us to approach different people differently.

We are an egalitarian society. Some call it a “low power” culture. We like our relationships to be on equal footing. We believe, because “all men are created equal,” we should be able to approach all men (women) equally.

But, though God has indeed created all men to be equally responsible in his sight and they have all equally been born with a sin nature, we are not all equal.

But I am not talking about authority structures. Some people, of course, are in authority and some under authority. I am talking about how we engage in relationships when a person has sinned against us.

We are not equal when it comes to approachability.

How do we confront people when they sin against us?

I have been taught that giving the benefit of the doubt is the most biblical response to sin. I have been taught and have received, as my own, the adage that we should always, I mean always, give the benefit of the doubt when someone offends me. There is much in scripture to support this response to conflict.

Though it may be hard to tell from my writing, I have the gift of mercy. That gift is closely associated with giving the benefit of the doubt. But in this article I want to show that when it comes to confronting abusive individuals, giving the benefit of the doubt is not necessarily biblical.

Proverbs and Confrontation

Beginning with the wisdom found in Proverbs, it is evident the wise one had experienced individuals who were abusers. Some of the normal character traits of an abuser are:

  • Extreme self-centeredness [entitlement] – they are always the most important person in the relationship.
  • Lack of humility – inability to receive any kind of criticism. They are never wrong.
  • Blame-shifting – because they are never wrong, someone else is.

Proverbs 8:13 says, “The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”

If you love the Lord, you will hate evil. And the wise one notes what that evil is: “pride and arrogance, the way of evil, and perverted speech.” These are all related and build upon one another, pride being the foundation.

As one who follows Christ, it is wise to hate pride…one of the most basic character traits of an abuser. This is a self-centered, entitled pride. It is a focus on self. Stay clear of it. “Hate it,” says the wise one.

Do Not Reprove a Scoffer

That hatred of the pride of the abuser may drive you to confront it. They may have hurt you deeply. They may be causing harm to others…in fact, likely are causing harm to others. They may be making your job miserable.

Or you may just want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Give them a chance to explain their actions.

But there are real difficulties in confronting their entitlement.

Moving ahead one chapter in Proverbs, the wise one says, “Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury.” [Proverbs 9:7] The “scoffer” can be defined as one who scorns, talks arrogantly, or boasts.

This passage is of immesurable worth to those oppressed by toxic leaders at work or at home with an abuser. But the wisdom presented is seemingly contrary to all we have heard from our pulpits and in Bible studies: Give the benefit of the doubt. Always go to those who sin against you [Matthew 18 principle]. Always forgive and forget.

However, the Bible does not present a cookie-cutter method for engaging the sinful behaviour of others. Different people respond differently. And scripture tells us this:

You will incur injury if you confront a scoffer.

Note what the wise one goes to say:

8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
      reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
      teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

This is very different than the Matthew 18 steps:

  1. Confront the one who sins against you one-on-one.
  2. Brings someone with you if he doesn’t respond.
  3. Take it to the church if he doesn’t respond to this.
  4. Treat him as an unbeliever if he doesn’t respond to the church.

It is as if, in the case of the “scoffer,” you jump to step four. Whereas you can go to your “normal” sinner and challenge him for his sin (one-on-one), the abuser will cause injury and hate you.

What happened to the benefit of the doubt. What happened to “process” as presented by Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel?

People are different and the abuser (toxic leader) is not approachable. And Jesus does not expect or command you to approach him (or her) in the same way as those who are normal sinners. There are a number of reasons for this.

Bold Love

Dan Allender, a Christian clinical psychologist who has written much on abuse, gives very helpful wisdom gained from years of experience caring for those who have been abused. He masterfully handles the application of the Gospel to those situations in his book, Bold Love.

He builds a strong Biblical case for understanding the abuser as “evil.” And he says, building on Proverbs, “Evil can never be overthrown through rational, reasonable argumentation.” [page 243]

The steps taken, beginning with one-on-one confrontation, in Matthew 18 are founded upon rational, reasonable argumentation. In approaching a brother who has sinned against us, we take for granted they will be rational and reasonable and hear our struggle with their sin…and hopefully repent. We have well-founded hope that he will respond. It may take a couple (or three) confrontations with expanding forcefulness (adding more people to the mix as Jesus instructs), but in time we have the hope he will turn from his sin.

We give some benefit of the doubt.

However, the abuser “regularly and masterfully, portrays his motives and behavior as innocent. Others just do not understand. He is deceitfully gifted in making the victim of his abuse feel like the perpetrator of the harm.” [page 236]

He turns up the abuse, shifting the blame as Allender says. He is not safe.

He will hate you

The wise one in Proverbs 9:8 says the “scoffer will hate you” if you approach him. Note, this is not just a hatred expressed in disagreeing with you and ignoring you. It is a hatred found in Matthew 7 where Jesus says the “dog” will “turn and attack you.”  If he were to just ignore your confrontation, no problem.

But the wise one says it is dangerous and he helpfully tells you to turn around and walk the other way. Allender says,

Evil has a keen smell for false gods. It will sense what our heart truly loves and worships, and threaten the weakest, most ungodly chinks in our armor in order to keep love mute. [page 244]

Abusers (scoffers) do not just turn heals and run from confrontation. They do not just disagree with you. They will find your weakness and exploit it. They are master manipulators and will do all they can to bring you down while placing themselves on the pedestal.

So, how do you apply the Gospel to abuse?

Because abuse can never be won over by rational argument, Allender says abusers must simply be held accountable. He says,

If evil consistently wins, it will see more evil as the only strategy for keeping its victory spoils and gaining new rewards. One of the greatest gifts one can give a person inclined to evil is the strength to frustrate their attempts to dominate. [page 243]

You apply the Gospel by not letting toxic individuals get away with manipulation. You apply the Gospel by holding them accountable and stopping them. It is important for those in authority to stand in for the oppressed. [Isaiah 61:1-2]

The church can play a major role in this process. If the leadership understands abuse they can help each other not be taken in by the abuser’s tactics to control and manipulate. And they can set boundaries to hold him accountable for his actions. They can confront him as presented by Jesus in the third step of the Matthew 18 principle.

In addition, the church can provide safety for those who have been oppressed by an abuser…an ear to hear the target’s struggles and a place for healing. A place where they can be believed and given the benefit of the doubt.

NOTES:

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

Forgiveness: Mimicking Jesus

Posted on by
5

I remember seeing pictures in a news magazine of high school students holding up a banner that read something like, “Josh, we forgive you.” Josh (a fictitious name) was the murderer of several of their classmates in a school shooting many years ago.

The question the article asked was whether it was appropriate for the students to forgive Josh for his horrendous evil. Josh had never sought their forgiveness. Nor were they the actual victims of his violence.

Dr. Robert Burns and Michael Brissett, in a helpful book called, “The Adult Child of Divorce,” discuss forgiveness from a very practical and biblical perspective.

The authors begin their section on forgiveness with the statement:

Some encourage the offended to absorb their pain and release the offender. Others urge those who hurt to simply turn to God and confess it. Then, they are assured, God will resolve the pain, and everything will be fine. A third approach is to tell those unable to forgive to examine their own lives. They should see what mistakes they have made – even if the mistake is carrying pain toward those who harmed them – and seek forgiveness from the ones they can’t seem to forgive.

You have likely heard these responses.

One of the greatest struggles for Christians beat up by toxic leaders is how to fulfill God’s calling to forgive those who have hurt them. Frequently, they ask questions about what it means to forgive and whether they should even forgive the horrendous evil they have experienced.

Generally, there is no shortage of well-meaning Christian brothers and sisters who will come their aid in providing answers. “Of course, you must forgive them. The Bible tells you so!”

But take a look, as Burns and Brissett do in their book, at the passage on forgiveness in Ephesians:

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

[Ephesians 4:32]

We are called to forgive one another….as God in Christ forgave you. It is that last clause that is often overlooked or not completely understood.

How did Jesus Christ forgive you?

The Legal Side of Forgiveness

The authors talk about “two sides of forgiveness.” As they note,

“If I break the law, that law says I must legally pay a penalty…We haven’t lived perfect lives. Because God is holy and perfect, He will legally accept only perfect people, and because we have broken His law, a penalty must be paid before he can accept us.”

Fortunately, for God’s created world and sinful man, Jesus Christ died on the cross to take the penalty for those sins. He provided the legal means of taking care of the judgment that was due to us, providing forgiveness from the perfect Judge, Almighty God.

He holds out that offer of forgiveness to all who have sinned…that happens to be everyone conceived in this world.

However, as those who know scripture realize, not everyone is forgiven. There is another side to the coin of forgiveness as the authors put it.

The Relational Side of Forgiveness

Peter preached to the household of Cornelius saying,

“To [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

[Acts 10:43 (ESV)]

The sins of those who believe in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross are forgiven. The sins of those who reject him are not.

Those who recognize they are “sinners,” in need of Jesus’ saving work and who camp at Jesus’ doorstep to seek his forgiveness are forgiven. Those who do not consider their failures worthy of judgment are not forgiven.

To come into “relationship” with Jesus we need forgiveness. He has offered it to all, but only those who receive that offer will be forgiven and be in relationship with the Lord.

How Does that Work Between People?

So, when do we forgive others according to Paul in Ephesians 4:32?

When our offender seeks forgiveness. When they recognize their sin against you and come to you asking for your forgiveness, you are to forgive them. In fact, Jesus said they should to be forgiven over and over should they ask. [Matthew 18:21-22]

This is what is taught in Luke 17:3-4. Jesus tells his disciples, if he repents, forgive him. “If he repents.”

This is the “relational” side of forgiveness of which Burns and Brissett speak.

So, when they “recognize [their] own failure” and acknowledge it to your face, you freely forgive just as Christ forgave you.

Forgiving the Toxic One

It just so happens that you find a rare abuser (in the workplace or the home) that will recognize their sin, acknowledge it, and accept their responsibility. They rarely darken your door humbly seeking forgiveness.

In fact, the defining characteristic of being an “abuser” is the complete lack of humility to admit wrong. [see blog]

Though there may not be relational forgiveness between you and your tormentor, bringing reconciliation, there is still a need to forgive him (or her) nonetheless.

The authors point to Matthew 5:21-22 where Jesus teaches that when a brother harbors anger against another brother, he is a “murderer.”

It is important to note that there is a righteous anger that is taught in scripture [see blog], but where there is bitterness and seeking of revenge, we need to take a close look at our motives.

We need to have an attitude of forgiveness (legal) though there may never come a time when our abuser seeks our forgiveness (relational). We need to live in this “legal side of forgiveness” by making it available to our antagonist should he humble himself.

Releasing Them

“Legally” forgiving those who sin against us does not necessarily release them from accountability however. It is still appropriate to seek legal, organizational, or corporate justice for the toxic individual.

But we need to recognize that Jesus’ forgiveness is ultimately the forgiveness he needs and we need to “release” him into the Lord’s hands that he may one day seek our and God’s forgiveness for their evil.

As the victims of our abuser’s violence, we can be like the servant in Jesus’ parable.  The “wicked servant” received forgiveness from his master for all he owed him (which was boatloads of cash) and turned around to require the small debt from those who owed him. [Matthew 18:23-35]

Or, as Jesus teaches, we can pass on the forgiveness we received from our master to our abuser.

However, until he recognizes his own failure, acknowledges it before God and you, and accept God’s solution for the problem, there will not be relational forgiveness and no reconciliation, between he and God or with you.

Nor does God expect there to be.

You need not feel guilt about his. You need not think you ought to have done more. You need not say, “Everything is alright . . . I am over it.” It is okay to grieve the loss of that relationship and your brother’s failure.

It just isn’t supposed to be like that.

NOTES:

Burns, Bob, and Michael J. Brissett. The Adult Child of Divorce. Nashville, TN: Oliver-Nelson Books, 1991.

The Fine Line of Abuse: Relating on a Continuum

Posted on by
4

The continuum of abuse provides for both hope and confusion.

Recently, I had the experience of confusion as I waded through the mire of a pastoral leadership and marital failure. I had heard “testimony” of his failures and then watched as a group of elders tried to work through the muck of the mess he had created.

In the end it was determined he was not an “abuser” but the depth of failure in his familiel relationship made it necessary for him to step down as a church leader.

It was confusing as his actions have appeared abusive and controling and yet, he could admit to some of those failings and willingly give up his position. The latter is evidence of “non-abuse” but the earlier evidence of being an “abuser.”

The Continuum of Abuse

Much like Dr. George Simon, psychiatrist and author, notes regarding the continuum of narcissistic trates in all people [Simon], it may be more helpful to understand abuse in on a continuum.

Current psychology suggests that rather than a full-blown disorder, as it was classified in the DSM-4, narcissism is no longer a distinct category of personality disorder. Many psychologists see it as a trait that appears at varying levels of degree in every person. On a continuum.

In other words, we are all rather self-focused, but some more than others.

If we are at all self-aware when we look at abuse characteristis such as lack of empathy, need for control, entitlement, manipulation, and general meanness, we may begin to consider ourselves to be “abusers.” We all strike out in some form when angry and seeking to get our selfish way.

But I would suggest that most people are not “abusers,” but likely are at times “abusive” in their behavior.

The “abuser,” though made in the image of God, is in a sense identified by his behavior as it is fundamental to how he operates in relationships. The “abusive” individual is aware and responsive to his relational flaws. All those traits can be seen on a continuum in real life.

There is a significant difference the abuser and abusive and those differences determines how we engage those who are acting abusively. After considering the distance along the abuse continuum the individual has traveled, our engagement of them can be determined.

The Abuse Handlers

It is well understood by specialists in abuse such as Bancroft, Simon, Crippen, Langberg, et. al. that abusers must be handled in very specific ways. “Abusers” are different, as this blog has noted at various times, than “abusive” people. Abusers do not respond to confrontation. They do not listen to pleading.

All normal means of helping someone become more kind do not work with “abusers.”

But there are those who have abrasive personalities, who lose their tempers more frequently than most, and generally have more difficulty understanding how others are feeling.

You know abrasive individuals and maybe even stay clear of them when you can.

They may not respond right away to a confrontation regarding their behavior, but do in time recognize and desire to change, hopefully even apologizing and making restitution.

But when there is confrontation of one who can be identified as an “abuser” there is no response or if they do it is because it is necessary to control their situation by manipulating the confronter. The Bible character, Saul, can be considered this type.

An example would be a superior calling a subordinate to account for his abusive behavior. Because “abusers” are master manipulaters, they know to submit if it means keeping their job or keeping the individual in their pocket, so to speak.

More often than not, when an abuser is confronted by a subordinate or one lacking power in the situation, they will rarely accept any kind of responsibility for their actions.

Consider carefully the fine line of abuse.

That continuum can mean reconciled relationships or further trauma to those frustrated and beat up by those who practice abusive behaviors.

Notes:

Dr. George Simon’s blog: http://counsellingresource.com/features/2014/10/06/pathological-self-love/

Susie’ Story: The Care & Feeding of an Autocrat

Posted on by
Reply

“Susie” was employed as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members.

She served under an autocratic pastor.

Susie was an assistant under the supervision of the Senior Pastor  who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

He was a highly authoritative pastor who limited her abilities to use her giftedness and sense of effective ministry. In the end, she finally considered the ministry “vision” of the senior pastor to be in conflict with her own and resigned her position, leaving with damaged emotions that would take years to heal.

Developing Leaders

Susie spent three years at the large, multi-campus church. She was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint.

Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks. In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and led teams in spiritual development.

Unique Opportunities & Challenges

The position of an assistant to a senior pastor provides unique opportunities and challenges. There is real pleasure of “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” as Susie noted. Working with others called to the ministry can provide great satisfaction.

Susie took great joy in using her gifts to serve people in the church. She explained that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation where “you are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before.”

“I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well,” she said. But her work administratively in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders (where there were none when she arrived) and helpful procedures for all the teams.

“I wrote all these procedures and taught everything…everything was set up so they wouldn’t need me at all.”

The African Debacle

Susie explained that she was approached by Pastor Pete to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to Africa.

Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a particular group of Sub-Saharan African churches through short-term trips. He gave Susie the authority to build a team, communicate with the African churches, and partner with a missions organization in the United States through which they would operate.

The title of a novel written by Nigerian, Chinua Achebe comes to mind. The book describes the experiences of an 1800s African dealing with colonialism. Susie’s experience with the senior pastor reminded me of the title, “Things Fall Apart.”

As they prepared to sign up members for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team, but he explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to another African country, a trip neither Susie, nor her committee, had heard of previously.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told of this trip, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete.

In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had simply gotten his “feelings hurt.” Susie explained that after the elder expressed his concern for the lack of respect shown by the laughing pastor, the pastor just continued to mock him.

Money Matters

After the very successful mission trip, the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation. Members of the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the African churches Susie’s team had visited in an offering that Sunday.

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

It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and Susie’s team who had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the African churches by Pastor Pete.

Unity & Peace

Susie observed multiple times when her supervising pastor was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care. The frequency of such events were instrumental in Susie’s resignation from her position.

Susie said she never felt that Pastor Pete respected her though he “handed [projects] freely over” to her, rarely checking on her to ask how they were progressing.

The lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, Susie only realized the significance of the emotional injury later. She explained,

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

Mediating

Susie’s concern for the authority of the pastor was evident in the interview. Her desire for unity and peace in the church was unmistakeable in that she was very careful with whom she spoke during the crises and when leaving the church.

As noted in other articles, it is imperative for those having been traumatized to tell their story often and in safety.

However, Susie sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about their experiences. In order to cope with the emotional struggle, Susie explained, “I reached out to some family in [another state] because I really wanted to respect the church and I didn’t want to create any division.”

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

Self-Differentiation

Her self-differentiation was evident in her challenging the pastor during two meetings with him. She warned Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior.

Susie believed her ultimate authority was God and not the senior pastor. She said this helped her respond with a significant level of self-differentiation. She was able to challenge him knowing that God was her real authority.

Despite having been placed in an uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off, Susie recognized that the onus of the failure was the senior pastor’s. She explained that her concern that her reputation was damaged was limited by her knowledge that others knew her character and integrity. It was not Pastor Pete’s respect that she needed.

Serving the Congregation & Confrontation

Susie noted that most of the leadership (Deacons, missions committee, and Elders) have since left the church primarily due to the abusive leadership of the pastor.

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

She also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18.

But there were complications. She explained that the pastor was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by her or congregant members. She had seen others seek reconciliation and fail.

Susie considered Matthew 18 to be the model. On the other hand, she noted that “there’s nothing you are going to do to change this guy.” Pastor Pete rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect. His only real accountability was to himself as the primary authority and no overarching denominational authority.

Susie expressed frustration with having had her “hands tied.” When other mission team members sought Susie out to encourage her to talk to Pastor Pete, Susie told them, “He knows the situation we are in and he has clearly told me ‘this is the decision I’ve made…this is where it’s going, and this is what’s going to happen.’ And so I have no control.”

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

In the End

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

On a positive note, ministry happened that may have had long term effects on the congregation she served. However, the frustrations encountered dulled her hopes that she had effective ministry during those years of service.

The Narcissist Pastor: Jacob’s True and Painful Tale

Posted on by
Reply

Jacob simply described his Pastor as a narcissist.

But, it took much longer for him to describe all the destruction wrought by his Senior Pastor while Jacob served the burgeoning church plant.

Jacob had studied for two years in college before he and his wife joined a church that had been a church plant, but was now ruled by an elder board.

Gifted Preacher

The pastor, who was an excellent speaker, had planted the church and he had been effective in ministering to its members through his pulpit ministry. When he and his wife joined, Jacob was determined to be an encouragement to the pastor, knowing that often pastors have no one to go to for help and encouragement.

They struck up a seemingly close relationship and within six months, Jacob was asked to come on staff as the “Executive Ministry Director” and also serve as an elder on the board. He brought much organization to the young church and the growth in the following twelve to eighteen months was stunning.

The school cafeteria, in which they were meeting, was filling up.

However, Jacob was sensing what he interpreted to be an apparent consequence of the rapid growth, a lack of shepherding on the part of the leadership.

Jacob said he “started a conversation about it.”

But the pastor was “increasingly focused on gathering people around himself to hear him preach.” Jacob said, “It was getting to be unhealthy.”

He believed the purpose of church leadership to be the Ephesians 4 model of training the members for the works of ministry, not gathering them to hear one uniquely gifted teacher.

The Confrontations

Jacob determined to discuss the issue with the pastor in a non-judgmental way; something Jacob considers his modus aperandi when confronting. Having grown up in an abusive home, he was particularly sensitive to “being wrong.” He was quick to “take the log out” of his own eye as Jesus, in Matthew 7, instructs.

He was not prepared for the pastor’s manipulation. Jacob described his reactions as “narcissistic.” He immediately shifted the blame to Jacob.

The confrontations came like clockwork. Every three to four months Jacob would sense that he was responsible before God to encourage the pastor to get off his high horse and shepherd the congregation rather than basque in his growing fame.

Never once did the pastor admit fault, according to Jacob. He would ask the pastor to consider what he had said, whether it was valid or not, and the pastor said he would. But the pastor’s response was always half-hearted and he “was never very convincing.”

Shepherding the 1%

Jacob described the church as being in a very wealthy area and had several millionaires in the congregation. It appeard to Jacob that the pastor would drop whatever he was doing and visit a wealthy member when called upon.

However, when someone less afluent or less influential sought counseling from the pastor, he would schedule them two or three weeks out.

Jacob remembers a young couple, who had just married, having marital struggles of a serious nature. They asked for an appointment with the pastor. The pastor scheduled them for two weeks later. However, a woman who was wealthy, attractive, and good friends with an influential pastor in their denomination asked for an appointment to discuss some of the well-known pastor’s teaching. She was immediately given a hearing…at her home…with just the two of them there.

An older couple was having marital difficulties and ended up calling Jacob to come counsel them. Jacob recalls physically shaking on the way to their house, knowing he was much younger than they were and had very little experience in counseling. He was convinced it was not for him to be in this position, but knew the pastor would not meet with them.

It ended well and years later, the couple claimed he saved their marriage. But Jacob was angered by the shepherding failure of the pastor that was not getting any better.

Money Matters

The pastor’s self-centeredness also was apparent in his handling of the church’s money.

He hired a personal assistant, paying him $40,000…without elder approval.

He gave himself a $10,000 raise…without elder approval.

He signed himself up for a medical plan that cost $5,000…without elder approval.

And when the church purchased office space, the pastor spent $20,000 on the remodeling…without elder approval.

According to Jacob, the building had a luxurious office for the pastor and a long countertop along one wall for the five other staff members. The fact that he and the other staff members had a countertop did not bother him. He was happy with his countertop office. But, “It was a glaring representation of [the pastor’s] heart” that drove Jacob to speak with him about it.

The pastor, in response, suggested Jacob take over the kitchen space for his office. Jacob told him that was not the point.

Keeping the Head Down

It was getting to the point where Jacob did not trust the pastor. He said, “It was almost like he was hijacking God’s truth for his gain.” He explained that he would sit under the pastor’s sermon and realize he did not trust him. The pastor did not “have his best interests at heart.”

Jacob tried to keep his head down and do ministry.

But, though he received great encouragment from the elders and congregant members when he would periodically preach or teach, the pastor would “pull him aside and make him feel like he had totally failed was the worst preacher ever.”

Jacob found out later that when people would ask the pastor for Jacob to teach a Sunday School class the pastor would tell them Jacob had “personal problems” and “doctrinal issues.” Jacob believed the pastor was jealous and afraid of anyone else in the church that was gifted. He could not stand to see “anyone else in the congregation celebrated.”

He knew at “some point he would be cut off.“

The Firing

When the pastor told Jacob he was firing him, he said he could remain on as an elder.

The pastor wrote a letter to the elder board explaining, “Jacob has acknowledged his faults. Jacob was abusive to [me]. He was so oppressive to [me].” It was not at all what had passed between them.

When Jacob met with the elders, they were very encouraging to him and asked what he wanted to say to the congregation. Jacob said he “didn’t want to control it.” Later the elders sent a draft of the letter to Jacob.

Apparently the draft was quite different than what was read to the congregation. Following the congregational meeting, a senior member called him and said Jacob was “trashed” at the meeting. The member was very dissapointed. The elders had said just enough to raise suspicions, but did not raise a single failing of Jacob’s.

They gave him a good severence that Jacob interpreted to be “buying him off,” being they had not actually raised any issues with his work with the church.

The Learning

Jacob explained,

“This felt well beyond circumstantial difficulty. It felt like spiritual warefare against my soul. Like a deliberate attack against the deepest part of who I am. It is hard to describe the level of woundedness I experienced.”

Like others with whom I have spoken, he said, “One of the hardest things to face besides the death of loved one is betrayal.” He said he was ready for the pastor to act in unbecoming ways, but not the elders. He was not prepared to see them “manipulated as weak men” by the pastor.

When it happened, “something snapped.” He said it has taken a long time to overcome.

The Healing

When asked what was most healing to Jacob, he mentioned “time” and “God’s sovereignty.” Of particular interest was his struggle with God’s sovereignty in the situation.

He explained that knowing God is sovereign was “both a barrier and ground for healing.” It was a barrier because “God has brought this upon me so he must be displeased with me and bringing discipline.”

An easy interpretation for any of us, let alone one who has been raised being told he is worthless and always wrong. He says,

“My disposition is to believe others don’t care about me. I know its not true. It is an ever present lie. I was force-fed it as a child.”

On the other hand, the knowledge of God’s sovereignty also meant, “If God wounds me, its because he loves me. And if he heals? Its because he loves me.“

He has popped back and forth between these views, knowing all the while God loves him dearly and the first interpretation is not biblical. He takes great comfort in this self-talk based upon the truth of God’s Word.

Following a year working as a barrista and working towards an undergraduate degree, Jacob moved across country to attend seminary. He had not preached from a pulpit since leaving the church.

Within a week of arriving he was asked by the president of the seminary to fill in for a retreat speaker at a nearby Christian camp. The speaker had become ill and was unable to attend.

Jacob was given the task of preparing a sermon and a devotional each day for the retreat on very short notice. Rather than an overwhelming experience, he said he felt the Lord was saying to him despite his experience, “I trust you to handle my word. I did not discard you.”

It was healing to know the Lord had more for him than what a narcissistic senior pastor had sought to impress upon him.

Moving Forward

Jacob still struggles with the insecurities common in my research to those who have been under abusive leaders. There is a palatable sense of self-doubt that accompanies the trauma from such abuse.

I have yet to meet someone who was “self-differentiated” enough to remain free of the harm. It is what drives me to encourage those under abusive leadership to get out. The long-term impact I have seen is not worth manning up.

Jacob has told his story to others and faced the disapproval of those who do not understand abuse. When I first asked him to share his story, he shared some hesitancy. He explained,

“My wife and I have…learned the hard way to be much more cautious in choosing to share our experience and the insights we have gleaned. On multiple occasions, my willingness to be vulnerable has resulted later in others immaturely attempting to use my vulnerability to their own advantage by assuming that these experiences somehow encumber my abilities in some way…something like making me seem like ‘damaged goods.’ Needless to say, this has been hurtful, but alas, we are broken people who live in a broken world. “

Even as Jacob came before a group of elders to be taken under the care of a denominational conference in preparation for ordination, he was fearful. He struggled to determine if the telling of his story would create backlash.

I hope and I pray that the bride of Christ to which he wishes to minister will in turn minister to him as he continues to experience God’s gracious love in healing.

Do you have a story to tell? We need to tell our stories and others need to hear them for healing to truly take place. Contact PearlsAndSwineSite for a confidential interview.