Recently, a fellow author and researcher shared an article with me written critically of his work in the area of toxic leadership.
There was one paragraph that was fundamental to the journalist’s criticism:
In Sweden, trust in the immediate manager is at a record high. Almost seven out of ten professionals between the ages of 21 and 65 have a great deal of trust in their immediate manager. 58 percent also agree that they have a great deal of trust in their company’s management team. This is shown by Kantar Sifo’s ORVESTO Business 2020 survey, in which almost 15,000 people participated.
This is good and bad news. The writer’s view is that my friend was much too critical of leadership. In essence, the criticism was based on the journalist’s view that the researcher found a toxic leader under every rock.
When my friend and I talked about it, we shared a laugh—and this is why:
Maybe Not Every Rock
Clearly, according to the survey/study done in Europe—where my friend is Professor of Working Life Science at the University of Agder and editor of multiple important international works on leadership—bad leadership is not under every rock.
Only 42% of those surveyed don’t trust their company’s management team.
The way you frame that statistic makes all the difference. Will you allow me to interpret that statistic as saying bad leadership is not under every rock—but nearly every other one?
This reminds me of the criticism leveled at the many bloggers and researchers who are bringing to light toxic leadership in Christian organizations by a seminary professor several years ago—see this blog I wrote about his arguments.
I would like to share some further statistics that might help frame this important debate.
The Statistics are Overwhelming
According to the Toxic Workplace, 64% of those who responded to a survey were working with a toxic personality and 94% had experienced a toxic boss.
According to Balda, approximately one third of workers in the US have been bullied at work and three quarters of those were bosses.
“The Star-Telegram conducted an investigation that uncovered at least 412 allegations of sexual misconduct in 187 independent fundamental Baptist churches and other affiliated institutions spanning 40 states and Canada” (Christianity Today, December 2018).
“Nearly one in five workers—the study calls “disturbingly high” —say they face a hostile or threatening environment at work, which can include sexual harassment and bullying” (LA Times).
Depending on the estimation method, between 33.5% and 61% of all respondents [of a Gallup survey] report their immediate superiors as showing some kind of consistent and frequent destructive leadership during the last six months…” (Aasland et al. 2010, p. 446 in Debating Bad Leadership – Anders Ortenblad).
It is estimated that approximately the same percentage of psychopaths run corporations as are incarerated in our prisons.
Costly financially, spiritually, and personally.
A book called Mean Men took a poll of 800 managers and employees in 17 industries and found:
48% intentionally decreased their work effort.
47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work.
38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work.
80% lost work time worrying about the incident.
63% lost work time avoiding the offender.
78% said that their commitment to the organization declined.
12% said that they left their job because of the uncivil treatment.
The book also noted that toxic managers turn away talented potential employees.
The annual cost of toxic leadership in the Department of Defense (US) is $4.7 billion.
One of my interviewees years ago explained the impact her toxic pastor had on her as an employee. She described migraines and sleepless nights. It took years for her to heal from the experience.
Others of my interviewees have either left the church or are inhabiting the margins due to their distrust after having faced such horribly abusive church leaders.
So, these toxic leaders may not be under every rock . . .
but there sure are a lot of them.
The Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault of the Presbyterian Church in America noted in one of the Myths of Abuse,
“Abuse is not rare. Over half of murdered women were killed by a current or former partner. Approximately one in four women and one in seven men have been victims of intimate partner abuse. In 2019, the Department for Health and Human Services reported that 656,000 children were confirmed by state agencies as victims of abuse, a national rate of 8.9 per 1,000 children. Another study estimates that 37% of children will have a visit from local child protective services by the time they turn 18. By extrapolating these data, we estimate that between 6% and 10% of children will be state-confirmed victims of child abuse by the time they turn 18. Since many instances of abuse go unreported, the actual rate of child abuse is likely far higher.” http://www.DASACommittee.org
Like in domestic abuse research, there is debate as to the malleability of abusive people in leadership.
I would guess that in most people’s experience, there is little hope for such change.
In my own experience and stories that I have heard, there is little expectation for transformation in abusive leadership. In fact, I am presently in the midst of a book research project that focuses on those cases where the leader is fully entrenched in his toxic leadership.
However, in leadership research, there is article after article describing remedies to “bad” leaders. There have indeed been leaders who were toxic and yet were transformed apparently by these various remedies.
Malleability
It leaves us with a question: What does it take for an entitled, self-centered, abusive individual to transform from the ugly duckling into a prince—sorry, those are probably two different stories.
Scripture describes some of these leaders:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5 (ESV)
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Matthew 7:6 (ESV)
Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Proverbs 9:7-8 (ESV)
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease. Proverbs 22:10 (ESV)
These passages present hopeless situations and if you listen to the stories of those who have suffered under toxic leadership—you can find many of those stories on this site—you will hear that hurt and anquish of hopelessness. It is frustrating, infuriating, and crushing to face such deeply entitled and arrogant people.
There really is no hope . . .
but for the grace of God.
God’s Grace
What follows is not a call to just give these leaders a break—live with their injustices—but in fact a recognition that our holding them accountable may be an important part of their change, not just our safety.
The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy around 65 AD. Timothy was pastoring a church in Ephesus and Paul was his mentor.
Near the beginning of his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes his own background. It is for the purpose of encouraging Timothy that the Lord of heaven and earth is working in people to transform them—even the worst of sinners as Paul describes himself (1 Timothy 1:15).
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 1 Timothy 1:12-15 (ESV)
Paul was a mean guy. He was driven by a toxic form of religion to destroy rather than to build. He took Phariseeism to a new height of noxiousness. Whereas many Pharisees saw themselves as above everyone else—more knowledgeable, wise, and powerful—Paul took it on the road to destroy those who were lesser . . . specifically those who named the name of Christ.
Insolent Opponent
Paul uses a particular term in this passage that sets him apart from other people— “insolent opponent.”
This term (ὑβριστής) means, an “insulter, maltreater, despiteful, injurious, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong” (Strongs Dictionary).
Pretty harsh words. And yet, they are not spoken of someone else. They are Paul’s words for Paul. He was that man.
Clearly, he is a changed man. Of course, he is still sinful and describes that experience in depth in Romans 7. Despite having been an arrogant, driven, noxious individual, he is now humble and recognizes his sinfulness and is driven to follow Christ fully.
How did that come about?
Easter for Paul
Easter came for Paul on the road to Damascus. In Acts 9, Paul comes face to face with the Lord whom he is persecuting.
It is an amazing story both for its miraculous content, but for the beauty of its results.
The Bible says that Paul was blinded by a light from heaved and fell down. He then heard, “Saul, Saul [his name was changed later to Paul], why are you persecuting me?”
Paul, in his incredulity, asked, “Who are you, Lord?” And so the Lord introduced Himself to Paul. The same Paul that spoke a good line about following God—may that in itself be a lesson to us.
Though Paul had his eyes open, he was unable to see anything, so he was led into Damascus and told by the Lord to go to see a certain follower of Jesus.
There is so much more to the story, but the results of this amazing encounter is that Paul, a toxic leader of the first century, was transformed by the Lord.
I am sorry that the statistics do not give a lot of hope for us as we pray and pray that our abusive leader be changed. However, we should always hold out hope that while man cannot be changed, the Lord can change man. The resurrection makes that possible and most who are reading this have likely had that same experience—though maybe not being blinded and spoken to from the clouds.
So, as we face off with our toxic leaders, we call upon the Lord and we seek accountability. The Lord brought accountability to Paul—He knocked Paul on his rear, if I may be so crass. So, the Lord calls us to knock these leaders on their rears that maybe they will face a reckoning with Jesus.
That is because I am passionate about helping those under bad (toxic) leadership. Though a portion of my seminary training was looking at good leadership in the church, it was my own experience of bad leadership that formed my work for these past 13 years.
Today, however I am looking forward to Easter—which comes tomorrow. I have rarely written about this particular calendar day for the church.
But this year is different. I have been in a study of the New Heavens and New Earth of late and, though I have focused on this theological concept before, it has been a wonderful reminder of our place in this world.
And it has great implications for leadership.
I am neck deep in four writing projects that have developed especially over the past year and a half. Some of these have been focusing on the hopelessness of truly toxic leadership. These are leaders that absolutely will not respond to any kind of normal remedies: education, confrontation, counseling, etc.
What do we do with them?
Easter.
New Creation
Because Easter means New Creation.
And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”
Revelation 21:5 (ESV)
This is found almost at the very end of Scriptures as Jesus encourages the church through the Apostle John that there is something so great, marvelous, and extraordinary on the horizon that no amount of man’s rage against the machine can alter it.
When Jesus comes again, there will be justice, righteousness, and mercy. The words prior to verse five give us a beautiful picture:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Revelation 21:1-4 (ESV)
What beauty. It brings peace and joy to my soul.
But, lest we become so enthralled by this future event described for us, we need to realize that when Jesus came and walked this earth the first time 2000 years ago, He ushered in this new creation in the form of His Kingdom for now.
In Matthew 6:10 Jesus tells his disciples to pray for God’s Kingdom to come to earth just as it is in heaven now! Jesus said the Kingdom of God was at hand. It is here and now as Jesus walked about as its King. As Jesus roamed about, healing the sick, raising the dead, and proclaiming Good News to the captives, the Kingdom was and is here.
This is extraordinary news. It gives meaning to everything we do so that the Apostle may say, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
All Things New
In essence what Scripture says is that all things are new. Because Jesus came and was raised from the dead, all things are new.
The implications for leadership is that it is new. All that was taught by Jesus and his Apostles to His disciples 2000 years ago about leadership—about not lording it over, treating subordinates harshly, or welcoming even a slave back as if he is no longer owned—is a picture of this newness.
We aren’t born with this newness, I am afraid. It comes from a radical alteration of our very being as Jesus explains to Nicodemus—You must be born again!
So too, a toxic leader can become new. Despite the seeming hopelessness, a deeply damaged leader can become a new leader—just as Jesus’ body was altered dramatically through resurrection, so too leaders may be transformed through resurrection.
Those of us who have suffered under these leaders need to pray for this alteration in these leaders. We need to ask that the Lord will transform them radically—for that is the only way it will happen. And though I have heard of few instances, I have heard of those who came to the foot of the cross and were changed in the blinding of Jesus’ light.
If you are a toxic leader, use this time of commemoration to bow at the foot of the cross, receiving the new creation, and turning from your destruction.
In John 9 Jesus healed a man who was blind from birth and the religious leaders, who were deeply intimidated by Jesus, wanted to squash the Lord’s ministry. They demean both Jesus—saying he is a sinner—and the man, accusing him of following an outlier—not Moses whom they followed.
The leaders ridiculed the man by saying, “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man [Jesus], we do not know where he comes from.” As the big men—respected leaders—this statement was intended to marginalize the healed man, placing him outside their camp. They were in effect saying that the blind man’s healer was not worthy even of their notice.
But the healed man is quick on his feet and answered them, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.” He did not allow himself to be made insignificant in their eyes.
The man went on to reason quite effectively with these leaders showing he was not intimidated by them. Psychologists call this self-differentiation, a term that sums up Jesus’ own approach to his people—compassionate and empathic towards them but not controlled by them.
The Difference between the Man and His Parents
However, there is a distinct difference between the man born blind and his parents. Where he was unwilling to be intimidated by the religious leaders, his parents were clearly frightened by them. The Jews, when they heard about this miracle at the hands of Jesus, went to his parents and asked them about Jesus. The Jews did not believe a miracle had taken place.
Scripture tells us his parents answered them saying:
“We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22(His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.)
John 9:20-23 (ESV)
Fear of Loss
This is the story of so many who are intimidated by leaders. Followers who fear loss can be easily manipulated. It is how toxic leaders retain their authority over others.
Where a good and godly leader—who respects his subordinates and wisely encourages their talents and skills—will gain the respect and honor from subordinates, a toxic leader will use his followers’ fears to control them for his own ends.
The only way for toxic leaders—who bring destruction on churches, organizations, governments, and businesses—to be eradicated is by people like the man born blind. These are the people who recognize that they are made in the image of God and therefore of much greater value than the leader acknowledges.
These change agents are the ones who refuse to fear consequences that may indeed come. The consequences of standing up to powerful people can be devastating. They know that in standing up they might lose their job, their respect in the community, family, or financial support.
But, to these change agents, these things are not worth the coddling of a wicked leader.
I am Not that Man
I say this like I am that man. But I am most certainly not that man.
When we left our mission agency, we waited until we were half way around the world to write to the board of directors. We had left our job; our children were free from their school; we had gotten clear of their ability to do any real damage.
Others may actually have much greater courage. In this writing I want to encourage them. They are the true change agents.
Nearly everyone who works in the marketplace experiences toxic leadership at some point in his or her career. Approximately a third of women are abused in their lifetime.
The time of peace is not here.
But there will come a time when the Lord banishes toxic leadership in the home, workplace, church, and organization.
Prophesy Against the Shepherds
The prophet and priest, Ezekiel was taken away into exile in Babylon in 597 B.C.
In 597 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon besieged Jerusalem. The siege caused appalling deprivation and suffering. Nebuchadnezzer took Judah’s King Jehoiachin and the nation’s leading citizens off to Babylon. Then, ten years later, he uprooted everybody else and destroyed the temple. The so-called Babylonian Captivity had begun. And tens of thousands were massacred in the process.1
Ministering for over 23 years, Ezekiel “addressed both the exiles and the people left in Judah with messages of warning and judgment, predicting the fall of Jerusalem.”2 In chapter 34, Ezekiel gives a scathing message from the Lord to the spiritual leaders of Judah.
Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
Ezekiel 34:10
For the purpose of vindication and validation, we can be thankful that the Lord will stop the toxic leadership of these “shepherds.” But much of the chapter is more about the kindness of the Lord to those who have suffered under that self-serving leadership.
Ezekiel goes on to say that the Lord “will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered. . . (vs. 11b-12a).”
Toxic leadership always scatters. In this case, Ezekiel is speaking specifically to those located in a small area in the Middle East 2500 years ago. The leadership of Judah had both religious and national consequence as Judah was a full-blown theocracy—a government ruled by a religious organization.
This religious leadership over the nation had “scattered” the sheep of Judah. We can understand this to involve both a spiritual and physical scattering of the people of Judah. It is evident that there was a decided lack of spiritual commitment to God’s law and rule and the people had been taken into captivity by another nation. They had been scattered.
As we bring this warning and teaching into our day and age we would normally apply God’s warnings and promises to the “church” that is the New Testament expansion of God’s people—including both Jew and Gentile. We cannot categorically apply the promises or warnings to Judah in the fifth century B.C. to our own time, but the promises and warnings in this chapter were only in part fulfilled as the Lord brought His people out of exile and back to Jerusalem.
There was still toxic leadership. There was still hatred. There was still suffering in that time and ever since.
However, we know there will come a day when the promises found in this chapter of Ezekiel will be fully—completely and perfectly—realized. That day will be when Christ comes again and banishes evil and enfolds His people in his arms in a love we cannot fully grasp in this life.
Listen to this incredible promise:
And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 34:13-15
It is idyllic. God’s people will be fed and nurtured and protected and given rest.
The “wild beasts” who have created havoc and death and suffering, he says, will be “banished.”
What sweet promises these are. As I watch the suffering of those under toxic leadership I am reminded of these promises that give hope. We might see some relief in this life—gaining freedom from the leader’s grasp—but in the long term, it will only be in eternity that we fully gain that freedom from the ravages of sin in leadership. Even in my own heart, that will be the day I no longer hate and hurt and curse.
I have written quite a lot about “self-differentiation” ever since my doctoral study [see here]. At that time, my research advisor was pressing me to focus on this psychological concept—also biblical—in my dissertation about toxic leadership.
The term basically means to remain free from the psychological control of other people. Christian writers like Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken the idea and brought Scripture to bear on it.1 They point to Jesus as the ultimate self-differentiated individual as he engaged with others in a deep, empathetic way while not being controlled by them.
Jesus is an example to us.
There is another man in Scripture who, though deeply broken, was a “type of Christ” in the Old Testament—Jesus’ forefather King David.
The story of David, a rapist (2 Sam. 11:4) and murderer (2 Sam. 11:15), gives hope to every man, woman, and child that in our wickedness we can be redeemed. In 1 Samuel 17 the story of David and Goliath is told. It provides for us a picture of self-differentiation.
David Shows Up
David, the youngest of his brothers, would go back and forth to the battle lines where his older brothers were engaged in a war with the Philistines. He would bring food and supplies from his family to them.
One day David showed up and heard the giant of a man, Goliath, taunting the Israelite army. As David spoke with various soldiers about it, his oldest brother said,
“Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.”
1 Samuel 17:28
I don’t know what was in David’s heart but his response is certainly self-differentiated:
“What have I done now? Was it not but a word?” And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.
1 Samuel 17:29-30
It is a bit defensive— “What have I done now?” — but he does not allow Eliab (brother) to deter him from gaining more information about Goliath.
What I want to get at is that victims of toxic leadership normally shut down. As they are critisized by their boss, ridiculed by a manager, or demoted because they don’t practice image-control as their bosses require of them, they turn inward, keep their head down, and sort of do their jobs.
Who wants to be criticized? Who wants to face ostracization?
We want to keep our jobs. We want to please our bosses and supervisors.
All normal and all understandable.
But not always self-differentiated.
David’s Self-Differentiation
Rather than sulk away as I did many times under a toxic boss, David went to the big boss—King Saul—when Saul called for him. David told Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail because of [Goliath]. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”
So, David goes out to meet the giant and there meets further scorn:
“Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.”
1 Samuel 17:43-44
I love David’s response. It could sound arrogant, except that it is a testimony to dependence on the LORD. And dependence on the LORD is fundamental to Christian self-differentiation.
Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the LORD’S, and he will give you into our hand.”
1 Samuel 17:45-47 (ESV)
Sunday School materials are full of applications culled from this passage that tell children to stand up to their greatest fears. Sometimes those applications are ridiculed, but that interpretation is not far off.
What can be missing is that it wasn’t in David mustering the strength from deep within, but in his dependence and belief that God had his back and he was doing the right thing in response to God’s calling.
So to trust God alone is self-differentiation for the Christian.
Jesus’ Self-Differentiation
I believe the most apropos passage for defining self-differentiation is when, after Jesus did many signs and wonders, many “believed” in him. John says,
But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
John 2:24-25 (ESV)
Jesus knew what was in man. So too, David knew not to trust in man’s confident assertions (Goliath’s or his brothers’) but in God Himself.
Self-differentiation is just this: Not allowing the anxiety of others to control our own trust in Jesus. It frees us to stand up to toxic leaders where others cower. It frees us to leave the toxic workplace when others fear leaving. It allows us to reject the arrows of our antagonists whether they are a boss, fellow employee, or church leader.
Give your trust to Jesus, not to any other man.
NOTES
Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. ↩︎
Recently, I was having one of those imaginary discussions. You know, the conversations where your anger ramps up against whom you had a disagreement—though they are not present to actually fight back?
One of the things I stated to my imaginary combatant was, “You are going to tell me that you are doubting the LORD of heaven and earth, Who created you, and could crush you with His pinky?”
All people, everywhere, at all times have been tempted to distrust the LORD—often many times per day. That distrust of God in essence is what drives our trust in ourselves. We, in practice, believe that we can make better decisions, control situations better, and get the job done better than the LORD, even if we would never admit that.
How could we ever presume to be so powerful. There is one God and he can crush us with His pinky.
So too the Israelite leaders—priests and kings and counselors—thought they knew better than the LORD when Zechariah spoke around 500 B.C.
But Zechariah pummeled the Israelite leadership with these words:
“My [God’s] anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders; for the LORD of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle. 4 From him shall come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler—all of them together. 5 They shall be like mighty men in battle, trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight because the LORD is with them, and they shall put to shame the riders on horses.”
Zechariah 10:3-5 (ESV)
God is angry at the leaders of His people.
So much so, He promises to punish them. This is a common theme among the “minor prophets” of the Old Testament. Prophets like Zechariah were continually calling God’s people to repentance for their evil, often for the way the leaders (more powerful) oppressed the vulnerable (the weaker). The leaders are held to a higher standard throughout Scripture.
How does Zechariah say God will punish these wicked leaders?
He is going to raise up the followers—the house of Judah—to overwhelm the leaders. The humble will overcome the great. The arrogance of the wicked leaders will be judged.
Symbolic Implements of Destruction
Zechariah notes the symbolic implements of destruction as the means by which these subordinates would bring judgment upon the leaders:
From him shall come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
from him the battle bow
Though we see the LORD raise up other nations to drag these leaders into exile, the ultimate fulfillment is found 500 years later through the raising of Jesus—born in the house of Judah—from the dead.
Some commentaries suggest the CORNERSTONE to be symbolic of a ruler or prince. Ultimately, we know that the LORD raised up Jesus Christ to be the true Israelite cornerstone—ruler and prince—and exemplify the leader who brings restoration and healing to the downtrodden Israelites.
However, He does so by also judging the evil of man’s out of control leadership which Israel was experiencing at the time of Zechariah.
Zechariah says the TENT PEG will be brought forth by the LORD. Most suggest this refers to the symbolic purpose of the tent peg:
The allusion is either to a nail, by which the timber in the building is compacted together, and the whole is strengthened, as the church is by Christ: or to a nail to which the cords of tents are fastened, as those of shepherds, travellers, or soldiers; the church is as such a tent . . .
Jesus, the Cornerstone will bring the nation together against these wicked leaders.
However, there may be another interpretation: The allusion may be to Judges 4:21 where Jael, “the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died.”
A wicked king in Canaan, Sisera, was subdued by a “tent-dwelling woman.” So, too it will be a lowly carpenter’s Son [Jesus] who will drive the nail destroying wicked leadership of God’s people (Rev. 20:11f).
And the final implement of war and destruction—of overcoming wicked leadership—is the bow; used as our drones are today to bring down enemies at a distance.
My imaginary conversation came around to the LORD Who can crush me with His little finger. Leaders, in the home or workplace or church, who think they are so powerful to control and suck the life out of their subjects need beware:
The Cornerstone, nail, and bow of the LORD will ultimately destroy those who have been raised up to lead and who have used that privilage and responsibility to oppress God’s people instead of serving them.
Zechariah calls for repentance as all the minor prophets do. Will wicked leaders heed the warning? Will they turn from their wicked leadership before the LORD crushes them with His pinky?
It is a hard topic for Christians to wrap their heads around. Interpretations of these prayers for destruction abound.
In this article I am looking at Nehemiah’s imprecatory prayer. The ESV Strong’s Bible translation says in its introduction to the book of Nehemiah:
In 445 B.C. the Persian King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah, an Israelite who was a trusted official, to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. With Nehemiah went the third wave of returning Jewish exiles. There was intense opposition from the other peoples in the land and disunity within Jerusalem. Despite this opposition, Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the walls.
ESV Strongs Bible
That “intense opposition” made many fear for their lives as they worked to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem. Nehemiah, as the leader of the Jews who sought to see the Covenant God had made with His people Israel re-established, gave instructions to the people to take protective measures. “Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:18)
And so they built. With their weapons handy.
The Imprecatory Prayer of Nehemiah
What was particularly interesting to me is found in chapter 4 of the historical account.
Sanballat, of whom we know very little, was a Horonite (possibly from Samaria). He was apparently the leader of those who opposed the rebuilding of the wall. He and his ilk ridiculed the Jews and sought to stop them.
They shamed and humiliated Nehemiah and the Jews. The language in the text is strikingly similar to how those who are under abusive leadership describe their taunters. Toxic leaders in the home, workplace, and church torment their targets with words that belittle, debase, and humiliate. Often those words are coupled with religious language that creates a greater depth of shame and humiliation in the target (spiritual abuse).
Nehemiah responded in prayer . . . just as he had done before approaching King Artaxerxes to request returning to Jerusalem to build the wall (Nehemiah 1). In his prayer here in chapter 4, Nehemiah expressed his desire that the Jews’ tormentors be destroyed.
Nehemiah prays,
Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders.
Nehemiah 4:4-5
No Qualifying
When I normally speak of “imprecatory praying” I give qualifications. Before praying, “Destroy my enemies,” I will pray, “Lord change their heart . . . “
Then I go on with asking the Lord to stop the abusive individual in whatever way the Lord, in His wisdom, wills. I try not to be too specific.
But Nehemiah, in a display of raw emotion, simply asks the Lord to destroy this enemy of God’s people.
Fundamental to his prayer is the understanding that his enemies are enemies of God. Nehemiah was confident of God’s anger at Sanballat. There appears to be no doubt in his mind that Sanballat, and those following him, were evil and that God was opposed to them.
And his prayer is not self-centered. Nehemiah is not praying against someone who simply disagrees with him. He is praying that an enemy of God and one who seeks the destruction of God’s people be stopped.
Dead. In his tracks. No redemption.
That is hard stuff.
But it is the hard stuff from which imprecatory praying grows. Imprecatory prayers are made for those who see no out from the destruction at the hands of evil men. They are the prayers of deeply wounded and hurting people . . . because of the unjust, wicked, and damaging treatment of others.
Forgiveness?
In addition, I want to point out that Nehemiah is not unforgiving as some might think in praying this prayer.
In praying, Nehemiah turns over the judgment upon his (and God’s) enemy, Sanballat to God. This is fundamental to forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean there is no judgment. But rather, as some theologians suggest, it is turning over that judgment to the Lord; releasing our own judgment into the hands of God.
Nehemiah prays for God to judge. Afterall, it is God’s place to judge.
It’s Just So Uncomfortable
There are a significant number of imprecatory prayers in Scripture. So often we gloss over them because they make us uncomfortable.
Because we have so often been taught that a good Christian would never ask the Lord to judge someone, we cannot reconcile the imprecatory prayers found throughout the Psalms and here in Nehemiah with that training.
But those who have suffered abuse may not have as much difficulty understanding why they are in Scripture. Imprecatory prayers are actually a balm to those for whom the Lord continually stands up. We have God’s own word that He despises those who oppress others. And these prayers are a means of turning over the judgment we feel is so needed to the Lord Who judges perfectly.
Why should we not join Nehemiah in asking the the Lord to do what He has promised He will do?
The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. 10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
Ben taught theology and was a chaplain for a mission college in Africa. In addition, he was responsible for the expansion of the library and development of a master’s degree program. Ben’s wife, Casandra, worked with her husband on the organization of the library and as an administrative assistant.
They served the mission for two years before they resigned.
They grieve the loss of what they had in Africa. Casandra said they loved the “passionate” missionaries with whom they worked and the couple has remained good friends with a number of former African students and co-workers, hearing from them frequently.
It was a very good two years.
The graduate program they designed continues to operate after almost 10 years. They feel they had an impact in their ministry with the mission.
Demeaning and Manipulative
When we talked recently they described a visit they made to the mission the year before they sold their house, quit their jobs, and moved their two children to the African country. Over meals with various missionary families, no one mentioned anything negative about the leadership.
It all seemed like peaches and cream as they prepared to move.
However, after their two years of service, Ben and Casandra described the leaders of the ministry as “demanding,” “demeaning,” “manipulative,” and “harsh.” They described several times that unreasonable “demands” were made by the CEO, including an “email about an additional layer of responsibilities” they received one month prior to moving onto the mission field.
During their first year at the mission, a missionary, who was acting as Director while the CEO was out of country, came to Ben and informed him that the CEO said Ben wasn’t “pulling his weight” and needed to take on night guard duty.
Ben calmly told the intermediary that he wasn’t told that by the CEO and he did not have the time to devote to guard duty.
Ben described that when he would meet with the CEO,
“The moment I walked in, it was not a dialogue. It was a pretend dialogue that I could say what I wanted to say and for as long as I wanted to say it. But, the answer was already etched in stone and was going to be carried out.”
Casandra had few conflicts with the CEO, but when she was helping in one of the other offices, she was “yelled at by [the founder’s wife] to not be involved at all because I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about.’”
Seeking Accountability and Change
Ben did meet with the CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution.
In addition, Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter from a large group of missionaries’ said, “It could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories and make changes.
However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.
Ben explained the “judging” section of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1-5 did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. That passage says,
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Matthew 7:1-6 (ESV)
At that time, following writing letters to the board, CEO, and faculty, he said,
“I recognized that I just needed to forgive them. I was never going to be asked for forgiveness . . . I didn’t need to be putting myself in the seat of judge.”
While still with the mission, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” He explained,
“I began to feel more and more affirmed in my thinking that my job was not to try to change them. I was going to fry myself if I took that campaign on. It was a waste of time and energy to try to change the situation in that sense of casting pearls.”
Dealing with 1 Peter and Matthew
When asked about his consideration of the Matthew 18 principles of conflict management, Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage.
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives direction for confronting the sin of a brother. The multi-step process includes:
Go in private to the one who has sinned against you.
If unrepentant, bring another person or two to once again confront the sinner.
If continuing in unrepentance, tell it to the church.
If rejecting all these pleas for confession and repentance, they are to be treated as an unbeliever.
He explained,
“I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” He had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply [Matthew 18] to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”
Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”
Ben also said there were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage where it says,
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
1 Peter 2:18-20 (ESV)
Ben explained that they said, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.”
Ben said he thought most about the 1 Peter passage. He said he “went back to it again and again and again. Sometimes looking for a loophole.”
However, Ben argued their positions with the organization were “voluntary” and received no funding from the mission. He suggested their “accountability” was “to those who put us there”; The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.”
As an example, Ben recounted a sermon given in the organization chapel by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters who were his mentors for their advice.
He asked them, “Is it me, people.” Ben wanted to be accountable to those who would be honest about his evaluation of the leader.
Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you . . . something’s broken.” He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He explained, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, [the CEO] is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”
As Ben considered the application of Matthew 18 to their situation, he suggested there was no church authority in place for the third step:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:17 (ESV)
No Change
Ben noted the CEO always justified or explained away his sin, often blame-shifting. He saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others approached the boss.
Others in the mission had approached the board prior to their families leaving the organization with no success.
According to a Workplace Bullying Institute survey, this experience is not unusual. In a 2012 survey, only 3.5% of those who confronted their bullies at work experienced a change in bullying.[1] They found that there was little recourse for those under toxic leadership. In another WBI survey, 61% of the victims lost their job, while only 15% of the perpetrators lost theirs.[2]
As a parachurch and mission organization, no ecclesiastical governing body had authority to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.
Family Business
Ben called the leadership a “family business.” He said, “[I had] very little sense that I was part of something whose passion was building God’s kingdom. It was very much building ours,” referring to the family.
He had discovered “if you weren’t in the family, you were out of business.” Ben said the “family called the shots and it didn’t matter the thoughts, opinions, the ideas of anybody outside.” He explained, “Real decisions were made around the family table.”
Party to the Abuse
Ben explained the responses of some staff to the toxicity of the CEO, “Some people were the fighters and some people were just apathetic.” As noted above, in his experience, the fighters were “worn out” through a lack of change coming from their battles.
However, the apathetic ones “put their heads down” and “counted the minutes when they could drive out the gates and do what gave them life and meaning, a purpose and joy.”
Ben determined that he did not want to “become apathetic to leadership” or “go find another mission somewhere for survival’s sake.” However, in the end, Ben and Casandra believed remaining at the organization would mean being “a party to the abuse” and did not want to risk joining either of these “camps.”
The Return and the Church’s Response
Ben suggested the negative effects their experiences had were not as great compared to others possibly due to “living off campus” and being there only two years. However, he said, their “jaws were on the floor with what other people needed to do and go through to unwrap their minds, hearts, and spirits from that experience.”
Though they felt somewhat spared from a lot of direct abuse, Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, and noted, “He had lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”
Both shared they “were very fragile for a time. We were looking for and very much needed support and encouragement.”
Ben told the story of returning home from the mission field and experiencing two different responses from church supporters. Some seemed to have little concern and apparently did not understand the difficulties he and his family had faced. Ben and Casandra’s sense of failure due to returning so soon from their mission seemed to be exasurbated by these responses.
Ben said, “Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say; ‘Well thank you for your service. God bless you as you go.’” In fact, they noted that only one of their five supporting churches really sought to minister to them when they returned.
This church welcomed them back, sought them out, spent time with them, and supported them fully. This was a very healing time for them.
When Ben, Casandra, and I first spoke, Ben said, “It has been three years since we have been back” in the United States. He said he had received that day an email from one of his former students, they were going to be hosting another student at their house in a few days, and their church in the United States continues to support the ministry of another former student.
Ben said, “We didn’t cut any ties with [the country], just with the organization. It is very much an ongoing part of our lives and always will be.” In the end, they believed their multiple communications to the leadership and board of directors provided opportunity for corrections to be made had those entities listened to their pleas.
Casandra said,
I came to a point where I knew in my heart that spiritually, emotionally and professionally that ‘the person I am’ did not line up with who and what the organization leadership had demonstrated to me in the past two years. While, I loved the ‘mission of ECU’ and my role at ECU, I could no longer turn a blind eye to the leadership decisions and how the organization leadership treated its students and especially “the help” (ie. nationals in general). The hierarchy of power and status based on race (“we are white and therefore superior”) and the lack of grace, humility, and servant leadership displayed by the organization leadership was directly opposite of everything I believed that God called me to be and how he called me to serve. I could no longer be part of an organization that manipulated Scripture to promote its own agenda.
Ben and Casandra said they never “questioned their decision to leave.” They had comfort in knowing God had called them “there for that time . . . God has equipped us with the mission of what He wanted us to do. We felt we accomplished what we were there to do.”
Healing
An important period of healing came when they returned to the United States. There was a “mission group” at one of their supporting churches who cared for them. Casandra said, “They just really embraced us and were willing to help.”
Ben added, “They wanted to know how we were doing. How they could help us.”
When we spoke recently – eight years after our initial interview – Ben and Casandra explained that the good response they received from this one church was likely due to the church’s intentional development of a relationship with their missionary.
The group asked Ben and Casandra to come meet with them to “debrief with them, not to pick apart the ins and outs of the organization, but for us. It wasn’t about trying to fix what we left behind.” He said most “people didn’t really understand” and that made this mission group’s support so helpful.
Casandra added,
“There was a measure of failure you wrestle with. We moved our entire lives and sold our house . . . and two years? But, we were never made to feel like failures . . . We were able to make a difference at that time and whether it was two years or 20 years, we gave our best and we left when we could no longer operate there in good conscience before God and our supporters.”
Another aid to their healing came with a new vocational direction. They moved to Europe to pastor an international church. There they found it helpful to be in a cross-cultural setting (which they felt called to all along) and among people who did not know them. In addition, they were not in the United States where the failure they felt was so prevelent.
The process of healing has been a longer process for Casandra. She isn’t sure why. She continues to struggle with how to view missions in the church and she has no desire to return to Africa. Ben, on the other hand, jokingly said, “I’m just dead inside.” Remembering his response to leaving the mission mockingly said, “Well that sucked . . . next?”
When they got free from the toxic leadership, Ben and Casandra found healing in the words of scripture, from those individuals who supported them, and in new vocational directions. God has provided good ministry for both Ben and Casandra.
References
[1] Namie, “2013 Instant Poll – D: The Timing & Results of Targets Confronting Bullies At Work.”
[2] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”
