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
Because it led to one of the greatest events in all of human history. The resurrection of Jesus for the rescue of mankind.
But have you ever considered what brought on the darkness of this day that leads to that day?
Toxic Leadership.
It is actually quite simple, but it wasn’t until my friend Anders Örtenblad pointed it out to me this week.
Our focus over the Easter weekend, of course, is on what Jesus Christ, who walked the earth about 2000 years ago, did in going willingly to a tortuous death—one that is unparalleled in history. But what happened to bring that about?
Jesus entered Jerusalem the Sunday before His arrest by the Jewish and then Roman authorities to shouts of praise and the waving of tree branches—the sign of a conquering hero returning from battle. This image is also played out in that Jesus heads to the Temple (Mark 11:13) which the hero would do to give sacrifice to the people’s gods. Of course, He would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the people at the end of the week.
But what brought about His death and sacrifice was the interaction of multiple kinds of toxic leadership: Pilate (the Roman authority), Judas (an Apostle), and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Religious leaders and civic leaders.
Each of these leaders practiced a different kind of leadership that is ultimately destructive.
The Apostle:
Judas was one of the original Apostles, chosen by Jesus Christ as a messenger to the world of the Good News of God’s redemption of his World. In essence he could be compared to a “middle-manager,” having an authority higher than himself and at the will of that authority (Jesus).
It appears in Scripture that he particularly focused on wealth (John 12:4). Money drove his toxic leadership (Matthew 26:14).
In this passage in Matthew, Judas went to the Jewish ruling council (Sanhedrin) and asked them, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” They gave him 30 pieces of silver for his task of turning on his boss, One who happened to be absolutely righteous and holy, and the best boss one could ever hope for.
Incredible?
Yes, but the evil in man can drive those who seek wealth or comfort or fame to do some incredible things. And when in leadership, their destruction can be overwhelming to others.
Jewish Sanhedrin:
The Jewish council paid Judas to inform on Jesus and they went to arrest Him in the garden where He was praying. According to scholars, the council broke a long list of their own rules to arrest Jesus and try Him on false charges, demanding that the Roman authorities execute Him.
Why would they go to such extreme measures? Competition.
They were jealous of the competition that Jesus was giving them. Jesus had continually challenged their holier-than-thou attitudes and actions, many of their teachings that were unbiblical, and in turn their authority among the people (Matthew 23:1-12, 23; Mark 5:7-13).
They wanted to wipe out the competition. The competition was taking away their authority before the people that they had lorded over them and enjoyed.
So they brought trumped up charges just like leaders we see now in religious, civic, and organizational/business environments. They sought any way possible to destroy their competition.
Pilate, the Roman Authority:
Finally, we see Pilate, who at one point recognizes the innocence of Jesus though the Sanhedrin had argued vehemently for Jesus’ conviction. Pilate seems to waver and suggests to the crowds that Jesus be traded out for a truly guilty prisoner. But the crowd, stirred up by the Jewish leaders, makes their wishes known all the more.
In the end, Pilate is a victim of his people-pleasing attitude and simply goes for the easy rather than right decision.
There may be more leaders like Pilate than are like the others. However, those who refuse to be under Jesus’ rule and would rather do what makes others under their authority happy, even if wrong and destructive, create chaos and suffering for those same people in the end.
At the End of the Day
All of this toxic leadership brings about the conviction and execution of a completely innocent man—the God of the universe.
That should be shocking and confusing and angering to all. There should not be a dry eye in the house.
However, at the end of the day, or should I say weekend, Jesus Christ, who was dead and buried, rose from the dead in glory.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
That judgment will mean life and wholeness and peace to all who call upon his name, rejecting the toxic leadership of Judas, the Sanhedrin, and Roman authority, and turning to Him in faith.
Recently I came across a passage in the history of the early church.
Acts 21 in the Bible presents Luke’s story of his and his companions—including Paul—arrival in Jerusalem.
All along the way, as they stopped off in various communities, there were those in the churches who prophesied that Paul would be put “in chains” if he went to Jerusalem.
And so it goes.
Zealous for the Law
When Paul, Luke, and their other fellow travelers arrive, there is a joyful reunion with the church. As they all shared together what God had been doing through the various ministries of those present, they “glorified God.”
So far so good.
However, something struck me for the first time the other day after many readings of this passage over the last 45 years. Immediately, on the heals of Paul sharing the incredible, earth-shaking news that many of those outside the Jewish religion were turning to Jesus Christ, there is an immediate damper.
I am sure Paul was very excited to share his news. But there is no sense in Scripture that there is any reveling in God’s amazing grace as they heard the news. Instead, there is a bit of a one-ups-man-ship among the other believers there. Hear their response:
You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Acts 21:20-22
First they note that “many thousands” of Jews had come to believe in Christ. Then they note they are “zealous for the law.”
Zealousness for the law is okay if it means we love the holiness of God and how he has expressed that holiness through His law. However, what seems apparent is that the zealotry is more Pharisaic than the Psalm 119 kind of joy in the law.
Notice that these church leaders follow up the “I can do one better with thousands of Jews” comment with YOU ARE THE MAN who is causing trouble here. Paul’s teaching—which was coming from a reformed Pharisee, mind you—was it was unnecessary to be circumcised to be a follower of Jesus. Paul worked exceptionally hard at teaching the church to not add rules to Scripture. His old way was to hold legalistically to the law and the addition of many interpretations of the law that had become law in themselves—Pharisaism.
Forsaking Moses meant these Jews thought Paul cared nothing for Old Testament Judaism—which is certainly not true. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament law, but also explained how the Pharisees—and other Jewish groups—had taught the law as a means to be saved rather than as a guide to recognizing their need for a Savior. That was never the intent of the law.
So, “What then is to be done?”
Giving In
After reading all that has gone before in the various villages they had visited, you get the sense that these brothers are hoping to keep Paul from being chained—even by fellow believers who were angry about his teaching on the law.
So they suggest:
We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
Acts 21:23-24
Paul is to fulfill this Pharisaical practice of the law in order to please these folks who continue to think these things are necessary to make God happy.
When in Rome do as the Romans do.
Paul is a big believer in that idea. Whereas it is not breaking God’s law, he was happy to do as others do in order to reach them with the Gospel.
But, what we find here is that Pharisees—whether as members in the group or simply of heart—are never satisfied.
Paul did what they called him to do but it didn’t matter. Paul is reviled and seized by these Jews: “
‘Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place’ . . . Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple.”
It Cannot be Mollified
Pharisaism cannot be mollified. Paul, nor Jesus, ever makes excuses for it. Though Paul, in this instance, appears to have tried to calm the anxiety created by the Pharisees, he didn’t succeed.
Pharisaic teaching and practice are destructive. Paul continually fought against it (see Galatians 3:1f; Colossians 2:20-23). He called out, by name, those who were leading the fledgling church astray by its legalistic teaching (see the whole book of Galatians).
I believe I can safely say that some form of modern Phariseeism is behind a huge percentage of the church leadership abuse cases of which I have had contact.
In these cases, leaders held unswervingly to a belief or practice that was either outright unbiblical or based on an interpretation that was not clearly biblical. It is that interpretation that is blown up into an absolute that so often gets the leader in trouble.
A leader may take a view of pro-marriage and create a law unto itself without recognizing the principles behind the biblical authors’ writings that provide the heart and soul of marriage: a loving committed covenant between two people. And just as God “divorced” his people, so too those who have been rejected by their spouse through abuse are allowed to divorce—the abuser’s actions are called desertion in biblical terms.
A leader may consider those who question his wisdom as being unsubmissive to authority. But he is only looking at the parts of the verses that call on those under man’s authority to submit (Romans 13:1). He does not pay any attention to the meaning of “for he is God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4) or the verses calling him to account for his leadership failures (1 Peter 3:7).
So, these leaders run with their incomplete interpretations of Scripture and make a ruin of lives.
One look at the Gospels and you will recognize the abuse heaped upon God’s people by the Pharisees. The church must reject the modern-day Pharisees wherever they find them.
NOTE:
As a closing note, it is helpful to see that Paul’s end goal in walking towards the toxic leaders resulted in accomplishing the goal he had. Paul, writing to the Philippians church from prison:
I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
The toxic leader will be threatened by the slightest show of strength from subordinates. This was the story of the new king of Egypt in the time following the death of Joseph.
As a little background, Joseph, the son of Jacob, had been taken as a slave from his family to Egypt—that is a whole story in itself. Through a variety of amazing circumstances directed by the Lord, Joseph’s ability to read the dreams of others came to the attention of the king.
Having read the king’s troubling dreams, the king appointed Joseph to oversee the nation’s food supply. The king had dreamed (symbolically) of seven years of abundance followed by a seven-year drought. God gave Joseph incredible wisdom that saved the Egyptian nation and many surrounding nations through his wise management of their agriculture.
Joseph’s family—God’s people—moved to Egypt during this time and were given good land to farm by the king. The “Israelites” grew in numbers and after Joseph died, Exodus 1:8-11 picks up the story:
Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses.
Exodus 1:8-11 (ESV)
You have to the ask the question, “Why would the king think the Israelites would join Egypt’s enemies and fight against them?” Egypt had proven to be a good place to work and raise their families. The Israelites were prospering because of the former Pharoah’s (king) kindness to them.
Why, Why, Why
However, it appears that the Israelites were already in the grips of the Egyptians. They did not appear to be equals in their citizenry. The king (and the other Egyptians) appeared to have power over these foreign people. This is evidenced by the fact the king could set “taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens.”
This new Pharaoh would prove in the story to be a toxic leader.
The Egyptian king had the ability to rule over them in a toxic way and chose to do so. So, he chose to take toxic control. An average leader might consider how to woo his subordinates. Not the Egyptian king. . . nor a toxic leader of any sort.
Robert Hare wrote,
There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life. Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought.1
If you know the story, you know that Exodus goes on to describe the destruction wrought by the king in the lives of the Egyptians and the subsequent judgments God brought upon the nation of Egypt because of the king’s horrific toxicity. As Hare notes, the Egyptians were “forced to live with or repair the damage [the king had] wrought.”
This is the way of toxic leadership. The destruction a narcissistic or abusive leader causes can be far-reaching and long-lasting. But generally, it is people in the organization, nation, business, or church that have to, in the end, live with it or try to repair it.
And it gets worse
Barbara Kellerman, the Founding Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, wrote of the common direction these toxic leaders go; down. It only gets worse. There is example after example. It is extremely rare that a bad leader becomes good. Rather their slippery slope is all downhill.
Kellerman tells the story of Volkswagen’s former CEO, Martin Winterkorn.
The effect of Winterkorn’s bad leadership was cumulative. The longer it lasted, the higher the cost to everyone adversely affected. Volkswagen’s cheating was not a single, quickly aborted instance of wrongdoing, never to be repeated. It was the opposite. It went on for eight years, the price paid by the victims of Volkswagen’s wrongdoing escalating with each passing day.2
But this should not surprise us as Christians. Sin is crouching at the door (Gen. 4:7) and without the intervention of Christ, it goes generally from bad to worse.
There are people who are truly driven by evil as Dan Allender describes (and it only gets worse):
All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul. Often the one who delights in evil is an ordinary, unassuming person who hides behind a facade of normalcy. Few people who are evil ever appear evil, even after the evidence of their deceit, destructiveness, and hardness is exposed.3
Keeping Clean of Defilement
It is difficult to watch the masses follow after narcissistic and abusive leaders in any organizational setting. They might think the leader holds some values they hold or promote some policies they promote. So, they think those positive traits will keep the followers clean of defilement. But, that is not how it works.
The followers of the Egyptian king suffered much the same from God’s judgment as did the king. The plagues that devastated Egypt crushed its people. In fact, it is likely that the only plague that fully affected the king was the death of his firstborn. As the king, he was likely above many of the affects of the other plagues.
Let this story be a challenge to leaders who are tempted to gain control through strength or manipulation. And let is be a challenge to followers who think they are somehow exempt from the damage such leaders bring.
There are two kinds of complicity in cases of abuse in the workplace or home: The one who gets it but refuses to stand by the victim and the one who refuses to get it and goes along to get along.
Both are wicked because they both have the same effect; they allow a great evil that the LORD continually condemns in His Word.
The Old Testament law was given to lead Israel to love God and neighbor effectively. In Leviticus we have laws that relate to making sacrifice for sins. Through those horribly bloody killings of animals, the Israelites were directed to the fact that their sin brings death . . . and the LORD provided a means for that death to be on something else.
The incredible holiness of God and the brokenness of God’s people were ever on display through those sacrifices.
In Leviticus 5 there is one verse that gives us a hint at the evil perpetrated by those who refuse to testify to the wickedness of another who sins. Often we give all sorts of leeway to bystanders, but the LORD does not. We need to be humbly challenged by His Word:
“If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity . . .”
Leviticus 5:1 (ESV)
“Adjuration” is just a fancy word for a call. It is a sin if you see abusive behavior—which always destroys others—and do not seek accountability for the offending party. You are not free from sin though you did not do the abusive deed. You are doing all you can to allow the evil to continue and God calls this sin.
The Workplace Bullying Institute has done some excellent work since 1997 including the frequent surveying of American businesses and employees regarding toxic workplaces. In their 2021 survey, I found a particular statement fascinating:
The final group to discuss is the one that baffles us most. These are respondents who claim no experience with workplace bullying and do not profess to have an opinion about it. They do not care. We surmise that this 34% of Americans deny its existence. They are the fellow workers likely to turn away when asked to help. Similarly, they are the most likely to blame targeted individuals for their fate.
34% of Americans “turn away when asked to help” when their coworkers or subordinates are being battered by others in the workplace. They are complicit to the evil according to Leviticus 5.
What might interest you further is that the largest group in this particular category of complicit workers also happens to be the most conservative. And you can take that a step further noting that Evangelicals will largely be in that group.
This despite the Word of God teaching that it is sin to stand by while someone is being abused and supporting the abuser rather than the victim. And yet, these people they think they get a free pass.
How can that be?
It can be because it is hard to stand up, particularly when it is a boss who is oppressing his subordinates. And even harder when it is a spiritual authority—pastor or elder—who is crushing his flock with Christiany-sounding words.
Loss of job, fear of “touching the Lord’s anointed (1 Sam. 26:9),” or losing face with important people in the church or workplace drives our misplaced allegiances.
However, we must be directed by the Word of God and the call to love our neighbor as ourself. Love means to care for the vulnerable in these places of toxicity. It means to stand up for them when we see abusive behavior.
I am an empathetic guy and I understand the fears—I have failed in this over and over. So, this blog is as much for me as it is for anyone else.
But there are people all around you dependent on you to stand for truth and answer the adjuration to testify.
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.
Those who make themselves complicit with toxic leadership will often do so due to fear of loss of prominence or privilage. These are the middle-managers in Christian organizations, businesses, and churches.
One of the most captivating stories in Scripture is the book of Esther. In ten chapters of moving narrative, Esther provides the plot of an epic drama. The twists and turns of God’s sovereign reign in care of His people even while having exiled them for their idolatry, always keeps me fixated to the end.
The story also captures a common problem with toxic leadership.
So often those who lead under the oversight of toxic leaders are complicit with their leader. For a number of reasons they do evil right alongside the head of their organization, business, or church.
An Object for Display
In Esther’s story, Memucan, a manager in King Ahasuerus’s government, saw Queen Vasthti refuse to come like a slave to the king when he commanded her presence. The king wanted her to come “in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at (Esther 1:11).”
Memucan realized his own power and position may be in jeopardy with the Queen’s refusal to obey King Ahasuerus’s making of her an object and display to his subordinates.
King Ahasuerus asked his subordinates who were present,
“According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus delivered by the eunuchs?”
Esther 1:15
Memucan told the king:
“Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’ This very day the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will say the same to all the king’s officials, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.”
Esther 1:16b-18
Can you imagine that? Other women will see her unwillingness to be treated as property and think it is okay to refuse authoritarianism. In the end, others who have authority, like Memucan, will lose that authority to boss and abuse their own wives.
Analogous with Toxic Complicity
This is an analogy of complicity with toxic leadership, not just poor marital behavior.
There are a variety of reasons why those who act as “middle-managers” in the workplace will refuse to seek accountability for their boss and become complicit in their abuse.
Loss of Prestige for Boards: Members of boards fear the loss of prestige if their leader is the focus of a public scandal. So, they cover it up.
Access to the Leader and Power: Managers fear a loss of access to a leader, from whom they have been empowered, if they report / whistleblow abusive leadership.
Donor Support: Fundraisers may fear being caught supporting a badly run organization and so would rather just keep it quiet . . . continually praising the health of the organization.
Bad Witness: Assistant Pastors may continue to support a wicked Senior Pastor because suggesting he is broken and unworthy of leadership will be a bad witness to the world.
Common Goal: One particular church leader “was picked with the goal of growing the congregation,” and so the “main goal was to keep him as pastor.”1
“Image management” may create difficulty for subordinates to see the leader for who he or she really is. “Weick (1988) and Maitlis and Sonehnshein (2010) found that strong, optimistic statements and justifications produce blind spots that keep organizations from seeing contradictory cues and pieces of evidence. Followers also feel as if they must be bound to those positive outlooks.”2 In other words, subordinates struggle to keep clear sight when their leader has brainwashed them with positive think.
No Access: A close cousin to this positive think is subordinates being continually fed the leader’s narrative and never considering the victims’. Boards are notorious for this kind of mismanagement, as the board of our own mission was. They willingly allowed themselves to be kept from access to the stories of the missionaries and nationals who were being mistreated by the leaders of the mission.
And there are other reasons.
Most, if not all of them are bad.
It is not worth it to be complicit in these ways with abusive leadership. The organizational damage will be much worse because more lives will be broken and damaged by the leader the longer he or she remains at the helm.
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.”
It is not unusual for those who have faced off with toxic leadership in the church to turn from the church. In my experience, most do not turn from Christ but have a difficult time squaring the leadership of God’s people with abusive authority.
So, they refuse to darken the doorway of a church building at least for a time.
Ezekiel spoke God’s damning judgment upon Judah as they were taken into exile in 587 B.C. After chiding the toxic Jewish leaders for eating the sheep instead of shepherding them, God said,
So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; 6 they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
Ezekiel 34:5-6 (ESV)
It is what is to be expected. When leaders fail, the hurt runs deep. You can expect people to leave, maybe never to return.
Don’t blame them.
But for those who wish to find a church that will carefully and lovingly shepherd them in places of peace (shalom), here are some ways to determine if the leadership is toxic or not:
Plurality of Leaders: Is there a board? Elders? The plurality of leadership is a first step. There can be more accountability if the church has multiple leaders that can challenge one another.
Center of Everything: What kind of praise do people give the pastor? Does he seem to be the center of everything? Does the leadership encourage (or fail to discourage) hero worship?
Pastoral Arrogance: Does the pastor often tell stories that, even in a self-deprecating way, make him the hero of the story?
“And so I went up to him and told him he was wrong . . . and he turned from his sin.”
Empowering: Does the leadership – all of them – empower the congregation as Ephesians 4 tells them to:
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” (Ephesians 4:11-12) Or do they keep a particularly strong hand on all ministry?
Emphasis on Submission: Look at the titles of sermons posted online. Are there frequent sermons on authority? Is the focus on washing feet or protecting and ruling? Protecting and ruling are not wrong, but a particular emphasis on telling the congregation to submit is telling.
Focus on Image & Competition: Is the ministry of this particular church “so much better than other churches?” Do people talk a lot about how much better their church is than other churches in the area? This can be just how people feel, but it can also be what they are hearing from leadership. Daamgaurd helpfully says, “Although it is natural to want to associate with like-minded individuals, a healthy church welcomes communication from those outside of the church, even if church pastors and members don’t fully agree with the outsiders’ views. Those within the church realize that they can learn much and benefit from these interactions.”
Turnover in Leadership: Is there a significant turnover of leadership? Elders? Deacons? Sunday School teachers? Especially office staff?
Turnover in Membership: Is there a large turnover of people in the pews?
Focus on A Family: Is there one or two or even three families that seem to be the center of all ministry that takes place? They need not even be formal leaders, but the church may be driven by them.
Legalists & Pharisees: Does there appear to be many cultural expectations of members that find little support in Scripture? Dress. Ways of praying. Don’t dance, drink, or go with girls who do?
None of this is guaranteed for determining toxic leadership. There are so many variables and toxic leadership is found in all types of churches with a variety of doctrinal views.
It can be one powerful individual – pastor or member – that causes chaos for the congregation. Or it can be an entire system that continually hires or trains up toxic leaders or brings good leaders down because of their own blindness.
The church is Christ’s bride, but she is deeply broken. I pray that you find a church that loves you as Christ loves you that you may rest in His shalom.
“And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. 20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.”
Hosea 2:19-20 (ESV)
NOTES:
Damgaard, Neil. Wounded Faith: Understanding and Healing From Spiritual Abuse (p. 16). Kindle Edition.
