The Bible is repleat with examples and the modern business and Christian organization world is full of them. It is a huge temptation for any organization that feels more dependent on donor funds than God.
Only in the Christian organization it is spun as “being an example for Christ.”
In other words, truth does not really matter. What really matters is if appearances are kept up for the public. Then Christ is glorified.
And it just so happens, the money flows better that way. Contributions roll in unabated.
But, Jesus never told his people to fake it until you make it. In fact, He most commonly called those who do hypocrites and that was not a positive assessment of their spiritual state (Matthew 6).
Saul and Image
King Saul reigned in Israel approximately 1021–1000 BC. He was their first king, which is a story in itself (not to be discussed here).
At one point he was told by the prophet Samuel to attack Amalek. He did as commanded by the Lord. But, though being told to destroy everyone and everything, Saul spared the king and held onto the best of the sheep and oxen.
Samuel came to Saul having been told by the Lord, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:10)
As Samuel confronted him, Saul immediately began shifting the blame to the people. Samuel told him the Lord was stripping him of his kingship. Saul responded,
“I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30 (ESV))
“I have sinned.” Sounds like he got it right. But listen to those words following.
“Honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. . .” His image is of greatest importance here. His confession is only a ploy to please the prophet. His desire for honor far outweighs his relationship with the Lord.
Samuel seems to think so as well.
He tells Saul that he will not return with him and walks away. However, Saul won’t stand for it and grabs the prophet’s robe, tearing it. Samuel in turn uses Saul’s disrespectful action as a metaphor and tells Saul that God is tearing his kingdom away from him just as he tore Samuel’s robe.
And then Samuel returns with Saul and finishes the job Saul was supposed to do.
Outward Appearances
Saul is a good (evil) example of the image-driven pastor, organizational leader, or business CEO. The Lord does not look on outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:12) and you will never get away with being driven by an image rather than the real deal (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees through that. God knows your character through and through.
You cannot put on airs with Jesus like you do for your adoring public.
Jesus will bring it to light at some point.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and never airs its dirty laundry . . . run.
It is unhealthy and hypocritical.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and tells you all the ways that it does ministry better than anyone else . . . run.
It is unhealthy and they are lying.
We Will Crush You
When an organization is driven by image, you can be assured it will do anything to keep that image alive.
That means the leaders will lie about wrongdoing. They will crush dissent. They will refuse criticism . . . even constructive criticism. They will put on a facade for the donors.
On a side note, this is of what NDAs are made. NDAs are often intended to keep that image alive through silencing its victims while offering cold cash for the buyout.
I worked for a mission agency like this. I watched it in action. And I drank the Koolaid for several years. I am not above being sucked in.
My wife had to confront me (in her gracious way) following a missions conference when I came away all blustery about how our mission was so much better than all those other missions.
It was less than a year later that all that image crumbled before me and we left the mission beaten and bruised by the toxic leadership.
It is insidious. Don’t take part in it . . . it will kill you.
For helpful information on “impression management” by Wade Mullen:
There is a strange dichotomy when it comes to respect and accountability.
There are those who see leaders as just one of the boys. They wish to get rid of as much hierarchicalism as possible. Leaders are just normal people given greater responsibility. They fail like the rest of us. Give them a break.
On the other hand, there are those who look to 1 Samuel 24:6 (or other passages) that say, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’S anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed.” They give great regard to leaders, considering them the “Lord’s anointed” and are careful to show due respect. Probably better just turn a blind eye to their failings.
Both recognize the need for church leaders and a need to follow and submit to them. There is no real disagreement there.
And Then There Were Bad Ones
The difficulty comes when you have a bad—really bad—leader. How does our theology meet this challenge? Do we give the benefit of the doubt? Do we turn a blind eye? Or, do we bring the hammer down?
Scripture is replete with the call to respect, honor, and submit to leaders (Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22, Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 5:17). No organization, religious or political, would survive without followers who submit.
However, some may be surprised that the respect, honor, and submission to leaders in the home, workplace, nation, or church are not absolute according to Scripture.
Bad leaders are held to account by the Lord and His people are called to hold them accountable for their failures where they have that ability.
Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.
Leviticus 10:1-3 (ESV)
Nadab and Abihu had been instructed clearly what kind of incense—the exact mixture of spices—was to be used in the worship of the Lord in the Old Testament tent of meeting (later Temple). For some reason they had taken this lightly and done their own thing.
The Lord struck them down.
We can surmise that the Lord was making a very clear example of them just as He did with Ananias and Saphira in New Testament times (Acts 5).
Another example of the Lord holding his leaders accountable is Eli’s family in the Old Testament.
Hophni and Phinehas, sons of Eli, were priests who led in the worship of the Lord when Israel was moving towards a monarchy. They were failing to follow the requirements of priests and they were sexually assaulting the women under their leadership who served the worship of God’s people (1 Sam. 2:22-25).
Like Nadab and Abihu, the Lord took them out (1 Sam. 4).
In each of these cases, the punishment was death and it came directly from the Lord. The LORD held them accountable for their leadership sins.
And His People Hold Leaders Accountable
It is important to note that the Lord also reprimanded Eli for his failure to hold Hophni and Phinehas accountable for their sin.
Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me . . .
1 Samuel 2:29 (ESV)
It is not just the Lord to Whom we look to bring accountability, but we, as His people, are also responsible for keeping church leaders accountable. Do note that Eli was both their father and the primary priest who was in authority over Hophni and Phinehas. It is not implied or stated that these men’s wives were expected in the narrative to hold their husbands accountable. It would not have been safe for them.
Paul effectively navigates the honor and accountability of leaders issue when he writes to Timothy, a young pastor he has mentored:
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
1 Timothy 5:18-21 (ESV)
After encouraging congregations to provide for elders (pastors), showing respect for their position, it says leaders can not only be challenged by congregant members for their sin but be publicly rebuked.
Leaders are not free from criticism or accountability by virtue of their high position. Church leaders should hear complaints and investigate in a timely way.
There is to be no “partiality” given to leaders. It was the cultural norm that leaders were given more leeway in their failures. They were very powerful and influential. Even in our time, social media may get blown up, but most leaders are given the benefit of the doubt. Only when things completely fall apart does accountability come.
However, we are to hold leaders accountable. Do not show partiality to them.
Matthew 18 vs. 1 Timothy 5
In addition, Matthew 18 takes us through the normal process of confronting a brother who has sinned against us. In Timothy, Paul raises those stakes when it comes to church leaders.
In this passage, the report (confrontation) is coming from two (or three) witnesses, apparently to the leaders in the church (Timothy). This is not the one-on-one confrontation Jesus teaches in Matthew’s Gospel where the individual is to confront a brother directly and do so by himself.
In Timothy, the witnesses (multiple) go directly to others (possibly other leaders), with no mention of the sinning leader being in the room, and the leader who is sinning is publicly rebuked.
It is at times unsafe to congregant members (or employees of the church) to go to a leader to confront just as it is in a work situation where the boss has the power to fire or make your life miserable. This is often a problem in confrontation ethics. Most naysayers will immediately quote Matthew 18 and complain about someone who is uncomfortable confronting a leader one-on-one. They will say, you must go to the sinning leader one-on-one to be biblical. That is the experience of hoards of people who have sought accountability for their leaders.
But, Paul’s words appear to provide a confrontation ethic for these situations specifically with leaders. In Timothy the Word is speaking about church hierarchy, unlike Jesus’s words in Matthew’s Gospel. And he does not suggest one-on-one confrontation, but rather two or three speaking on the side with other leaders. Again, there is no mention of the sinful leader being present.
The “whistleblowers” are given protection.
And there is more.
The abusive leader is held accountable.
Higher Standards
Yes, we honor and submit to leaders. But, Scripture also makes it evident that those same leaders are called to a higher standard of accountability.
As leaders they are responsible to be an example . . . and so their failure is also to be an example. These are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 5:21. The public rebuke is “so that the rest may stand in fear.” Leaders are not given greater benefit of the doubt. A public statement is not kept under wraps indefinitely in order to show honor and respect.
It says in the ESV, those “who persist in sin” should be publicly rebuked. Note that the word “persist” is not in the Greek text. It is an interpretation by the translators that, after being challenged by the leaders following a report of misdeeds, the one who continues to sin is to be rebuked publicly. This interpretation seems to be saying that only the unrepentant leader is to be publicly rebuked.
But that may not be what Paul is saying. Paul may be saying that because there are multiple witnesses to the leader’s sin, the leader has a pattern of wrongdoing that is doing damage to God’s people (or others) and needs to be stopped now! It is evident that he is unrepentant.
In fact, it may help to look at other translations of that verse:
Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear. (ASV) Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid. (HCSB) Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (KJV) But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. (NIV)
1 Timothy 5:21
There is no mention in other translations that there is a “persistence” of sin. Other translators did not read in unrepentance but have given us a more literal translation of Paul’s words of exhortation.
Is it possible that Paul is saying that the fact there are two or more witnesses means there is a pattern of sinful failure (or the sin affected multiple people) on the leader’s part and there needs to be a public response?
His failures are not isolated, but rather widespread or major enough and need to be stopped?
It is possible that he has been confronted . . . over and over. This has been my experience in interviews with those who have struggled with a toxic leader.
For the Good of the Church
Maybe the number of gross leadership failures in recent years will be prevented in the future by immediate and decisive action. Maybe Paul’s exhortation would provide an example for leaders who believe they are “above the law.”
Decisive action on the church’s part will bring an end to horrific leadership.
For the good of victims. For the good of future victims. For the good of all those under the leader’s authority. For the good of the church or organization.
And for the good of Jesus Christ.
Hold leaders accountable. Do not put up with their strange fire.
"In this world we go through trouble. Our God will never crush us - we may be pressed down, but not crushed."
Despite all he had gone through under a toxic leader, Kani preached the Gospel to me. The leader of the international organization for which he worked fired him after he confronted corrupt ministry practices.
As a ministry in Africa to refugee children, there was much good being done to raise up the devastated youth; providing training, equipment, and capital to create businesses. The laws of the land did not allow refugees to seek employment outside their refugee camp and the organization was doing some creative problem-solving to provide opportunities for employment that was legal.
Kani was a project coordinator, in part overseeing supplier bids for equipment needs. When the supplies, like computers and peripherals, were delivered he also went through the packages to make sure everything matched what was paid for.
That is where Kani ran into trouble.
Bribery
When a shipment arrived in 2019 Kani was surprised to see computer equipment that did not match the specifications of the bids they received. The computers were worth much less than what the ministry paid.
Kani said the organization could not accept the equipment.
For his attempt to be financially accountable and to provide quality help to the refugees he was confronted by the national Director. A meeting was called that included the supplier. When Kani would not back down, the Director shouted at him in anger. He told him he had made a mistake and to check again.
Kani checked again and it was very clear that the bid did not fit the equipment recieved.
Kani explained, “It was likely someone was involved with the supplier. Sometimes suppliers will give 10% to someone inside the organization bribe them purchase from from the company.” He said this was not unusual.
Kani was not willing to be part of that. He would not allow them to steal from the stakeholders.
All Things Happen for the Good
But leaving the organization was problematic. In a poverty-torn nation, there were few jobs and to leave could be financially devastating to his young family.
When it happened a second time in 2021, Kani was not given that choice. His employment contract was ended.
Kani was encouraged by fellow employees, beneficiaries of the ministry, and friends to fight the firing. He certainly had grounds for writing to the organization’s main office and complaining of the clearly toxic environment he was enduring.
But Kani said, “All things happen for the good and God is in control.” He explained that he knew that God would take care of him. He was not suffering for “doing wrong” as Peter wrote:
If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name . . . Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
1 Peter 4:16, 19 (ESV)
Kani said that some saw his suffering as punishment, but he knew God would “make a way.”
In those difficult times, not knowing how he would put food on the table and care for his wife and new baby, Kani found solace in the biblical books of Daniel and Esther. He saw all the “stories of people trying to do something bad and evil.” But God was working all things together for the good of those who love Him.
Scripture was pouring from his lips as he shared the help he found in God’s grace.
Kani was learning that he couldn’t “put faith and hope in a job.” He said, “I needed to stay grounded like a tree planted by water. It won’t whither. I will bear fruit in season.“
Toxic Leader
Following being “let go,” Kani received word from those left behind in the organization that the leader had been confronted for financial mismanagement and sexual impropriety with minor girls. He was fired.
Recently, Kani was contacted by a project coordinator for the ministry and was asked to meet with him. He ended up meeting with the coordinator and a consultant who began by apologizing for the horrific treatment he had received. Kani welcomed the vindication.
They then proceeded to ask how the organization could be fixed. I asked if it was an exit interview of sorts? Kani replied, “Yes, it was a bit like that . . . just way too late.”
Kani hopes they will investigate and take steps to root out the corruption.
A New Life
His wife, Nao stuck with him through it all and within a couple months he had landed a new job in another aid organization based in the United Kingdom.
However, this one was not a Christian organization. But, Kani noted wryly, “People are hiding behind christian organizations.” He said, “In the my new organization people love each other. It is very diverse and inclusive – it demonstrates love.” There is common grace at work.
As we talked, I was struck by Kani’s trust and dependence on the Lord. It was evident that he had been deeply hurt by the organization’s leader (and others) but that, despite the fears he had about losing a coveted job, Kani was unwilling to leave his integrity at the church doors. [see this article]
Taking that kind of risk – not going along with financial mismanagement to save your job – would be crazy. But only by the world’s standards.
But Kani does not live by the world’s standards. He was willing to put his head on the chopping block that Christ might be glorified in his life.
Editor’s Note: This is the Third in a three-part series. See Part One and Part Two.
They had started, it seemed, on a road to healing from the destruction of relationships and the eye-opening experience with toxic leadership in the church.
“It is with an incredibly heavy heart that I write this letter to inform you of my decision to step down as an elder, and my wife and my decision to leave Peace Community Church.”
The Williams were moving on finding no way to stay.
When Michael Williams wrote his resignation letter to the other elders at PCC, he was heartbroken by the actions of their pastor towards him and his wife, Kate. [P&S has shared her story]
But his story, though closely entwined with Kate’s, is also a unique story of spiritual abuse.
Michael’s Story
Michael has thought that maybe the verbal attack Kate had suffered under Pastor Ensome may have actually been primarily directed at Michael. As Michael said, “Kate got the brunt of it . . . before Pastor Ensome1 and I had a chance to meet.”
Michael had served as an Elder at their former church and was “confused and frustrated” by the elder meetings at PCC. There was a great deal of focus on Pastor Ensome’s teaching and “harmony,” whereas, the business of the church seemed to be much less talked about. To be discussing the pastor’s teaching and how to create harmony within the church were important topics, but the emphasis just seemed over the top.
Michael had come into the new leadership position ready to learn. He recognized that churches would handle their business differently and he would need to learn the leadership culture of PCC, in contrast to his previous church where he had also served as an elder.
However, leaving important budgetary requests frequently to the very end of the meeting, allowing little discussion, and the Pastor largely steamrolling the decisions seemed unwise to Michael. . . and contrary to the concept of the plurality of eldership considered important in their theological traditional.
One of Those People
So, Michael met with Pastor Ensome to share his suggestions for more efficient and effective meetings (that more time could be spent on important business) and Pastor Ensome seemed amenable, particularily to his suggestion to have an agenda and get it into the hands of the Elders in advance.
The Pastor said he would give his other suggestions some thought.
After several months of meetings and no appreciable change, Michael met with Pastor Ensome once again. But before they even got started, the Pastor asked Michael, “Are you going to bring charges against me?”
In Michael’s denomination, pastors are under the oversight of other pastors and elders. There is a “court system” that handles “charges” brought by members of the denomination. It can at times be very helpful in settling major disputes that are not necessarily matters for the civil courts.
However, Michael had no thought of taking such action to the church courts and was “dumbfounded” by the pastor’s question. Michael told Pastor Ensome,
“I was there to help and I was not making personal accusations . . . the items were primarily organizational in manner and only meant to benefit PCC.”
As they began talking, Michael asked if the church did any staff reviews. He asked to whom Pastor Ensome, for example, was accountable? The pastor clearly got his back up and responded, “Jesus, my wife, and on occasion I speak with a couple pastors.”
In other words, he was not accountable to his fellow elders, only those pastors who he would see infrequently and had little idea of his leadership in the church.
From that point on in their relationship Michael sensed a “defensive” and “cold” manner from Pastor Ensome. Michael said, “I felt I was relegated to ‘one of those’ . . . people who he held in disdain.”
Michael explained that those were “people who disagreed with him were considered less spiritual, or somehow beneath him, as I have learned from others who found themselves in a position of having different opinions than Pastor, including former elders.”
For months the pastor seemed to avoid eye contact with Michael and did not even greet him unless he was in a situation that demanded it.
Common to many toxic organizational structures is either a formal or informal policy of dictatorship. Some organizations, like Michael’s church, have a polity (church structure) that is centered on a plurality of leaders, providing mutual accountability as instructed in Scripture. In addition, the pastor is simply considered “first among equals” in his relationship to the other elders who serve alongside him.
Though the church polity provided for and directed a leadership that is equal in authority, in practice it is apparent that PCC is really a dictatorship as will be seen in Michael’s story.
Building His Legacy
A major property purchase by the church was presented to the elders by Pastor Ensome.
Pastor Ensome sent a draft letter to the elders that he hoped would be approved for him to send to the congregation regarding the purchase. Pastor Ensome was acting as if he was accountable to the other elders.
Michael responded to the letter with some questions and comments. But the pastor’s letter went out to the congregation a week later and it had misleading information without having addressed Michael’s questions.
Michael said, “I was open to the consideration of the purchase, but felt strongly there was a need for discussion, due diligence, and evaluation first for the benefit of the church.”
However, Pastor Ensome wrote in the letter, the “elders believe this is the right course” though Michael had never agreed to it.
“The whole process was one where I had questions and reservations which essentially were prevented from being discussed on a timely basis nor even with a sense of due diligence.”
On Being Shut Down
Michael asked the pastor if the Elders could spend some time in a weekend leadership meeting to discuss the purchase. Ensome told him yes, but that he would have very little time.
Michael waited and waited throughout the meetings over the weekend, finally asking the pastor when he was going to be allowed to discuss the purchase or not. Pastor Ensome grudgingly said maybe later.
It didn’t happen.
Michael was allowed to express his questions and concerns at the next Elder’s meeting. But the ball was already rolling . . . or steamrolling ahead. The purchase was moving forward. There was no encouragement of addressing the questions and concerns by Pastor Ensome, who seemed obviously disturbed by having to allow Michael time to speak. He just wanted to move along.
So, Michael also asked to be present for an inspection of the purchase and was told no by Pastor Ensome. In fact, only those selected by the pastor were allowed to attend the inspection.
As it turned out, there were major problems with the property. The building needed to be torn down and was not feasible for use as the pastor had communicated to the congregation.
The steamroller moved ahead. The purchase was made.
Staying Engaged
Michael was encouraged to continue serving by former elders. But he was learning an unfortunate lesson about PCC’s leadership:
“I found the board to be little more than, a ‘rubber stamp’ for Pastor Ensome as he regularly got whatever he wanted with little pushback or minimal discussion.”
Again, common to these authoritarian organizations or churches, boards are often hand-picked and/or manipulated by the pastor or CEO to become just an “old boys’ network.” Board members who don’t comply, are generally forced off the board one way or another (as was the experience at PCC).
After making the property purchase, Michael was asked to chair a “vision” committee made up of other elders and one other church member. They met with the staff pastor and Pastor Ensome during which “[Pastor Ensome] dominated the conversation at that time and expressed no concerns of the committee.”
The purpose was to develop a ministry plan for the purchase and involved a survey that the Elders and then possibly the congregation were to be given.
Isolating
When the survey was presented to the Elders for their review and input, Pastor Ensome accused Michael of creating an “illegal” committee, going against denominational rules. Michael said the tension among the elders was palpable and Pastor Ensome later sent a letter to the Elders apologizing for his behavior.
There were two elders present who had served on this committee and they said nothing.
It was soon after this, and before Michael could meet with the pastor, that Kate experienced Ensome’s wrath in a meeting of her own [here is her story].
After Kate’s infamous meeting with Pastor Ensome, Michael, Elder John and a staff pastor met with him.
Michael described what happened:
“To begin the meeting Pastor Ensome gave a one-page handout of scriptures beginning with John 14 and other verses including 1 Corinthians 2:14, Acts 1:6 and 14, and Acts 13:2 and 46. He then proceeded with a 20-minute sermon. The message I got was that Pastor Ensome was spiritual like Jesus, while Kate and I were not. He never admitted the cruel words he had spoken or his wide ranging and harmful accusations against Kate, but rather seemed justified in his actions and opinions.”
After the pastor’s “sermon” Michael got a chance to read Kate’s letter out loud to the elders explaining why she had come to Pastor Ensome in the first place for counsel. However, the pastor quickly tried to shut him down by interrupting him as he read his wife’s account. Michael pushed back and told him “firmly not to interrupt” but elder John and the staff pastor present did nothing to stop the bullying – they sat quietly.
The staff pastor has since apologized for his failure. “He said what was needed were men who feared God more than man and sadly, he was not one at that moment.”
In Michael’s experience and many with whom I speak, leaders who abuse their spiritual authority make it difficult for those who serve with or for them to stand against his tide. Whether weilding a sense of spiritual superiority, power over their careers, or simply taking advantage of other’s desire to please the head honcho, standing up can be difficult.
All leaders, who abuse their authority, enjoy the complicityof others who have a say in their employment but do not take the steps to stop toxic leaders.
Michael said,
“We are now aware that while at PCC and after we left, both of us were slandered by Pastor Ensome on numerous occasions, calling into question even the integrity of our faith – not being spiritually minded but worldly in our trust. He tried to control us by how we might share our stories with others before we left, but clearly does not feel the same constraints on his own behavior.”
In a letter to the elders, not including Michael, Pastor Ensome laid further groundwork for his own narrative. That narrative made it evident that to challenge his understanding of God’s plan for PCC was to challenge God. Who can stand against such a standard?
The pastor wrote,
“Were we following a living God who has a plan for his Church, or were we following our own plans, and all the talk of prayer and keeping in step with the spirit was just a pious smokescreen? Michael thought of me as irresponsible when it came to vision; my pushback was that God already had a vision and our mission was to discern and follow it.”
Pastor Ensome’s own pious language is confusing to those uninitiated to spiritual abuse. He made bizarre judgments of the Williams’ hearts – something of which he had accused Kate – and made it clear he was in line with God’s vision.
To go against him was to go against the Lord.
“While Michael and Kate had a passion for purity, and embraced a rigorous moral ethic, I believe the focus of their lives was a personal sense of how things ought to be, not Christ and his kingdom. . . “
The pastor’s “focus” of his life was Christ and his kingdom; the Williams’ was not.
The “Investigation”
Sometime after the Williams left the church, at the urging of the staff pastor and another employee, the elders instigated an investigation of complaints. The elders were encouraged to talk to the Williams but the Williams found it necessary to contact the elders themselves.
There was a former elder who had faced Pastor Ensome’s abuse several years earlier with whom the Williams encouraged the elders to speak. The elders declined and weren’t interested.
There was a “briefing” following the investigation. The congregation was called together and the pastor gave a “confession.” The staff pastor, employee, and Williams were informed of the briefing but were forbidden to speak.
After reading a transcript of the “confession” it takes on the typical type of repentance talk common to abusive leaders. He had been called out for his sin and he found it necessary to show some humility.
However, these confessions normally take on very general ideas – no specific examples of their sin are shared. This was indeed Pastor Ensome’s confession.
Interestingly, he notes a lifelong pattern of abusing (not his term) other leaders, a clear disqualification for eldership. He admits to being confronted by his son . . . and sharing that he humbly received the criticism.
As the Williams noted, “Some members took [it] as an apology and some thought he was talking about sins all of us could relate to because he was vague.”
In addition, Kate explained that she had “an email exchange with one of the elders after and he admitted that the confession was not all it could have been but a starting point.”
True confession and repentance includes specifics. It means truly owning up to the sin and facing the humiliating process of being wrong.
And true repentance means seeking forgiveness and making restitution.
Protecting Others
As Michael finished his letter to the elder board, he urged them to take steps to stop the pastor’s abusive leadership. He wrote that he and Kate came to realize,
“The abuse of power by bullying, control, using the scriptures to condemn, shunning, and slander have been going on for a long time. There are many individuals, particularly those in leadership whose sin was to challenge Ensome in some fashion. We were told that for many years, other elder boards (or the remnants after some elders left) have chosen to defend Ensome, the shepherd, at the cost of the sheep scarred by his attacks.”
Michael and Kate have called upon the elders to take their positions of authority seriously for the protection of God’s people (Ez. 34). They hope that the leaders will hold Pastor Ensome accountable and not be “duped” by his manipulation.
After Michael’s resignation, two elders reached out to Michael. One said he was going out of town but wanted to meet on his return. Michael said he never followed up. The other expressed surprise on reading the letter of resignation and expressed sorrow on hearing about the difficulties (abuses) mentioned.
The details of the attack on Kate had evidently not been shared with all of the elders. Those details were kept quiet by the Elder John and another elder who tried unsuccessfully to address the sinful behavior of the pastor.
The elders have, to date, not sought to meet with Michael and Kate to understand fully what occurred. Apparently, they are content to let them go and protect Pastor Ensome.
Pastor Ensome has never contacted Michael.
Comfort
While Michael thinks of James 1:6 when he thinks of Pastor Ensome, he does not dwell on it. “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”
However, Psalm 9:9 has been a comfort, and Michael has held tenaciously to its words: “The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.”
Indeed, Psalm 9:9 is a banner that flies before many survivors of abusive leadership in the home, church, and workplace. The Lord seems like the only stronghold at times when isolated by the abuse of others and the disbelief of those to whom we turn for help.
NOTES:
1 The names used in this article are fictitious, but the general story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract others while applying the lessons learned.
Since this story was written, Pastor Ensome was investigated by a third party and soon after retired.
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series.Part three can be found here when it is posted.
It has been two years since the Williams left Peace Community Church.1 They would have remained silent had the abusive leadership not proceeded to crush others the Williams love.
“Michael and I loved being at Peace Community Church. We loved the community, the worship and a place to serve. We were deeply hurt that we felt we could no longer stay. All at once we lost a place to worship, a church community, fellowship with people we loved. And we lost ministries that we felt God had called and gifted us to serve in.”
Just as we see in the Garden of Eden, we tend to blame-shift when confronted for our sin (Gen. 3). Toxic leaders make an art of it.
What the Williams discovered is that abusive leaders will often “change the narrative from his/her verbal abuse to the person’s (that they have attacked) sins and call the attack a conflict.” It is just another form of blame-shifting where the attention is placed on the offended and taken off the offender.
Pastor Ensome wrote one email to the Williams where he described the experience of a member who came to his house and later told others he had “yelled at her.” He complained to the Williams that his wife and daughter were in an adjoining room and they had said Ensome did not “yell” at the woman.
Pastor Ensome has both admitted to and others have described his anger. It does not come out necessarily in a loud voice but in attitude and words. In his email telling of the story he basically admitted to examples of a significant problem for his leadership – anger [see Titus 1:7-8].
But he skillfully wove the narrative to once again make himself a saint and the woman a liar. The confrontation at his house wasn’t about his sin (what she was confronting him for) but rather about the woman’s perception of his response.
In doing so, he made sure it was understood that he was the humble one AND the persecuted one effectively shifting the blame.
It’s All Your Fault
In an email three months later, the Pastor continued the spiritual abuse, misusing scripture to badger and excuse his poor shepherding, shifting the blame to Kate. He said in the email,
“Jesus knows you, and all that you have done for him. Really, that is all that matters. If my words turn out to be false, then your honor in your service to Christ is all the greater. You are the only one who can fail to walk with integrity with Christ. I really have no power to destroy what matters to you and to the Lord Jesus. My words really make little difference, if any.”
Notice the sleight of hand he uses here? While supposably apologizing and entitling the email “encouragement,” Pastor Ensome in essence told Kate that his words don’t mean anything. It is her fault if she does damage to the integrity of her walk with God.
It is her fault.
The blame for her deep hurt is found in Katedoing damage to herself. Not in his words. Pastor Ensome has no culpability for his words.
As Kate said, a pastor’s words carry a lot of weight. “Especially a pastor whom I had respected, admired and trusted. How could my pastor say such hurtful things in such a mean, and cold manner?” This is why Paul and James suggest teachers and leaders should have more accountability [James 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, 5:19-20]. A pastor’s words have special authority.
Kate shared,
“He told me that my eyes emanated judgement so, for weeks after that meeting I questioned what I looked like to people when I was talking to them. He stated that John (an elder), who I also respected, had issues with me. But, John emphatically responded that he did not. . . He told me the staff pastor had told him I couldn’t get along with the ladies that I had poured so much of my heart and energy into serving. . .Though the staff pastor told me he never said anything like this to Pastor Ensome.“
And yet, Pastor Ensome suggests that words will never hurt her. The only way his words can hurt her is if she is spiritually weak . . . so, now it is her fault.
Isolating the Target
When Pastor Ensome told Kate the staff pastor and elder John both had difficulties with her, he effectively isolated her.
One of the most common, and effective means of controlling the narrative is by forcing the victim into their own little bubble. . . where there is no help. Or, so it seems.
Kate, for a time, thought she was alone in her struggle with Pastor Ensome. She and Michael had no one to advocate for them. According to the pastor, everyone was against her.
But, fortunately the truth won out as both the staff pastor and other elder (John) made it clear to her that they had nothing against her. In addition, the long-time member shared common stories of abuse with her.
Though we do not want to depend on others (rather than Christ) for our strength, God has made us for community and for bearing of one another’s burdens.
And so, they can no longer keep silent.
No Longer Silent
Kate and Michael have learned that their silence for the past two years is not helping the body of Christ.
Though they have gotten free of Pastor Ensome’s abusive leadership, they are determined to stand by those who are continuing to suffer under his misuse of spiritual authority. Just as others suffered before the Williams showed up on the scene, there are others who continue to face Pastor Ensome’s wrath; including two recent employees.
One has resigned and another has been fired.
“Pastor Ensome’s words took away from me part of my identity and undermined the loving relationships I had with those I served. He damaged my trust in others in positions of authority. . . We have come to realize that it may not be in the best interest of PCC for us to remain silent because keeping silent may actually be hurting the church if Pastor Ensome is allowed to stay in his position of power.“
It is a risk to stand up against someone who has authority. There is real danger. But this is the way of the cross; to risk harm in order to seek truth and healing for others who are not free.3 As a friend of theirs helpfully shared,
“There is no neutrality with this sort of sin. You either confront the abuse, or you enable and embolden it. Silence only serves the abuser. Sin grows in the dark.”
Comfort
When I asked Kate what Scripture has been helpful as they have sought healing, she mentioned Psalm 18:1-3. She explained, “He truly was, in the early days after Pastor Ensome’s attack, my Rock and Refuge.”
She also added that she felt ministered to by Psalm 34. It helped her to remember to “praise Him everyday and remember His faithfulness and goodness.” Kate said, “Verses 17 and 18 in particular were promises to hold on to. Even though this was a painful experience, there was sweetness to it because the Lord’s Presence became such a comfort.”
Like many of the psalmists, survivors of leadership and domestic abuse can know that the Lord hears prayer and He knows what it means to be cruelly abused and mistreated. He has faced it Himself.
But, unlike others who have survived abuse, the Lord is powerful and able to bring vindication from the deep wells of His love for His people.
Part Three of this series (Michael’s Story) can be found here on September 2.
NOTES:
3 Was it not this very thing Jesus did to bring us freedom; to suffer the loss of His life at the hands of the authorities in order to bring freedom to others.
The names used in this article are fictitious, but the story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract from the lessons that can be learned from their story.
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a three-part series.Part two can be found here.
It has been two years since the Williams left Peace Community Church.1 They would have remained silent had the abusive leadership not proceeded to crush others the Williams love.
The Williams had an amiable relationship with Pastor Ensome. He has pastored over 20 years in the same church and is well respected by other pastors in their denomination. Kate Williams described him as “a good preacher.” She said he could be “charming and self-deprecating.”
Kate also noted that he appeals to people’s pride and sympathies. She explained to me,
“Michael and I loved being at Peace Community Church. We loved the community, the worship and a place to serve. We were deeply hurt that we felt we could no longer stay. All at once we lost a place to worship, a church community, fellowship with people we loved. And we lost ministries that we felt God had called and gifted us to serve in.”
Why did they leave and are now telling their story?
Kate’s Story
It began several years ago when, as a member of the church, Kate was asked to help with a ministry at PCC. She spent some time speaking with each of the members individually and developed a committee to meet the needs that were expressed.
After three years of serving in the ministry, Kate was asked to head up another committee, a committee on which she enjoyed serving at a former church. This was where her heart truly was and so jumped at the opportunity. Kate felt free to move out of leadership of the first ministry as it was moving along smoothly.
After about a year, she was involved in reigniting a ministry of PCC. In the initial phase Kate called Pastor Ensome with her exciting news that there was real interest in the ministry. She was also calling to ask if they had the “church’s support to go ahead” with the ministry.
The pastor was affirming, but was “adamant that he did not want [a particular family] involved in leadership.” Kate didn’t ask why, but said, “This put me in an awkward position of having to either find someone else or do it myself. Pastor Ensome encouraged me to lead.”
It seemed that she could do no wrong. Pastor Ensome was appealing to her skills and she was encouraged. She wasn’t really seeking out ministry opportunities but rather being asked to lead ministries.
Then Something Happened
Kate and Michael were hosting an at-risk child and were struggling with feeling alone in their ministry to the child. She sought out a meeting with Pastor Ensome to share those struggles in hopes that he would share some wisdom, having had experience with special needs children. She knew her husband Michael, an elder, had a disagreement with Pastor Ensome the week before at an elders’ meeting but it did not occur to her that their disagreement could impact her meeting with the pastor.
From the very beginning of the meeting he seemed cold and disconnected from her.
She soon discovered why. Pastor Ensome went on the attack, accusing Kate of all sorts of things and defending himself:
He told Kate she was a judgmental person. He said, “Judgement emanates from you. You can see it in your eyes and that is why people move away from you.”
He stated, “You and Michael are so far off of how a church should be run.”
He “confided” in her that a staff pastor had told him Kate left the first ministry she served because she couldn’t get along with the women and that said something about her personality. The staff pastor confirmed later that this was not true.
He told Kate that John, the elder she worked closely with on a committee “had issues” with her. John, when asked the next day, said that no matter what she had been told, she had not offended him in the slightest. And, in fact, he considered her work inspiring.
He said, “I built this church,” and proceeded to name all the things he had done for the church.
Kate began crying and he told her “that my crying was goodbecause now he could see my heart because most of the time I just seem to be running around checking things off a list.“
She was deeply hurt by this barage, which went on for about 20 minutes, and was baffled by the hurtful comments. She felt completely blindsided.
Michael explained, “There was no love, no gentleness, no kindness expressed. Kate says that she has never been spoken to in such a mean-spirited manner in her life.”
In a later email to the elders Pastor Ensome confessed that he had dismissed Kate and Michael and added he had done that with others before. He confessed that it was offensive to the Christ’s church.
It is still unclear why Pastor Ensome went on the attack.
The Dirty Little Secret at CCC
But soon she found she was not alone.
When talking with another volunteer the next day, the woman said,
“I’m surprised that this hasn’t happened to you earlier. You have made a lot of changes here and Pastor Ensome doesn’t like change. I know of several people the Pastor has attacked through the years.”
Later, the woman found Kate and reiterated her comments, noting that her husband had been verbally attacked by the pastor multiple times.
Two days later, Kate talked with a long-time member and the member told her Pastor Ensome’s behavior was Peace Community Church’s “dirty little secret.” She explained that the pastor attacks anyone who he perceives to be threatening his control over the church.
The member shared with Kate, “There are three groups of people related to PCC: the walking wounded, the unawares, and those who had left.”
As light was shown on the darkness of Pastor Ensome’s leadership, more was revealed:
“I was told that ‘he would destroy me’ if I tried to push back and the best thing for us to do was for Michael to resign as an elder and for me to quit the committee and remove ourselves from any activity that involved Pastor Ensome so that he could not further harm us.”
Keep your head down. Remain under the radar. If you want to continue in any form of ministry. I don’t know how many times I have seen this played out by those who are suffering under toxic leadership in the church, organization, or business.
Unfortunately, the one left standing seems to always be the toxic one.
Changing the Narrative
There are numerous signs of toxic leadership. Though each experience has its unique flavor, there are many common factors.
One of the techniques used by toxic leaders is to “change the narrative.”
It didn’t take long for Pastor Ensome to begin changing the narrative. The pastor became self-righteous in his handling of the situation. He needed to bring Kate down to his level by suggesting she was just as culpable for the broken relationship.
“If both of you [Kate and Michael] feel that the offenses are only my fault or the church’s, I’m not sure anything can be done. Most reconciliation instruction used needs to include each party addressing their own sins (Mt. 7:5). When I have tried to reconcile with people who were unable to identify sins on their part it was not successful. I don’t think it wise to seek reconciliation in those situations. I would recommend you read Ken Sande’s work, ‘The Peacemaker.‘”
Later he wrote, “In my letter I was making the point that there is sin on both sides. But if you and Kate don’t think you have sinned, I don’t think we will be able to have a useful conversation about the conflict.” He added, “But in that case, we will need to discuss your roles in leadership at PCC.”
In other words, we are equal in our sin as we all sin. And if you don’t admit that, you will lose your leadership position.
Apparently, he has always occupied the high moral ground. It was those other people that could not admit their sin and he simply could not do anything with that, thus minimizing his own sin.
In addition, several months later in an “apology” letter of sorts, he told Kate and Michael that he did not have any negative thoughts towards Kate before the meeting in which he originally attacked her. However, in a letter to the elders he delineated the reasons why he needed to confront Kate.
He evidently had done some premeditation.
Pastor Ensome also said in a note that he was blindsided.
Who is the Offender?
Toxic leaders easily manipulate Scripture to their benefit.
Pastor Ensome leveled the playing field by pointing out the biblical concept that no one is free from sin. There are frequently sins committed by both parties in a conflict.
Though admitting that all are sinful, Pastor Ensome sidestepped his own culpability by suggesting they read Ken Sande’s book called The Peacemaker. It was a subtle shift from admitting his own sin to Kate’s supposed sin.
Ken Sande founded Peacemaker Ministries to help churches in managing conflicts. It is very helpful unless there is abusive leadership at work. Sande acknowledges this. He notes in his writing there are different ground rules for managing abusive situations.
In normal relationships, it may be helpful to own up to your own sins when confronting an offender, just as Kate did in one of the meetings. It may help the offending party humble himself and own up to his own sin.
But, the onus still falls on the offender and must be kept there in the confrontation (Matt. 18:15).
Pastor Ensome treated Kate horribly when she only came looking for help. It was his anger that built up towards Kate and Michael. It was not Kate’s sin and should not have been treated as such in managing the situation. There can be no backing down from this or the abuser will take advantage and there will be no resolution. . . in fact, generally there is no resolution when dealing with abusive leadership (or abusers in general).
Toxic leaders manipulate scripture so that they don’t have to come clean regarding their own sin.
Intimidating the Witness
Toxic Leaders spiritually intimidate.
After a meeting between Michael, the staff pastor, John (elder), and Pastor Ensome – that did not include Kate as she was “not emotionally strong enough to attend,” – another meeting was arranged with Kate.
There was still hope to salvage the relationship. Though Kate wanted to confront the pastor, she continued to work hard win his favor. She shared with me,
“It was an awkward meeting. . . I was in so much distress in encountering Pastor Ensome for the first time that I don’t clearly remember all that was said. I found it difficult to even speak. I had shared what I was planning to say with long time members and they told me that was the ‘stupidest thing I could do.’ They told us the only way to stay [at PCC] was to submit to the Pastor. So, at that meeting I basically said I was a sinner, I was open to rebuke, and that if I had done something offensive someone should have told me earlier. Pastor Ensome had already devastated me and I could not risk being destroyed by him.”
Pastor Ensome apparently was pleased by her humility and told her he didn’t mean to hurt her. He stated that his issues were with Michael.
He had effectively intimidated both Kate and other members into believing it was necessary to bow to his superior spirituality or suffer the consequences.
Continued
There is more. Kate’s story continues in Part Two (2).Part Two will be posted on Thursday, September 1.
NOTES
1 The names used in this article are fictitious, but the story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract from the lessons that can be learned from their story.
[2]Ken Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 156.
There has been much ado about “systemic” this or that in recent years.
The concept of relational systems was largely popularized “in the 1940s in the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy who initially sought to find a new approach to the study of life or living systems. More broadly, he envisioned general system theory as a way to address the increasing complexity of the world’s problems.”1
Scientists historically saw the “whole” as explained by the “part.” With Bertalanffy that was turned upside-down: seeing the individual parts as affected by the whole. The complex environment—events, people, places, things—was understood to affect and form the individual.
Worn Down by PR
This is very apparent as we walk into a situation where the “group” is acting or speaking a particular way and we feel the influence of being marginalized because we don’t see things the same way. We are often tempted to go with the crowd. It is easier and safer to do so. And we might even be worn down by their PR over time.
Or we so often see it as a child grows up in a abusive home, deeply traumatized by it, and yet becomes abusive or marries an abuser later.
The impact the whole has on the part is very apparent.
Yet, many Christians are suspicious of systems theory because they think in a “western individualistic” way. They think soley of individual responsibility and so anything that broadens responsibility to the group, is foreign and crazy. However, the Bible was written largely to a much less individualistic culture and speaks much holistically to both individual and group think (Genesis 6:5; Proverbs 1:10-11; Judges 21:25).
We often refer to this as “drinking the Koolaid.”
Climate change
Recently, I was reading about a major ministry and its woes of toxic leadership. A director had been arrested for embezzlement and perjury charges while working in a previous job. In addition, an oversight organization had recently put the ministry on probation for “conflicts of interests” and a “climate of fear and intimidation” —not specifically eminating from the embezzler.
In these cases, we need to look at the “system.” Though these are individuals who are acting poorly, there is likely a toxic environment that provides a flourishing of the virus that periodically becomes visible to the watching world.
There needs to be a complete climate change.
I would withhold judgment regarding this particular ministry (believing it could just be that rebellious atom that was loose—a bad hire) if it weren’t for a discussion I had with an individual who had suffered abusive leadership under the ministry’s head honcho many years ago. These stories are nothing new to this organization.
Toxic systems attract and create toxic individuals.
Get to the Root
So, in order to bring help and healing to such an organization, it is not enough to just work on its parts. It is like treating the symptom and failing to get at the root cause. It’s like picking the rotten fruit when the roots are rotted.
There is a need to look at the fundamental vision of the “group.” What is their group-think? How do they view their ministry and Jesus, Who is supposed to be Lord of it all? Where in their philosophy of ministry have they gone astray?
At times it is in the small things. A little Phariseeism here; a little Phariseeism there.
But remember, those who are part of the system are not always toxic but may simply go along to get along. But in so doing they keep the system alive and are complicit. In essence, they become part of the whole. They may only need to be challenged and may extract themselves from the groupthink and be willing to make changes necessary to detox the system.
The church needs to be careful in its rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater in regards to systemic issues. This world is not just individuals living in separate spheres, but a complex web of systems. Considering the system of the organization can be a means of working on a problem from the root up.
When we see a toxic leader, we need to consider why that leader gained his position in the first place.
And we may find that the root is a systemic toxicity.
NOTES:
A. Montuori, “Systems Approach,” in Encyclopedia of Creativity (Second Edition), ed. Mark A. Runco and Steven R. Pritzker (San Diego: Academic Press, 2011), 414–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00212-0.
I have spoken with many victims of leadership abuse. It is common that they have also faced off with other leaders in the organization who supported the leader reported as toxic.
Relationship with, the power, or charm of the leader created followers and like-minded fools. They became complicit with the abuse though maybe having the best intentions.
But their complicity is from the pit of hell and must be understood and stopped.
Like Israel, we often desire a king and are willing to overlook all the warnings of toxic leadership not unlike God’s warnings to Israel at that time (1 Samuel 8:10-18).
King David, in his Psalm 55, describes the abuser. In these hard words he is describing a supposed “friend”:
His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.
Psalm 55:21 (ESV)
But, the Psalm is interesting because David continually goes between singular and plural pronouns for his oppressor(s). At one moment you believe he is speaking of one individual who is tormenting him and the next an army. But, the Psalm is all wrapped around the very personal enemy. . . who is not an enemy but a “friend.”
David’s experience is not unlike our own under toxic leadership in many cases. A leader generally has authority because he or she is granted it by the will of the organization – whether a board or other stakeholders. There are others complicit in his wickedness.
Those who grant authority to someone who oppresses, demeans, throws things, calls others horrible names, and generally acts like a spoiled child are responsible for allowing it to continue.
And it is from the pit of hell.
It matters not what great things the leader has done. If he oppresses others, he does not have the Lord’s blessing to remain in leadership.
Recently, I spoke with a victim of toxic church leadership. He spoke of a church board that, at the beginning of his experience, was simply misled by the leader. At that time they were responsive to the victim’s pleas for help.
However, in time, he described the board as becoming more and more toxic themselves. It was evident that they were being “handled” by the pastor and buying more and more into the pastor’s foolishness. These board members became heavy-handed like the pastor. They passed on his words as if God’s words. They sought to control the victim for the selfish ends of the leader.
Real Leadership
Jesus warned of toxic leadership.
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:25-28 (ESV)
Real leaders lead as servants to their followers. That goes for churches, businesses, non-profit organizations, or political office.
Standing with Evil
Paul explained the character of true church leadership:
For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
Titus 1:7-8 (ESV)
Unfortunately, we all tend to be swayed by gifted and charming leaders. “They may not have these qualities Paul describes, but they sure get things done. . . and they are things we want done!“
We are quick to stand up at their side against their victims. We jump to the conclusion that the leader could not possibly be so wicked as to sexually harrass, lead with harshness, demean others, spiritually abuse, or seek his own greedy way.
But make no mistake. In standing and jumping we become complicit with the evil.
Paul, speaking in some of his strongest words against the Corinthians, calls them “arrogant.” He calls out the ones who are complicit by remaining aloof of a member’s sin. How much more should we refuse complicity with an abusive leader!
Arrogance
When we stand with an abusive leader we are arrogant in that we think we know better than the one who has suffered under their threats and violence. We think that in our place of favor with the leader we understand them better than the victim.
When a report of toxic leadership is made, the response should be one of listening and understanding. Otherwise, the hearer will face the consquences of his complicity. He is returning evil for the good of bringing to light the darkness of sin:
If anyone returns evil for good, evil will not depart from his house.
Proverbs 17:13 (ESV)
Woe to those who would fail to interpret the events in a true light:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV)
Do the Hard Work: Investigate
Many will cry foul as they hold forth the rare exception of false reports. But false reports can be found out when investigated. Unfortunately, many do not take the time to investigate but immediately disbelieve reports against their beloved leader.
We all need to be humble enough to set aside our biases and easily affected attitudes towards our leaders and hear reports with a desire to know the truth.
For, indeed, it is the truth that will set victims free from oppression.
Let us be found to stand on God’s side. Not complicit with toxic leadership.
How do church leaders deal with members who have not returned since the Covid lockdowns?
I have heard various responses over the past few months. As churches opened up more and more over the past year, there was the hope that the people would return in droves. Rather, as feared by some, many have remained aloof from the church.
A common suggestion is that leaders “remind members of their vows” when they came into membership. After all, members have promised to serve the church and submit to the elders.
But this response strikes me as a bit cold.
In part, because I have watched with great disappointment as the church did all it could to tear itself apart during these two to five horribly polarizing years. Where the church should have raised up to help those who were being devastated by both the pandemic and the economic results of the shutdown, instead it was going to battle with governments (local and federal) and with one another.
The church seemed to become more concerned about its own belly button than for its mission to God’s world. It became all the more “musk ox,” as Dick Keyes describes in “Chameleon Christianity,” than a missional body seeking to bring hope and healing to the lost.
So, as members of Christ’s family have become disheartened by the actions and hurtful words of God’s people, I have stopped short of blaming them for their reticense to come back into worship services. Though I believe Scripture teaches that the church is God’s design and He is ever building it in His ways and according to His desires, I also empathize with these folks.
I believe that we need to listen to these people and seek to understand their difficulties. Then we can determine if we can love one another in better ways in order that they may want to hold to their vows.
We need to remember that a church member’s vows were to the church that Jesus has built under leaders that are following Him. . . not the leaders’ political party or other man-made rules. [Believe it or not, Scripture does not teach on our political party registration]. It seems that when all else fails for leaders to retain power and authority, they require submission to them as their fall-back position.
Look to Jesus
Rather, we should look to Jesus, the Shepherd of our souls, for the kind of leadership He demands of His elders and pastors.
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35 And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” 36 And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”
Mark 9:33-37 (ESV)
Jesus used receiving a child as an example for their leadership model.
What does that say to church leaders? At the very least, it suggests humility. Particularly, in the New Testament society, children were the humblest of all. They had NO authority. Who would listen (or receive) a child as important?
Rather than playing the authority trump card (no pun intended), consider asking these questions of those who are struggling to re-engage with the church:
Are there ways the church leaders, or members of the church, have made it difficult for you to return?
Are there ways the church leaders have failed to be Christ-like in their leadership?
Are there ways we have added to Scripture or subtracted such that you do not trust our leadership?
How can we serve you as shepherds?
Don’t Stop
But, you must not stop there.
Many leaders will ask these questions and then show their toxic leadership by then telling members what’s what. The leaders will defend and justify themselves and their congregations rather than humbly respond in empathy (even when the member is wrong). . . hearing the hearts of their sheep and recognizing that they have their reasons for being hurt.
Leaders who desire to be Christ-like in their leadership must humbly consider their own failings and seek to restore through humility those who are wandering in the wilderness.
Nearly every individual I know, who is failing to return to church at this time, has good reasons. Those reasons are because they feel beat up after every service by well-meaning, but Pharisaical leaders. . . leaders who have added to Scripture their own ethical and political standards.
Leaders, turn your eyes upon Jesus and turn away from holding your authority tightly. Seek to be last rather than first. Serve, rather than be served. Defend the sheep rather than self.
Every single week a small group of us from church met together. We alternated weeks being out somewhere, such as trivia night at a brewery, with meeting for dinner in someone’s home. Yes, we might have spiritual discussions and yes, we did frequently share concerns and needs for prayer and, yes, we did often pray together, but the focus was on our relationships. Intentional community, it was called.
This group of people became my lifeline, my family of sorts, my refuge during some terribly hard years. I lived for Tuesday evenings when I knew I could show up and be me in whatever mess I was in. And they knew I was there for them. Always. And outside of Tuesdays we still got together for hiking and game nights and such. Life together. It was the closest thing I had ever experienced up to that point to what I think true fellowship looks like.
A new pastor came along and changed things up. He brought an agenda. Each week became a specific Bible study with questions and answers and asking one another spiritual questions about sin and repentance. The tone changed. The atmosphere changed. The streams of living water dried up and I was faced with a desert of spiritual expectations and forced piety. When we questioned the changes the leader of the group asked, “But don’t you love the Word?” The pastor blasted us in a sermon, proclaiming we were to “say no to casualness of faith…just hanging out and doing things together because it makes us feel good.” He told my husband that the change was not up for discussion. Drop it.
And like that, just like that, what had been so very beautfiful to me was gone. This all happened amid a growing concern over other serious issues and I quit attending church. And then we left the church altogether. Another story for another time.
I was left to grieve and grieve deeply what I had lost. And yet there was a hefty heap of shame on top of it all. Why was the transition from hanging out and loving one another to a structured spiritual time together so hard for me? Did I “love the Word?” Or didn’t I?
I had always longed for a sense of community and felt oh, so bad for wanting it. In church cultures where deep dives into theology or telling “the lost” about Jesus were the true marks of a heart after God, my hunger for connection was seen as avoiding the hard truth that Jesus should be all I need.
Why was the loss of this little community so devastating to me? When reading Krispin Mayfield’s book, Attached to God, I found my answer.
And rather than try to cut and paste bits and pieces, I’m going to share most of the entire section:
Therapist Francis Broucek worked with many clients in families where the mode of relationship was to meet a parent’s strict standard. This created a sense of self that put value in the person’s performance. He found that in the most important relationships, where “a connection should be, there is only the experience of being evaluated or evaluating oneself.” It doesn’t always have to be negative judgment, but that every interaction was based on how the child was peforming, how they were doing, rather than the parent coming close for closeness’ sake. For these clients, the relationship was all assessment, absent of true connection.
For many of us, this mirrors the spiritual tradition we’ve been given. Most facets of religious life have been about determining whether you are following God in the right ways. How close are you? What are you supposed to be doing next? Are you growing–or backsliding? What is God trying to teach you right now?
,,,Broucek found that this same prompting between parents and children created shame. It’s not surprising since in the absense of connection. we begin to conclude that the disconnect is because there is something repulsive about us. The more we continue to focus on our performance and progress, the more we feel shame. When we believe that shame is due to sin, then we try to get it right–or confess our way out of shame. But if we’re going to heal from shame, we need relationships that go beyond evaluation.
As Broucek reflected on our need for a connection that creates sanctuary in a world of evaluation, he thought about the importance of interactions that aren’t rooted in evaluation, assessment, standards, or measuring up. Searching for a word to describe a relationship that is nonevaluative, he decided simply to call this kind of connection “communion.”
Krispin Mayfield, “Attached to God”
Communion. That is what I had. That is what I lost when the template of spiritual performance and evaluation was slammed down on a precious group of people.
Mayfield had started this section of the book by saying that in order to understand our belovedness, we need to experience it. We need to be able to connect with God and with people minus the constant state of evaluation and performance.
Some of my friends and I have a regular conversation that goes something like this: “Why are friendships with church people so much harder and more awkward?” I think this explains so much. We have been somehow convinced that our own connection to God is dependent on our performance and part of our performance is policing the performance of those around us. Thus we admonish and exhort and chide, we goad and sharpen, we lob scripture bombs, and often suffocate with the silence of disapproval. But we don’t listen. We don’t treat one another with respect. We don’t necessarily treat one another as beloved. We don’t believe that connecting for the sake of connecting is beautiful in and of itself.
(True admonishment and exhortation, when necessary, should only come in the context of strong connection and community. Otherwise it does way more damage that good.)
Why was I so grief-stricken? I had lost communion. I had lost communion in the name of God.
I know my processing of this has been long and rambling but it now makes so much sense to me. Reading this short passage in a very excellent book (I highly recommend reading it) proved to be lightbulb moment in my understanding of my hunger for connection, community, communion. It helped me understand my grief and why that loss was so very profound. And it helps me know what I, what we all, really need.
