These thoughts came out of a very helpful discussion I had recently with some friends. I wanted to just get them down on paper—or at least 0s and 1s. Therefore this is pretty short . . .
As my friends and I discussed John 11, I was struck by verses 47 and 48. These couple of sentences are so appropriate for those who have faced abuse in any setting.
The term “Crazy-Making” is often used to describe this infuriating experience.
Jesus has just raised his friend, Lazarus from the dead—not your basic healing from a cold (though that is wonderful as well). Everyone knew Lazarus was dead and believed, apparently that Jesus could, or would have healed Lazarus when he was sick. But, are then distraught when Jesus didn’t come along at the right time.
However, Jesus proves without a doubt his diety and power and love through the raising of Lazarus from the dead. As the people noted in the passage, Lazarus was definately dead—he stunk. It was an incredible miracle.
And yet, this is what the chief priests and Pharisees said:
“What are we going to do since this man is doing many signs? If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him.”
Well . . . yeah? Doesn’t it make sense that they would? And maybe you should too, religious leaders?
Making Crazy
What was discussed with my friends was that abusive leaders are just like this. They are stuck in their thinking. They are seemingly oblivious to truth . . . or intentionally so. When they are presented with the truth, they simply reject it and make crazy!
It makes those who suffer under their foolishness feel crazy. They are continually asking how the leaders could possibly reject the truth when it is so evident.
But, even worse, at some point, the victim of the leader’s attacks begins to wonder if they read it wrong, saw it wrong, or just got the whole situation wrong.
“Maybe, just maybe, the leader is just fine, but I am making this up?”
Crazy-making is very damaging to the emotional and spiritual health of the victim. The impact on their future ability to make decisions and thinking process is well-documented. Enough being told you are crazy or stupid or unable and you begin to believe it.
Feeling inadequate and expressing that sense of inadequacy by apologizing for each idea or statement is evidence of these experiences. Second-guessing every thought. Feeling like you cannot have a good plan or belief, because, well . . . you are crazy.
These experiences are important for both the advocate and victim to keep in mind as they navigate post (or even during) abusive leadership life. Knowing this is part of gaining back voice—being able to present ideas and plans and thoughts. It is part of gaining agency once again.
Victims—remember, you aren’t crazy. You do have good ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. They are val
It wasn’t long after the honeymoon that Jeanie began suffering from her husband Richard’s lack of care for his family and she suffered for nearly thirteen years from sexual abuse in their bedroom.
Richard, for the full length of their nearly 20 year marriage, refused to help with either childrearing or household needs. Over the years, Jeanie said she began to only ask for help when it was something she was unable to do. Then, in time, she began asking friends and neighbors when it was too hard for her because he would rarely respond to her requests at all.
Basically, my husband’s duty around the house became little more than to go to his regular job and bring home a paycheck and if I relied on him for more than that, it was overwhelming to him and anxiety producing for me.
Jeanie
She accounted for Richard’s bedroom manner—and her response—to teaching in the church that created an unhealthy sexual relationship. She said they both believed that the husband’s “sexual satisfaction” was primary and her needs were of no real consequence.
This view is not uncommon and comes from a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians:
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
1 Corinthians 7 is often misunderstood as explaining that the wife must give the husband sexual pleasure whenever he wants it. But, that is not what it says.
If you understand it within the context of mutual love and submission that is taught throughout Scripture, choices in the bedroom—like in every area of life as a family—should be made selflessly. That includes the husband whose desires may be driven by his own selfish desires with no interest in serving his wife’s—who may or may not have the “drive” he has.
Note how Paul makes it very clear that both spouses have authority over the other’s body. It is not one-sided and the husband has just as much responsibility to respond to the wife’s desires as she to his.
After so many years of neglect and abuse, Jeanie said, “I began to struggle heavily with guilt, anxiety, insomnia, migraines and memory loss.” She had sought over the years to “win him without a word” but her “lived experience was that was completely ineffective.”
1 Peter 3:1 is helpful in some marital situations: It specifically speaks to marriage to an unbelieving husband. But it is not helpful in cases of abuse. An abusive husband does not have the humility to see the evil of their actions—he will justify and shift the blame. A wife’s humble submission simply means he has control and can do anything he wants with her.
The marriage had been so traumatizing to her, she knew she needed to get help and possibly a divorce.
Richard had refused counseling over and over and so she had gone by herself. He was not interested in making changes for the good of the marriage.
Elder Failures
Jeanie sought out the help of friends and her pastors’ wives. Their advice was consistently that she just give Richard more sex.
Jeanie had joined a support group and described hers and Richard’s sexual encounters. “The trauma counselor and other group members immediately began telling me I had been sexually abused.” She was beginning to understand that Richard’s forcing of sex was abusive and she was not willing to allow that.
She finally reached out to the Senior Pastor, Andy. The board of elders and pastors were going to discuss their “case” and she wrote to Andy explaining,
I, a woman who has been sexually traumatized, will be discussed by a room full of men, many of whom I do not or barely know, and they will consider the most intimate and hurtful events of my life, so that they can judge whether or not I have a right to be free from that. And what if they decide I don’t? Worse, what if they decide Richard is the one with grounds? Then I am being told that my needs don’t matter and that my feelings are illegitimate. I know that is not your intention, but it is sadly what my broken heart will hear, and I will feel violated all over again.
Jeanie
One elder contacted Richard—a common approach to marital difficulties but a horrible response in cases of abuse if the victim has not given permission—and was both manipulated by Richard and caused a ramping up of Richard’s abusive behavior at home.
Jeanie encouraged the elders to get training in abuse because, though they showed some compassion and kindness to start with, their handling of her years of suffering was wholly inadequate. However, they did not see the need.
Strange Response
The elders, instead of seeking to understand abuse and respond in ways that would be helpful and shepherding instead disciplined Jeanie.
After meeting, the elders told Jeanie that she should refrain from taking Communion and step down from her position on the music worship team for six months. There was nothing written down, it was not explained, and after about five months the restrictions were raised with no explanation of what had been accomplished.
As Jeanie and I talked, it became evident that the elders’ actions amounted to “disciplining” Jeanie and yet nothing was ever done to bring accountability to Richard. At some point one elder told Jeanie that they had sought to “disciple” —meet to train and encourage—Richard, but he never completed the assignments given to him.
He was not interested in caring for his family or Jeanie . . . only getting what he could in the bedroom.
But Jeanie was told she was the sinner by the elder board’s actions—she needed to refrain from the means of grace in the church (communion) and stop using her gifts for the edification of the body.
Jeanie told me, “I am probably seen as a trouble maker. They think I went off the deep end and divorced my husband. They criticized me for having a crisis of faith and I wouldn’t have if they had not done the things they did.”
Divorce
Secondly, the board of elders believed they needed to investigate and determine the legitimacy of her seeking a divorce. She was warned that if they did not approve of it, she would be unable to marry again—at least in that church.
The perspective that the elders have this kind of power is not an uncommon view in many denominations. However, there are some biblical questions in regards to this view.
In 1 Timothy 5 there are extended instructions for Timothy, a young elder in Ephesus. Here Paul gives Timothy directions for both the elders and congregation in relation to elders. At no point does he suggest that the elders are called to rule in such a way as to bind the consciences of congregant members.
There is a distinct emphasis in New Testament eldership on teaching and Gospel proclamation. It emphasizes careful teaching that does not go beyond the clarity of the Word. The elders are responsible to be good and gracious shepherds, not authoritarian, power-hungry rulers.
The congregation in Antioch sent financial aid to the Judean elders (because of a famine that was foretold) by the hands of the Apostles (Acts 11:29-30)
In Acts 15, the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem debated the issue of circumcision for new Gentile believers. They sent a letter saying, “Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28-29) This was a very careful and limited response that pulled back from legalistic proclamations.
The Apostles went from city to city to provide instructions to the congregations. (Acts 16:4)
Paul tells the Ephesian elders: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:27-28)
After giving the personal qualifications for an elder, Paul says to Titus, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9) Note “sound doctrine”, not legalistic control.
In Jeanie’s case, the elders, who refused to learn about the dynamics of the sin of abuse, overstepped their calling in Scripture by “disciplining” Jeanie and failed by omission to call Richard to living the Gospel in his marriage and family.
A Proposal
I understand the perspective that Jeanie’s elders have. I am part of a similar elder board.
However, just as an elder board should, without hesitation, provide “permission” —in the form of teaching and individual direction—for the offended spouse to divorce in the case of adultery without laying shame upon the victim in anyway for taking that step, so should they give that permission in the cases of desertion (1 Cor. 7:15).
Considering the instructions in the case law of the Old Testament (Ex. 21:10-11), the victim in an abusive marriage should be given every bit of leeway for physical and emotional provision. Our Lord despises oppressive behavior of any sort and elder boards must be found by the Lord on the side of oppressed.
In addition, it is helpful for an elder board to remember that their congregation is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and that as the elders instruct, they must rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach and convince their hearers of truth—in humility recognizing they could be wrong in their application of Scripture. The binding of a congregant’s conscience is a very serious thing. Laying undue burdens on the sheep was the practice of the Pharisees—who are roundly condemned by Jesus—and for which modern day cults are notorious (Luke 11:46).
Recommendations
After seeing cases like Jeanie’s over and over, I would make the following recommendations to elder boards and church leadership:
Get trained in responding to abuse. There are a number of organizations who can provide this training including Refuge Ministries of North America—see the organization’s website in Resources.
Receive the complaint of an abusive marriage, believing the victim.
Recognize that investigating abuse can be dangerous to the victim—the offender may become more abusive and dangerous as he is challenged.
And abusive individuals are often very manipulative and can confuse investigators and completely fool them.
Help the complainant understand the Scripture’s teaching on divorce—allowed for adultery (Matt. 5:32) and desertion (1 Cor. 7:15—in principle when a spouse neglects his family or is abusive).
Give support and permission to the reporting victim for his or her decision regarding seeking a divorce.
I do not consider these absolutes, but elder boards often are black and white in their thinking and shepherding practices whereas Scripture is not. Shepherding is difficult and takes a significant amount of wisdom.
If you are a leader in the church, please consider seeking training to be a safe place for those who are vulnerable and oppressed.
Nearly everyone who works in the marketplace experiences toxic leadership at some point in his or her career. Approximately a third of women are abused in their lifetime.
The time of peace is not here.
But there will come a time when the Lord banishes toxic leadership in the home, workplace, church, and organization.
Prophesy Against the Shepherds
The prophet and priest, Ezekiel was taken away into exile in Babylon in 597 B.C.
In 597 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon besieged Jerusalem. The siege caused appalling deprivation and suffering. Nebuchadnezzer took Judah’s King Jehoiachin and the nation’s leading citizens off to Babylon. Then, ten years later, he uprooted everybody else and destroyed the temple. The so-called Babylonian Captivity had begun. And tens of thousands were massacred in the process.1
Ministering for over 23 years, Ezekiel “addressed both the exiles and the people left in Judah with messages of warning and judgment, predicting the fall of Jerusalem.”2 In chapter 34, Ezekiel gives a scathing message from the Lord to the spiritual leaders of Judah.
Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
Ezekiel 34:10
For the purpose of vindication and validation, we can be thankful that the Lord will stop the toxic leadership of these “shepherds.” But much of the chapter is more about the kindness of the Lord to those who have suffered under that self-serving leadership.
Ezekiel goes on to say that the Lord “will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered. . . (vs. 11b-12a).”
Toxic leadership always scatters. In this case, Ezekiel is speaking specifically to those located in a small area in the Middle East 2500 years ago. The leadership of Judah had both religious and national consequence as Judah was a full-blown theocracy—a government ruled by a religious organization.
This religious leadership over the nation had “scattered” the sheep of Judah. We can understand this to involve both a spiritual and physical scattering of the people of Judah. It is evident that there was a decided lack of spiritual commitment to God’s law and rule and the people had been taken into captivity by another nation. They had been scattered.
As we bring this warning and teaching into our day and age we would normally apply God’s warnings and promises to the “church” that is the New Testament expansion of God’s people—including both Jew and Gentile. We cannot categorically apply the promises or warnings to Judah in the fifth century B.C. to our own time, but the promises and warnings in this chapter were only in part fulfilled as the Lord brought His people out of exile and back to Jerusalem.
There was still toxic leadership. There was still hatred. There was still suffering in that time and ever since.
However, we know there will come a day when the promises found in this chapter of Ezekiel will be fully—completely and perfectly—realized. That day will be when Christ comes again and banishes evil and enfolds His people in his arms in a love we cannot fully grasp in this life.
Listen to this incredible promise:
And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 34:13-15
It is idyllic. God’s people will be fed and nurtured and protected and given rest.
The “wild beasts” who have created havoc and death and suffering, he says, will be “banished.”
What sweet promises these are. As I watch the suffering of those under toxic leadership I am reminded of these promises that give hope. We might see some relief in this life—gaining freedom from the leader’s grasp—but in the long term, it will only be in eternity that we fully gain that freedom from the ravages of sin in leadership. Even in my own heart, that will be the day I no longer hate and hurt and curse.
For many the book of Job in the Bible is a pandora’s box of interpretive difficulty.
If you are a black-and-white thinker, it is difficult to read, I imagine.
But Job is a very good place to go to understand more clearly how the counseling of victims of abuse in the home, workplace, or church has gone seriously wrong.
It is helpful to know the beginning and the end before wading into the middle.
In the story of Job—who was horribly tried by Satan at the approval of the LORD—moans in the agony of having lost all his children, his means of income, and is suffering terrible physical ailments.
In the end, his friends are called to account for their poor—sinful—counsel of Job.
So, now we wade into the middle. Because of Job’s suffering, his spiritual counselors are laying one guilt trip after another on him.
In their black-and-white thinking, they believe God blesses those who live righteously and curses those who break His laws. Because Job—who had been richly blessed prior to Satan’s destruction—is suffering horribly, his counselors think he must be cursed by God and therefore he must be living in sin.
Trial = Sin
This is not unfounded in Scripture and why some in their black-and-white beliefs grab and go with it in their thinking and counseling.
In Deuteronomy 28, Moses lays before God’s people the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.
For those who obey the LORD:
Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 6 Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out . . . etc. Deuteronomy 28:3-6 (ESV)
For those who disobey:
Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl . . . etc. Deuteronomy 28:16-17 (ESV)
It Isn’t So Clear
I use the terms “black-and-white” in a negative way, because when it comes to blessings and curses, Scripture is not as clear on this topic as Deuteronomy 28 would lead you to believe.
It is indeed true that those who reject the LORD in unbelief and arrogance are cursed. But that curse may largely be seen in the judgment they face at the end of life for their rejection of their Creator, not in the middle. This idea is apparent in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19f) and in multiple places in the Proverbs.
Jesus tells a parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus:
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”
Luke 16:19-23 (ESV)
Notice that the rich man, who rejected his God, lived a life of sumptuous feasting every day. On the other hand, Lazarus was a poor man. Yet, the rich man ends up in Hell and Lazarus in Heaven.
We see in Proverbs:
Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways. Proverbs 28:6 (ESV)
Deuteronomy would lead us to believe—if we don’t look anywhere else—that the “poor” —therefore the suffering—is walking in sin rather than “integrity,” yet Proverbs 28 suggests that it is the “rich man” who is “crooked” —living in sin. How did he get “blessed” if he was disobedient?
But that is the flow of Scripture. There are proverbial statements that in this life are generally true, but the end of the story is where it all leads. The wicked, unbelieving rich man will end up in torment when his life is ended, but torment will possibly only be when that end of life judgment comes.
And conversely, the poor—unblessed in the world’s eyes—will face many trials in this life but in his faithfulness to the LORD be blessed abundently in the judgment. His poverty is not necessarily because of disobedience as we consider the whole of Scripture.
This brings me to Job’s counselors.
Worm Theology
At one point, Bildad, one of Job’s “friends” who was counseling him when he in torment, explained to Job that in his sin, man is a “maggot” or a “worm.”
4 How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? 5 Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; 6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!” Job 25:4-6
In the sense that we are deeply depraved as sinful human beings, wandering about in rebellion and foolishness, Bildad was right. Some complain about “worm theology” but there is biblical truth in it when considering our deep brokenness. Romans 3:9-13 confirms this understanding of man’s depravity.
However, Job’s counselors—not just Bildad—came at Job from a Deuteronomy 28 theology, not a full-on-biblical theology of suffering. This is how many counselors of abuse victims approach those victims. They look for the “fault” in the victim that brought the horrible treatment. They seek to “help” the victim see their own sin and turn from it. They can’t believe a Christian leader could be so sinful as to lie, manipulate, and intentionally crush those under their care.
Abuse is Never the Fault of the Abused
However, these judgments are beyond the purview of biblical counseling.
First of all, abuse victims are never at fault. If the counselor understands the roots of abuse, they will understand that victims never bring it on, but rather the abuser will simply abuse because it is in his heart.
In addition, there are professing Christians who are very depraved and cause incredible destruction.
They will coerce and control in order to fulfill their entitlement in this life. Often they get away with it like the rich man who got his wealth through evil. It seems like they can’t lose, especially to the victim as she sits helplessly by watching the abusive leader convince the board, friends, and stakeholders that he is the good guy in this scenario.
When you receive reports of abuse from a friend, co-worker, or congregant member listen carefully. Stay clear of Christian platitudes like, “You need to give grace. We are all worms and he needs grace just like you do.”
Abuse is not normal relational conflict between husband and wife, boss and subordinate, pastor and deacon, or teacher and student. The conflict is in the heart of the abuser. And never because of the victim’s sin.
Susie had a Master of Divinity and was working on a Doctor of Ministry degrees when I spoke with her. She had served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with a little under 500 members and served under the supervision of the Senior Pastor.
Pastor Pete was, by her description, the primary authority in the church.
Susie worked three years at the large, multi-campus church and was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks.
In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.
Susie explained to me the position of an assistant to a senior pastor provides unique opportunities and challenges. There is real pleasure of “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” as Susie noted. Susie enjoyed using her gifts to serve people in the church and it was evident that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation.
“You are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before,” as Susie explained.
She said, “I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well.” But her work administratively in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders and helpful procedures for all the teams.
However, her work at the church did not end well. She resigned from her position in large part due to the abusive leadership of Pastor Pete.
The Missions Committee
Not long after joining the staff, Susie was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to an African country. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a particular group of African churches in one country through short-term trips.
The pastor gave Susie much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization through which they would operate.
As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team, but explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany the pastor on a mission trip to a different African country.
Susie and the new committee were quite surprised. Neither Susie, nor her committee, had heard about this new work of the pastor’s. When an elder, who was on her committee, heard about it, he was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete.
Hoping to work with the pastor to straighten out what had to be a miscommunication, the elder explained gently their difficulty with the pastor’s conflicting mission trip. However, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had simply gotten his “feelings hurt.”
The elder, taken aback by the pastor’s callous response, explained the lack of respect shown by the pastor. But the pastor continued to laugh.
The two mission trips went on as planned.
The Financial and Relational Fallout
Following Susie’s trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the African churches with which they worked.
At the close of the service, Pastor Pete stood before the congregation and gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier.
The missions committee and team were astonished. Pastor Pete had personally directed the committee to raise the funds and materials for the churches visited by Susie’s group.
Despite her success, Susie was placed in an awkward position with the senior pastor. Her concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in the interview. She was able, on a day to day basis, to minister to the needs of her little flocks over which she was given authority.
However, seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging. And draining.
Susie observed multiple times when Pastor Pete was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care. The frequency of such events were instrumental in Susie’s resignation from her position. She said she never felt that Pastor Pete “respected” her though he “handed [projects] freely over” to her and never came back to ask how they were progressing.
For Susie, the lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, she realized much of the emotional injury only later. Susie explained,
“I didn’t realize at the time but now looking back and going through some spiritual abuse healing, there’s no question that I was deeply hurt. I felt betrayed.”
According to authors Freyd and Birrell,
“Our preliminary findings indicate that shame is indeed associated with exposure to traumas that have a high level of betrayal, but not to traumas with a low degree of betrayal.”
[Blind to Betrayal, location 485]
Limiting the Damage
Susie sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about their experiences. In order to cope with the emotional struggle, Susie explained,
“I think more than anything I reached out to some family in the mid-west because I really wanted to respect the church and I didn’t want to create any division.”
Despite having been placed in an uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off, Susie recognized that the onus of the failure was the senior pastor’s.
She explained that her concern that her reputation was damaged was limited by her knowledge that others knew her character and integrity. Her self-differentiation was evident in her challenging the pastor during two meetings with him. Self-differentiation [described here], as defined by psychologists and management experts as holding firm to convictions while wading the torrents of anxious, relational environments is a particularly difficult skill for those who are self-described “people-pleasers.”
She suggested to Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior. Susie believed her ultimate authority was God and not the senior pastor and this helped her respond with a significant level of self-differentiation.
There were many emotional challenges for Susie as she interacted with members of the congregation and her autocratic senior pastor. She noted that most of the leadership (Deacons, missions committee and Elders) in the church she served have since left the church primarily due to the authoritarian leadership of the senior pastor.
Because the frustration Susie experienced was not unique to her there was difficulty determining how to respond to the congregation in those times. Susie said she counseled others to “try to understand that even though you are part of a church and you are a part of a Christian organization, sometimes your first answer is to God and to God alone and you need to first and foremost seek Him.”
She also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18. However, as described in other articles, this is not always safe nor biblically necessary.
To complicate matters, Susie explained that Pastor Pete was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by her or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail. She considered Matthew 18 to be the model, yet Susie noted that “there’s nothing you are going to do to change this guy.”
The pastor rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
In summary, Susie was cognizant that her responses to the pastors and to members of the church could “create a schism” or “division” and so restricted her communication to those either outside the church or directly involved in the conflicts.
Hands Tied
A pastor that leads autocratically may leave little room for those under their authority to use their gifts and practice effective ministry. Susie expressed frustration with having had her “hands tied.”
Susie was subjected to frustrating decisions made by Pastor Pete who had little interest in discussion or consideration of his assistant’s opinions.
When other mission team members sought Susie out to encourage her to talk to Pastor Pete, Susie told them,
“He knows the situation we are in and he has clearly told me ‘this is the decision I’ve made…this is where it’s going, and this is what’s going to happen.’ And so I have no control.”
Pastor Pete had given Susie a substantial amount of freedom to use her gifts in her position, however she had seen enough imposition of his will with church leaders that she was “not surprised,” but rather felt “bamboozled” by his decision.
However, upon her advice several mission team members continued to work with the African churches and mission agency, making other arrangements to continue in their commitment to the churches despite their own pastor having removed the church’s support of that particular mission.
As noted above, Susie also did extensive work to leave a legacy of organizational structure, fulfilling the purpose for which she was employed. Following her final worship service, she said, “I left my keys right in the middle of my desk and I walked out and I never heard a word from him.”
According to her account, ministry happened that has had long term effects on the congregations she served. Yet, the frustrations encountered dulled her hopes that she had effective ministry during those years of service.
What Can Be Learned
In the end, Susie finally considered the ministry “vision” of the senior pastor to be in conflict with her own and resigned her position, leaving with damaged emotions that would take years to heal.
Susie was employed by a church that, in policy, the elder board had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of control and poor decision-making.[1]
It was very apparent that the practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary and unquestioned importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.
Because strong, authoritative leaders can often be seen as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes more and more difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat. Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership appears to be destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.
As Susie pressed on towards her goal of ministering to her congregations, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.
As was noted earlier, her coping strategies were focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful as they receive encouragement and possibly biblical advice.[2] However, the focus of the problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what they are facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the emotions is limited.
The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Susie’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire them and was under no real authority of elders. And Susie was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip. This leaves a gap in the healing process.
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor. This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person and there is just no way to get around it.
It was clear in the interview that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success. Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.
Susie took submissive postures with her senior pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.” Susie’s ability to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gives opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God is sovereign over the future of her ministry whether remaining in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or somewhere else, is of absolute importance and a lesson into which she gained valuable insight.
Recommendations for Churches and Organizations
Elders: It is advisable that the church consider seriously the Apostle Paul’s instruction that a plurality of elders be established to guide and shepherd the church.
Accountability: In addition, immediate response should be given to pastors that exhibit authoritarian practices. The church on the whole operates with no category for autocratic leaders. In my experience, it is only the leaders who have a moral failure such as sexual abuse or financial fraud that are held accountable by church boards. Leadership failure is much broader than these select moral faults. Though harder to distinguish, authoritarian leaders are just as damaging to the body of Christ and His witness.
Examinations: There should be much attention given for the identification of autocratic personalities when ordaining and calling pastors. We must understand the destruction caused by broken relationships with both assistants and members.
Seminary Training: In addition, seminaries should consider ways of providing graduates with the tools, emotionally and biblically, to confront autocratic leaders.
Summary
It is my hope that Susie’s story has provided a glimpse into the personal struggle that those under authority have when faced with autocratic leadership. Her story is not uncommon. Her story is an example of a church work environment that is destructive and extraordinarily complex because highly authoritarian leadership is destructive and extraordinarily complex.
The prophet Ezekiel, calling the religious leaders of Israel to repent of their wicked leadership said, rather than shepherding God’s sheep, healing their diseases and seeking after the lost, “you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty.”[3]
As Christian leaders, ministry is marked by both comfortable, life-giving relationships and relationships that are a battleground. Rardin says Christian leadership is to be “motivated by love for the Lord.”[4] This love gives strength in the difficulties pastors face in a job that is largely about relationships.
It is love that gives pastor’s assistants the motivation and roadmap for interacting with and supporting an autocratic senior pastor’s ministry. However, it is also love that knows when to stand firm, grasping deeply held convictions with integrity, when a senior pastor oversteps his biblical authority. This self-differentiation is of primary importance for assistants to authoritative pastors as they cope with the emotions that rise out of the brokenness of sinful man that is both their own and their employer’s.
God, in His grace, has prepared many excellent works for each Christian to accomplish.[5] May the church provide the environment and love necessary that every part of the body does its part for the body.
[1] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.
[2] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.
[3]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4.
[4] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.
[5]ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ephesians 2:10.
A friend of Jada’s first used the word “oppression” to describe abuse in 2021. It just blew her mind. Jada said, “God has much to say to survivors of abuse about oppression in the Bible.”
Jada continued,
“Although God talks about oppression throughout scripture, in all churches I’ve attended, leaders only refer to oppression as spiritual oppression or the slavery Israelites endured under Pharaoh. How many survivors of abuse would benefit from knowing that God directly addresses what they have been through in the Bible when he condemns oppression in scripture?”
It is such a great word to describe what she experienced. Jada said she “felt like a prisoner set free” when she left her abusive pastor.
The Power He Wielded
Jada was in college when she came to know and love Jesus Christ. She was on fire for the Lord and got connected to a small house church.
As a new Christian, she described herself as “completely open to the things of God and eager to be taught. Hungry for personal discipleship.” She was the type of convert every evangelist seeks to make.
Pastor Martin, the leader of the house church, was at first very helpful. He became like a father figure to her. Her family had rejected her when she became a Christian, and he gave her extensive spiritual counsel.
He told her how special she was. Pastor Martin said she was submissive and dedicated. He described these attributes as critical markers of spiritual growth and true conversion. She was different from the other church members who left. Those people he described as “prideful.” In his eyes, they weren’t genuine Christians, and he frequently disparaged them.
Pastor Martin said he had a gift of discernment. According to him, “He could hear from God and discern hearts,” she recalled. Jada felt blessed to have someone like that protecting her at the time. “He could, with one look, know someone’s spiritual state.” So Jada felt encouraged when he looked upon her with favor and singled her out from the small crowd.
On the other hand, there was a power he wielded that was concerning.
“Everyone was given a label with a secret sin . . . and we would often hear lengthy messages about these dangerous sins from the pulpit,”
Jada explained that in such a small church when he spoke of a specific sin from the pulpit, everyone knew to whom he was referring.
“I would sit nervously in my chair while he preached on and on, hoping he wouldn’t share from the pulpit the sins I had confessed to him privately earlier that week.”
In addition, Pastor Martin would question her often about her romantic relationships, telling her to “dump a boyfriend and not to date anyone.” He would ask her intrusive questions about how she may have sinned sexually with her past boyfriends.
“I was scared to not divulge everything because, according to him, he could read me like a book. Using discretion about my past sins was treated like immaturity. He would say that mature Christians could handle a topic about sexual sin.”
So Jada thought of it as helping her grow in spiritual maturity. She felt she needed a lot of godly guidance. Jada wanted to date and get married, but he taught her it was wrong to have those desires. He equated those desires to the sin of lust and being unfocused on the things of God.
After a couple years of this, she said she was molded into the type of follower her pastor wanted her to be. She was submissive to him and conditioned not to challenge his directions.
Being Isolated
Pastor Martin was independent of any ecclesiastical authority . . . there was no denominational headquarters or church hierarchy above him.
In fact, there was a clear impression that he gave that if you followed him, you followed God. Of course, the opposite was true as well – if you didn’t follow him and left the church, you followed Satan.
As people left the church they didn’t coherently explain why they were going. Pastor Martin, however, considered them dangerous. Maybe, he explained, they practiced witchcraft or were “religious.” “Religious” to the Pastor was negatively applied to those with strong convictions. He called them “demonic.” They were missing what good God had planned for them.
Jada explained why she avoided communicating with those who left.
“I was warned not to talk and spend time with those who left. I could risk getting infected with whatever spiritual stronghold they had. Engaging with those who left was scary. I didn’t want to follow the enemy.”
And engaging with the quitters would make Pastor Martin very upset with her. He effectively isolated her.
In His Employ
Then he employed her with his personal business.
It provided a source of financial stability. However, Jada didn’t feel like it was an actual choice. “The job was presented as something God was giving me so I was expected to take it.” She explained to me she wouldn’t have taken the job if actually been offered it.
But she was compliant.
He was “increasingly controlling, demanding, demeaning, volatile and generally unpredictable.”
Jada said, “One minute, he would be domineering, large, and in charge, especially in public. But in private, he would become kind to me, but inappropriate and without professional boundaries as well.” He told Jada she was his “best friend” and the only person he could confide in.
Except he was married.
Boundaries
Pastor Martin’s temper was unpredictable. Jada was under the impression that she was often the cause of his upset mood, which was a massive weight on her. Surely God didn’t want her upsetting her so-called “spiritual covering.”
Any kind of error at work or if she had a theological difference or friendship he didn’t approve of could bring about an inquisition.
In disagreement, he called Jada “mentally unstable.” But as long as they agreed, she was considered sane, even intelligent, and especially “spiritual.”
Over the years Pastor Martin broke down boundary after boundary.
He arranged to carpool alone with her. He came to her apartment any time he wanted. Over time, he borrowed thousands of dollars for business deals he convinced her God gave him. Jada always agreed with great reluctance and fear of upsetting him.
She put on a happy face, but she dreaded him telling her she had to give away yet another piece of the little independence she had left. To her dismay, he continued to enmesh himself in her daily life.
“My whole world revolved around ministry, my pastor’s business, and attempting to control his temper toward me. He enmeshed himself in my life. Then, my pastor began flirting with me. I didn’t know how to react. Maybe I’m misinterpreting his behavior. I must’ve imagined that.”
Flirting or Just Being Friendly?
Even though the pastor’s flirtations were confusing and uncomfortable, compared to his hot temper and insults, his strange flirtatious behavior felt like a relief.
She had been taught that he was supposed to be her “spiritual covering of safety.” But, the intrusive sexual questions and flirtations toward her intensified. The pastor often discussed his marital problems with her. Then he explained to her that he had discerned they were in love and shouldn’t fight their “destiny.”
She felt dizzy.
That same day, she tried to avoid being alone with him, but couldn’t shake him and he followed her into her apartment. She didn’t want to be impolite.
He then sexually assaulted her.
Her response was typical for trauma victims. Many will fight, some will flee, and some will appease. Jada did what she always did when his behaviors were inappropriate – she didn’t question, didn’t talk back, she submitted. She went along in order to be safe.
Once the overt sexual abuse began, she was in a daze. She was confused. Was it a generational curse because of her family background? Was she lusting?
Pastor Martin’s claims about being in love seemed believable because of her apparent loyalty to him over the years.
His sexual contact with her didn’t make sense but he had a way of spiritually explaining away the behavior. He implied that she didn’t leave like the others because she was in love with him and God put them together.
One of the most disgusting lies he told her was that she “was a whore” and the only way to keep her supposed lustful tendencies in control and not affect other men was to comply with his sexual behavior.
She said, “It’s many years since the abuse happened and even now, when I am in the presence of a man, I am scared that I might tempt him to want me sexually because this is what the pastor said I always did to him.”
Bringing it to Light
“I felt like I actually was going crazy. Pastor Martin’s manipulation was so effective. I felt I couldn’t trust my thoughts. I felt caged. This was my lot in life. He said God was in control of this. If I told, he said people wouldn’t understand. I would be called a Jezebel.”
And besides, how could she accuse a man who had poured so much into her life? She asked herself, “Isn’t rebuking an elder wrong?”
She felt that the Gospel ministry would be ruined if she spoke up. “My silence meant that the gospel work would continue.”
Jada discovered a painful reality. If a victim of “grooming” speaks out before there is sexual contact with a church leader, they are often accused of reading into his actions.
But, if she speaks up after sexual assault has happened then she is accused of being complicit.
As Jada recalled the experience she said,
“I’ve watched this happen to other survivors. They speak up about concerning behavior and the pastor accuses them of slander. People often believe the narrative of the abuser. Others speak up after the sexual abuse occurs and they get called a seductress. Survivors are often vilified no matter how they respond. No one wants to believe the pastor is actually a predator. The victim is deemed expendable because they think the reputation of the ministry and pastor is not.”
Horrendous Evil
Pastor Martin further entangled himself into Jada’s life. He convinced Jada to give him spare car keys and a house key to keep business files in her apartment.
Jada eventually developed agoraphobia. When she would leave her home, she would feel dizzy and have panic attacks. Perhaps someone would recognize her from being with the pastor and could discern what was happening. She said it lasted for years after the abuse and only subsided when she had safety in a good and godly marriage.
Jada explained, “It breaks my heart reflecting on the pastor’s incredible abuse of power in teaching me to forgo marriage and children for so long while he abused me. It’s horrendously evil.”
There were other effects of the abuse that Jada experiences even today.
Recurring nightmares have been a continual thorn in the flesh for Jada. Those nightmares, a common symptom of PTSD, have been about “trying to escape the abuse again or the abuser coming back” to get her.
When Jada was working with the pastor, she portrayed a persona to cope. She explained, “It was like an alter ego and outsiders came to know me as this person. I was a person who was strong and decisive though inside I felt like I was dying.” When she broke free of his oppression, like other abuse survivors, she felt she was unable to make a decision for herself.
“In reality, I never learned how to make my own decisions. Every choice I made was filtered through the question, ‘Will my pastor agree or will this make him upset?’”
When Jada was finally able to disclose the abuse to a pastor from another church, he helped her to understand that she was free from having her decisions made for her. Jada said she was awakened to the idea that “everyone else in my age group had become adults in charge of their own lives and here I was like a child who never grew up because I lived under oppression for so long.”
After she disclosed the abuse and the pastor decided to leave the ministry, Jada was finally able to be herself. A friend told her she had changed in that she was actually “fun.” Prior to that, she didn’t really have friends. She only had coworkers in ministry. Jada explained,
“I could never truly get close with anyone without the pastor eventually telling me that person was spiritually dangerous and I shouldn’t be around them.'”
It grieves her that she lost those years of emotional and spiritual growth.
All the Abuse
Jada described the various abuses she suffered. She said,
“Spiritual abuse and clergy sexual abuse go hand in hand. Much of what I experienced I read about later in literature about cults who twist Scripture to justify abusive behavior and demonize those who dissent.”
Pastor Martin told her she was “destined by God to be by his side” and that God showed him that she was “in love with him.”
She experienced gaslighting where he manipulated her to the point she questioned her own sanity. Jada felt she couldn’t rely on her own memory. She had to rely on him.
There was emotional abuse. Pastor Martin would blow up at unpredictable times, keeping her always hypervigilant. He humiliated her publicly and then privately call her “delusional and a ‘whore.'” A couple times, he tapped her face “with an open hand like he was slapping” her, and told her to shut up.
Jada explained,
“Adult clergy sexual abuse isn’t merely about the spiritual leader sinning sexually and violating the victim’s body. The wound that is inflicted upon the victim is a deep spiritual wound to their personhood.”
The damage all this abuse does to a person is not only emotional and spiritual. The physical effects of abuse are well documented even when a hand is not laid upon the victim. In essence, all abuse is physical. It causes trauma.
There is “actual damage to the brain. It’s traumatic.”
And yet, “many people expect survivors of adult clergy sexual abuse to simply move on, because they wrongly classify the abuse as a consensual act of sexual immorality.”
In those cases, such as adultery or fornication, confession and forgiveness can be given and received through Jesus’s work on the cross. However, clergy sexual abuse, causes trauma . . . while sexual immorality does not. Sexual abuse, particularly from one with spiritual “authority” is deeply damaging and not the fault of the victim.
It is for this reason that many states have enacted laws making it illegal for spiritual authorities to have sexual contact with those under their care. [see this website for a list]
The spiritual effects of this kind of abuse are deeply distressing. Jada explained,
“When you’ve been so deeply and repeatedly harmed by the church, it’s natural to conclude, ‘I was abused by a pastor, therefore all pastors are bad and none can be trusted’ or ‘my church was bad therefore all churches are bad.’”
I have spoken with multiple victims of spiritual and sexual abuse who have either refused to attend church or given up entirely on Christianity. The church has become an unsafe and triggering place for these victims.
Unfortunately, many congregant members fail to understand the underlying causes and are impatient with survivors. They fail to see the many cries of the Psalmists as they struggled with their faith in the midst of abuse (Psalm 10, 88).
Vindication
When I asked Jada about the need for vindication, she said,
“Realistically, it never fully happens. Even in situations where there is a third-party investigation and it is made clear to the public that the pastor committed adult clergy sexual abuse, some people will still deny the claims. They choose to go along with the abuser’s narrative – that it was consensual and that he should return to ministry. Survivors who think healing will come from being vindicated often discover that the path to healing can happen with or without vindication. That’s good because so often, vindication isn’t fully attainable.”
I have written of the helpfulness of vindication elsewhere. However, Jada provided a helpful balance.
She noted that if looking to receive vindication from others, it is not only disappointing when they do not come alongside, it can also be retraumatizing when they don’t.
“When heard and affirmed, it is so healing.” But, when she was victim shamed she felt like she was facing a Salem witch trial. She continued, “It truly hurt worse than the abuse.”
Healing
Jada is free, but the healing takes time.
Jada described a life that has been changed. She has seen healing that’s slow but continually taking place. She said,
“The life I have now was unfathomable to me during the abuse. During the abuse, I could not picture myself as an adult in charge of my own life. Now I am.”
Part of her healing process included dealing with unwanted flashbacks of the victim shaming.
Things were going great in her life and she couldn’t understand why she would be still experiencing the shame in flashbacks. At the advice of a Christian counselor, she spent significant time journaling and seeking the Lord.
Eventually, she found relief from the flashbacks after coming to terms with the fact that she would never be able to convince those who shamed her that what happened was abuse. She came to terms with this reality and was able to move on. Thankfully, the flashbacks of victim shaming are no longer an issue.
Jada emphasized to me that the way to healing for every survivor is different and encourages survivors to seek help in healing in a variety of ways, including professional therapy.
Healing is a process, especially because trauma shows up in bodily reactions. If someone says something triggering or insensitive about abuse survivors, she can experience stomach cramping and other illnesses, sometimes for days. It can also result in vomitting.
One of the great difficulties of healing from abuse trauma is facing the losses that were experienced under the abuse. One woman has told me how much she grieves the loss of her self-esteem and the skills she had before being entrapped in an abusive marriage. Jada said, “I see how it stripped me of my identity – both who I was as a person (what I liked, what I didn’t like), and who God made me to be in Christ.”
Jada explained that when she converted, her identity in Christ was not encouraged.
“The focus was more on becoming like the leader, the pastor, rather than becoming like the Christ of the Bible. I felt like the identity I was given was ‘young, single, Christian woman, [and a] threat to men’s spirituality.’”
Part of her healing has been to truly believe that these things were not her fundamental identity, She was not a “threat to men’s spirituality” and she actually “deserved to be treated with authentic Christ-like pastoral care.” The idea that she was not inherently lustful and did not deserve to be exploited was “revolutionary” to her.
It is Not an Affair . . . or a Relationship
When asked what truths in God’s Word have been most helpful to her healing, she shared,
“The pastor who abused me told me that I had a permanent lust problem that was inherited generationally and this is why the sexual contact was occurring. But this was a twisted lie. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, ‘If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.’ I have been made new! I’m not cursed with some lust problem that could only be curbed by sexual contact with this man.
The pastor would constantly condemn me by using my confessions of past sin to say that this is who I inherently was. But Romans 8 teaches that I am free from condemnation (Rom. 8:1-2) and free from any condemning charges against me (Rom. 8:31-34). I wasn’t condemned to a life of satisfying this man’s sinful desires. Ephesians 2:10 says, ‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.’ I was created to do good works, not do good works while living with a secret that was killing me. Now I can finally live the life I wanted to back then – a life of freedom to serve God without oppression.”
Jada refuses to lose hope that church leaders will become educated about clergy sexual abuse of adults. She said they should listen to the stories of those who have experienced it and read the research.
As the title of this blog says, clergy sexual abuse is not an “affair.” It is not a relationship. It is a person with significant power overcoming one who is under their care.
It is rape.
When a person looks back on a consensual relationship that was broken, Jada said,
“They don’t look back on the relationship in horror. If there is no abuse, they won’t suffer with recurring nightmares and other PTSD symptoms. This is why adult clergy sexual abuse isn’t an illicit affair. It’s nonconsensual and it’s abuse. It causes trauma.”
Many people do not understand the power that someone with spiritual authority has. That authority removes consensuality from the equation. Consent can’t be given in cases where someone is “over the other” in a spiritual way. In those cases, “there is a dynamic that they can’t freely say no.”
The ability of a pastor to gaslight and manipulate through scripture is particularly heinous – using God’s Word, that was intended for shalom and well-being, to tear down the image of God and agency in another.
Helping
Jada said that those who treat victims of clergy sexual abuse as adulterers
“may find themselves inadvertently repeating the same messages that the abuser planted in the survivor’s mind – that she was complicit and that it was her sensuality that caused him to sin. When people victim shame and blame, they reinforce the same weapon of lies that the abuser used.”
If you wish to help a survivor, you need to be careful with your words. Well-meaning helpers make comments that shame and blame:
“Well, you shouldn’t have been alone with the pastor. You should know that he would be tempted by you.”
“Yeah, she has a past, so hearing about her and the pastor doesn’t surprise me.”
Because shame affects people emotionally and physically, and therefore creates pain and discomfort, Jada said many survivors will hide. They will use anonymous names on social media so they won’t be targeted and retraumatized by victim shamers.
Survivors often choose to keep a part of their life hidden from others for fear of being shamed. They are not able to fully live “in the freedom Christ has given them.”
Survivors need safe people who will hear their story. The telling of the story is an important first, second, and third step to healing. Trauma does not go away without intentional disclosure. But trauma can also be intensified when the story is dismissed or met with disbelief.
Once during therapy, Jada’s therapist said, “You are so brave.” Jada noted that some survivors of abuse don’t like that. However, it was empowering to her.
Jada says,
“In most of my dreams now, I actually tell the abuser that I’m not captive by him anymore. So, those dreams aren’t scary. Even in my dreams, I’m stronger. I’ve grown. I’m a different person now.”
I so appreciated Jada (not her real name) sharing her story. She helped me extensively in the writing of it. Jada is a gracious and godly woman who deserved so much more than what the church gave her. Yet, she continues to serve God’s people. Thank you for sharing, Jada.
Amber, a young adult, was committed to church. She loved the fellowship and teaching.
Then something happened.
Her friend, Kayla, noticed it in her church attire at first. One Sunday she wore a prom dress. The next, Amber wore jeans to church. Kayla said it was strange.
“I knew something was wrong.”
Kayla’s Story
Kayla was hired by the church when an old friend became the pastor. It was a rough start when she sought to engage a small group of women led by an older, very wealthy matriarch.
Kayla was not welcome. They misinterpreted her reaction to them when they had tried to hide their alcoholic drinks from her, telling others Kayla was judging them (she wasn’t).
When the matriarch was “slandering” her, Kayla asked permission to attend their small group get together to clear the air. She was rebuffed.
So, she went to her pastor and boss, Brandon. Despite having stuck up for the music minister facing a similar situation, the pastor told Kayla to just get over it. “It’s just part of ministry,” he explained. “It’s time to put on your big girl pants.”
The New Elder
Kevin was in training to become a new elder at the church. They were nearing the time that the church would “ordain” him in the new leadership position. But Kayla had heard stories about Kevin that were concerning.
Kayla attempted to warn Pastor Brandon that Kevin had a reputation as possibly an adulterer; she had heard that he had a sexual relationship with a woman, not his wife. The pastor brushed it off and said, “I know Kevin. Of course, he wouldn’t do such a thing.”
The ordination went forward.
Reporting the Abuse
Meanwhile, Kayla sought out Amber, asking her if something was wrong. At first, Amber said nothing was wrong, but a few months later, when Kayla again approached her, Amber poured out her heart.
Amber had been sexually assaulted by Elder Kevin.
Thus began a long road of incredible hurt for Amber, Kayla, and her husband, Zachary. And failure on the part of church leadership.
Kayla convinced Amber to speak with her husband, Kayla’s husband Zachary (a professional Christian counselor), and Pastor Brandon. The first meeting with Zachary and Amber’s husband went well. The men were understanding, attentive, and supportive.
However, if Kayla had it to do over again, she said she would not have pushed Amber to talk to the pastor. Kayla assured Amber the pastor would “hold Elder Kevin accountable” for the assault.
That evening they went to the pastor’s house and Amber bravely shared her story. The first thing Pastor Brandon asked her was, “Were you drunk?”
From that point on it was a battle. Was Pastor Brandon blinded by Kevin’s wealth? Or some kind of loyalty? After all, Kevin had chaired the pulpit committee that had hired Pastor Brandon. Or was it something else?
Standing For Oppression
As Kayla sought to bring accountability to Kevin before the other elders, she faced one roadblock after another.
The elders didn’t believe Amber. She had been drinking so somehow it was her fault. Amber had denied ever being drunk, but they didn’t believe that either.
Amber’s story has been slowly coming out just as those who are traumatized slowly piece things together according to experts. But Pastor Brandon has maintained that she must be lying because her story had changed. However, according to Kayla, Amber has been simply adding to the story as she has processed it over time, as can be expected.
Brandon said when he met with Kevin, “He sobbed like a baby.” Brandon said he had never seen a man so broken.
Shortly after reporting the assault to the church leader, Kevin contacted Amber asking her if he had “penetrated” her. (According to state law, there must be penetration to be classified as rape). In so doing, he admitted the assault, but obviously wanted to stay out of jail.
The elders in the end asked Kevin to leave the church but did not explain to the congregation what was happening and have never taken care of Amber aside from offering to pay for counseling.
There has been no real public accounting for the credible accusations against Kevin.
Kicking a Dead Horse
As Kayla and Zachary pressed on, their livelihoods, spiritual, and emotional health have been profoundly damaged.
In seeking the accountability of these leaders, it has felt like kicking a dead horse. Except, this dead horse kicks back.
In a meeting with Pastor Brandon, he asked Kayla, “What if I said Amber has changed her story?” Kayla explained that it is a known fact that memories change in those who have been traumatized.
Kayla then tried to explain to Pastor Brandon the power differential between Amber and Kevin because of Kevin’s spiritual authority as an elder. In response, Pastor Brandon said “That’s CRT” (Critical Race Theory). Kayla, knowing that the leadership view those who hold any CRT views as “heretics” said, “I’m not a heretic.”
She described to me,
“He moved to the door with his arms folded. I couldn’t leave. Then he moved on to another case I was working on – a case of domestic abuse. He said disbelievingly about the accusation of abuse, ‘There are two sides to every story.’ So, I said, ‘But she works for me.’ He retorted that he had talked to husband for six hours, but I said, ‘I work with her for 20 hours a week!’
Brandon left the office but then came back to her. He said, “I want you to know you have a voice in this. Get it out and at some point we are done talking about this.” Kayla asked, “When?” She said he got angry and threatened, “I will do a nationwide search and replace you.”
He went on, “Though I disagree with 99 percent of Mark Driscoll, I would say he got one thing right: get on the bus or get run over.”
Wow.
How We Always Talk
Kayla’s husband, Zachary was there for this heated exchange.
He was shocked by the outburst and when Brandon left, Zachary asked Kayla if he normally talked to her that way. He explained that Brandon was yelling at her. He described it as a “narcissistic kind of rage,” especially Brandon’s tirade, “I will not be accused here! I will not be put on trial!” in response to Kayla calmly reminding Brandon of something he said which he adamantly denied saying.
In response to Zachary, Kayla said, “That is the only way we talk.” Zachary went on, “He was obsessed with never being corrected.” Mimicking Brandon, he said, “This is how you have to talk to me.”
Kayla said Brandon’s solution to their conflict “was that we would meet once a week where he could correct me if I ‘misinterpreted’ anything he said.” Brandon basically demanded the right to reinterpret Kayla’s experience as it suited his agenda of control.
This was not the only form of gaslighting Kayla experienced. At her first and only performance evaluation, Brandon provided positive feedback but zeroed in on one carefully chosen criticism: “Overly bearing the burdens of those under your ministry has the possibility of clouding your judgment.” This was said with clear reference to her relationship to Amber, and the message was subtle but clear: Brandon saw things clearly, but Kayla’s judgment could not be trusted.
Kayla, burned out and depressed, finally asked for a leave of absence for a couple months. Pastor Brandon encouraged her to resign instead. She pushed back and made clear that her request was for a paid leave, not a resignation.
Kayla explained, “A couple, who met with Pastor Brandon, said he told them that I came to him on Tuesday and resigned and then came in Wednesday and changed my mind.” Kayla thinks it likely that is the same story the pastor told the elders.
At no point did she suggest that she was resigning.
The elders in the end approved Kayla’s leave.
Pastor Brandon then announced to the church staff that she was going to resign. She had to again push back and say loud and clear that she never resigned, she just asked for extended leave.
The NDA
However, during her leave the elders asked her to resign and sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.”
They would provide a severance package if she wouldsignit and resign. It would effectively silence her. She would be legally bound to keep her mouth shut about the failures of the church leadership . . . in particular, Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
However, Kayla and Zachary would not be bought off, as they described it. Despite Kayla’s salary being their family’s primary source of funds, they were agreed that in good conscience they could not take a vow of silence.
Kayla refused the NDA.
The church leadership must have realized they were in trouble as they went ahead with a severance package (but only gave a portion of severance offered with NDA), and at the end of Kayla’s leave, fired her without any explanation or justification.
The Peace and Purity of the Church
After months of silence following the sexual assault, the elders called a congregational meeting to address the firing of Kayla as well as Kevin’s sexual assault.
The pastor began with a statement regarding Kayla’s termination. He explained,
“Let us be clear that there is no sin or character issue that has led us to this decision. Kayla is a remarkably gifted woman of God who has contributed greatly to our church and her ministries.”
The reason she was fired was that she continued to challenge the pastor and elders for their failure to take the kind of action that responding to a sexual predator in the church requires. Pastor Brandon in his statement denied this and did not express remorse for the horrible damage done by the sexual abuse of an elder, of whom they had been warned prior to installing in a leadership position.
Despite being encouraged by a respected abuse specialist in their denomination to seek a third-party investigation, they did not.
They did not make it public to provide a safe place for reports of other victims of Kevin’s abuse (though there were others reported to Kayla). During the congregational meeting questions were asked about the church’s investigation and the elders refused to answer them.
They had not brought in experts, neither law enforcement nor abuse consultants, to investigate.
Pastor Brandon confessed in the meeting that they should have come to the congregation with the information sooner, yet did not and have not asked Kayla’s or the survivor’s forgiveness for failing in this way to support them as they should.
In fact, the pastor noted defensively it was in their “rights” to not report to others there was a sexual offender among them.
When a question-and-answer time was coming to a close, one church member spoke passionately in Kayla’s defense:
“This is an extremely serious issue where, by all appearances, a wonderful person, who had impacted many of our lives very positively, was unfairly fired because she advocated for a victim and because she wouldn’t stop advocating for a victim.”
Bringing the meeting to a close, Pastor Brandon, in exasperation made a last-ditch effort to force submission to the church leadership and silence whistleblowers:
“If you still have issues, come to the elders, talk to them. But go directly to the parties that are offending you, and please, for the sake of the peace of the church, be careful how you talk to one another, or talk to other people, go directly to the source, and get these questions answered.”
Pastor Brandon went on:
And when we have disagreements, take them the session, and, you know, express your concerns and your grievances. But if it is a matter of a judgment call, God has ordained them, and you have elected them, to make those decisions on your behalf. And for the peace of the church, we need to leave it there. And then walk away and love each other.
His plea was to keep their failure to do what was right and failure to confess and seek forgiveness for their failures from destroying the church. Where admitting the wrong and seeking restitution would have healed many wounds that continue to this day, instead he recommended keeping things as private as possible.
As if that would serve “the peace and purity of the church.”
Accountability
Following the meeting, a church family wrote to the elders,
“Abusers need to know that their predation will be met with consequences. Victims need to know that they have a place to turn where someone will listen. And the world needs to see that the church is serious about protecting the vulnerable.”
They went on,
“By your own words you make the case that Kayla’s firing was a retaliatory measure, designed to silence her from bringing Kevin’s sin into the light.”
But rather than seek real accountability for Kevin, the elders sent him to another church to continue his abuse.
Submission to [Bad] Authority
In a recent sermon, Pastor Brandon was speaking on submission to authority. As is common to church leadership abuse, it is not unusual for a pastor to double down on the submission topic when he is being challenged. He said in the sermon, “Never ever confuse authority and biblical leadership with arrogance or a power grab.”
Brandon proclaimed the innocence of the elders’ motives in their decisions. One of the elders argued that their decisions to keep Kevin’s felonies private were simply “judgment calls.” He said, “But when the decision is made, unless it’s something so sinful, you know, or so greatly unbiblical, then, we are called to submit for the peace of the church.”
Sounds very biblical and wise.
But, regarding such horrible treatment of victims and those who advocate for them as simply judgment calls is anathema to the Lord.
As one individual who has experienced leadership abuse said, “It seems that where there is leadership abuse in the church, you will always find spiritual abuse.”
It is when submission is taught from pulpits and in responses to questions about the ways authority is exercised in the church that the Scripture is used to control and manipulate. References in Scripture like Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13f are taken out of context and absolutized to suggest that no matter what the authority does, the subordinate is required to obey and submit.
It is poor exegesis and deeply damaging to God’s people. [see here]
Turned Upside Down
Kayla, Zachary, and Amber’s lives have been turned upside down by the leadership of their church. Rather than responding in silence, deception, justification, and anger, their leaders should have heard their cries. They should have taken decisive action to hold the abuser accountable. They should have sought the healing of those who suffered under Kevin’s sexual assaults.
And they should have seen how this crisis revealed Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
If they haven’t, they should pack their bags. They do not belong in leadership.
NOTE: I recommend the below website. It provides excellent resources for survivors of clergy sexual abuse. God’s shepherds must be held accountable for oppressive behavior as the Lord held His shepherds accountable during the prophet Ezekiel’s time – Ezekiel 34.
Clergy Sexual Misconduct – We provide info & resources to those affected by clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) & ministries desiring to be a safe place.
One of the hardest things for someone to hear when going through a particularly difficult trial is, “Consider it joy! It will make you stronger.”
Yes, the Bible tells me so. But it so often seems so callous for someone to remind me of it. There might even be a smile that goes with it that makes me angry.
Those who are acting as counselors and advocates for abuse survivors have likely struggled with this issue. We want to encourage our clients and friends to rightful thinking which we know will lead to greater peace. We want them to see the good that can come from the trial that they may have a sense of peace in it.
And as we share these thoughts with them, we find that they shrink into a shell or become angry or walk away, never to return.
It just isn’t that simple to slather a verse on a victim’s pain. Have you noticed that taking one verse from the Bible is simple until you practice good exegesis and consider all those other verses that complicate things?
The Goal
First, I want to do some of that work on James 1:2-5 where the Lord tells us that the “testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” That is the reason why James says one verse before, “Count it all joy . . . when you meet trials of various kinds.”
There is a goal to suffering – that we be “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” That’s a pretty good trade off. That is what trials are intended to produce in us. And that is why James tells us to “count it all joy.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible helpfully says, “Not that these afflictions were joyous in themselves, but in their circumstances, effects, and consequences.”
The goal is joyous.
It is not the trial that is joyous. The trial is not intended to make us happy. In fact, to be a trial it needs to do quite the opposite. It creates hurt, disappointment, maybe confusion, and frustration. That is why it is called a trial. It challenges how we view our lives.
It causes us to take stock of our beliefs and desires and expectations.
I face trials when my boss or spouse is manipulating, demeaning, shaming, or blaming me. When my manager takes credit for the work I do. When my spouse tells me I am stupid, or my pastor preaches shamefully from the pulpit referring to something I said to him earlier in the week supposedly in confidence.
I am not expected to take joy from the trial. And so, we must be careful to distinguish between expecting someone to be joyful about the trial, rather than taking joy in the knowledge of the outcome.
Who among us knows what is God’s specific purpose for another man’s trial? Who can with confidence give that kind of judgment.
God does not always show His hand immediately or within the trial itself. At times it is mysterious. Consider Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9. Paul has some knowledge – it is there to keep him from being “conceited” – but why doesn’t God take it away? Paul begged that the Lord would do so, but He did not remove it by the time of Paul’s writing.
It is not my place to tell a victim why they are suffering. And then tell them, “Count it all joy!”
They will likely, though not necessarily, learn what the Lord is specifically teaching them. Give the Lord His room.
Weep
So, what do we do? What is the godly response?
We must be careful in our expectations for those who are suffering horribly from the abuse of a wicked individual – whether a boss, boyfriend, neighbor, or husband. In the midst of that suffering, jumping for joy neither makes sense nor generally happens.
This is a broken world, and a giddiness about that brokenness is never suggested in Scripture. Don’t expect your friend or counselee to be rejoicing in the way you think of rejoicing in the midst of their abuse. It is unreasonable and unlikely.
So, the first step in hearing of abuse of any kind is “weep with those who weep.”
The full verse in Romans says:
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
Romans 12:15-16 (ESV)
Humility. No conceit. No arrogance.
If you are counseling or advocating for a victim of leadership abuse (in the home or workplace), you need to humbly respond to their suffering. As they pass through the fire of trial, they need to be shown respect and their trial needs to be honored.
Weep with them. It is not a time of rejoicing when they face various trials.
But when the goal of that trial – their perfection and completion – is accomplished, it will be a time of rejoicing.
In the trial, it is a time of weeping and seeking the wisdom only God can give as James goes on to say:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
James 1:5
Weep with them as they face the struggle. And seek wisdom as to how to respond to that trial with them.
Empathy
In essence, we are talking about being empathetic. No matter what foolish theologians say about empathy, Romans 12 is about empathy. God desires you to be empathetic . . . to appreciate and understand another man’s travail. And you are to weep with them when they weep.
In time, hopefully you can rejoice when they rejoice.
However, as you empathize with your friend, you may encourage them on a path to the point of considering it joy. As the “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” says,
You are not to consider it as a punishment, a curse, or a calamity, but as a fit subject of felicitation.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
When facing abuse, many victims feel that they are cursed. They may think they are being punished by the Lord much like many of the Psalmists.
But abuse is never the result of the victim’s actions. It is because the abuser has an unrepentant heart. He is sick in sin. It is HIS fault, not the victim’s.
So, encouraging the victim to rest in Jesus’s loving arms, not condemnation of any kind, is the godly response to their despair.
Advocates can list story after story of the survivors of abuse testifying to the shame that have been heaped upon them. They have been trained by their abusers, particularly if their abuser was a Christian leader, to think of themselves as unworthy of Jesus’s love and affection.
You do not criticize them for feeling cursed or angry at God. You share with them the love that God has for them . . . telling them over and over they are a child of the Heavenly Father, the Ruler of Heaven and Earth.
Those are two very different things. One is heaping more shame on them for feeling the way they do: How dare you feel that way. One is sharing the reason they need have no shame.
Consider it Joy! Yes, the Bible tells me so. But there is a time for weeping for and mourning what is lost. There is time for the Lord to make Himself known and felt by victims of abusive leadership.
The pastor sent an “apology” to Jack. The letter was less than a page long and included a very general confession of sin.
At first Jack was encouraged by the words from his former boss. But, as he considered what repentance should look like from abusive authority, he began to question the wisdom of reconciling with the pastor on the basis of the pastor’s apparent repentance.
This is the experience of victim after victim of leadership abuse. Apologies that give hope, but in time prove to be false acts of contrition.
What is Repentance?
Biblical repentance is difficult to understand. The word is used freely as though everyone gets it. But identifying the actual repentant heart is not so easy.
Because repentance affects how we respond to the apology of a fellow believer, its identification is important. Repentance means reconciliation may take place. Repentance means a position relinquished because of sin may be regained.
We need to be able to distinguish repentance from other forms of people-pleasing responses.
True repentance is a matter of the heart. The actions of the repentant flow from his entire being turning from sin. And, this is the difficulty: We can’t know another man’s heart.
ID Repentance
However, in the Old Testament there are some helpful guidelines to recognizing and receiving repentance. There are a couple words that are at times translated as “repent” or “humble” oneself.
The word, “nâḥam” (נָחַם) means to breathe strongly; to be sorry, to pity, console or rue; or repent. Another word, šûḇ (שׁוּב) means “to turn back (hence, away).”
In either case, the idea is that the sinner has given up the sin. And it is not just in action, but the heart. Note, the terminology “breathe strongly,” There is the sense that the rejection of sin goes way down deep into the inner man. Breathe. What I have read about this Hebrew term gives the impression of deep sadness – inner change – over what the sinner has done.
Where we run into difficulty here is in defining and identifying repentance when there is a return to the old sin. Is it repentance if we do the same sin again . . . later?
I know of two “repentant” abusers who have made significant progress in overcoming their entitlement and control over their wives. However, they do continue to go back to the old ways at times. The difference is that they identify it in themselves quickly and seek to confess and turn from it. Their wives no longer consider them abusive. They no longer live as if walking on eggshells.
So, we have to understand repentance in cases of abuse in like manner to our own various sins. It is why there is the old adage, “We must repent of our repentance.” We will at times go back to the trough of gruel. Our inner man never fully gives up on its idolatry until Jesus comes again.
But our recognition of the sin and deep sorrow over it has made significant progress.
Again, we do not know if someone else is truly, deeply sorrowful over their sin. Their words may just be further manipulation, of which many abusers are adept.
Confession and Resitution
Under the section heading of “Confession and Restitution” in the English Standard Version, Moses is given guidelines for determining repentance:
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that people commit by breaking faith with the LORD, and that person realizes his guilt, he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong.”
Numbers 5:5-7 (ESV)
This passage does not mention the word “repentance,” but I understand it to express the evidence of a repentant heart.
First of all, the sinner confesses his sin.
He understands that he has done wrong. He identifies that he has broken faith with the Lord. The Hebrew says he has acted treacherously. What he has done is really evil. And he confesses it. He doesn’t cover it over in any way.
I would suggest this means he doesn’t make excuses. He doesn’t blame it on someone else, even a little. He truly owns up to the specific sin. In cases of abuse, he doesn’t suggest others made him do it or it was a small thing.
Then, he makes “full restitution for his wrong.”
Restitution is an important part of the Old Testament law. Just saying you are sorry doesn’t cut it when it comes to repentance. If there is to be reconciliation, restitution is imperative.
The difficulty with restitution is the application of it when it comes to relational sins like abuse. And, as we are not a theocracy, we do not normally apply the Old Testament civil law directly to our setting.
However, much of the law can be applied within the church in a principled way (keeping in mind we must not create a list of Pharisaical laws based on “principles” we find in the Law).
It is certainly appropriate that we expect a leader in the home or workplace to not only apologize for their specific sins of abuse, but seek some form of restitution. I would suggest this gives evidence of real repentance.
What Does Restitution Look Like?
What might that look like? Though I have written of the “look” of repentance in other places, I would like to explore restitution here.
Note, that restitution was normally full payment for what was “stolen” or “destroyed” plus an additional punitive amount. Sometimes that additional amount was 1/5th the cost of replacement (like in Numbers 5:7). The amount of restitution was in part based on whether the loss was intentional, accidental, or criminal.
In essence, the greater the evil in the heart, the greater the restitution.
Accidents are not evil, so that additional amount is less. Stealing was particularly evil, and so in Exodus 22:1 the thief is to pay five times the number of oxen he has stolen. A stiff penalty.
What if we try to apply the principles of restitution to cases of abusive leadership? What would be required of the repentant leader?
Payment for necessary counseling for the victim.
Providing a safe place for the victim (new position in organization not under abusive authority).
Allowing the victim, without interuption or critique, to share in a public setting the evils perpetrated by the abuser.
Give up any authority formerly held by abuser.
Payment for lost wages (plus additional punitive amount) due to trauma in the workplace caused by the leader.
These are not biblical commands. They are only ideas. If you have other ideas, I would love for you to share them in the comment section.
“I Was Horribly Wrong”
Restitution is a means of giving feet to a confession. It can be evidence of a truly repentant heart. It can say to the victim of your sin, “I was horribly wrong and I must do all I can to make up for it.”
Though forgivess (another topic) may be given even when repentance is not in evidence, reconciliation is unlikely to happen without it, and should not be expected until true repentance is apparent to the victim.
This may mean restitution may be the evidence needed.
NOTES:
Saul and David make a fascinating study in repentance. Both did horrible things, but only David seeks to do all he can to make things right after doing some evil things. Consider Saul’s fear of David and abuser tactics and false repentance when David is running from his evil: 1 Samuel 19-27.
Having spent nearly a decade working for a mission college in Africa, I have a keen interest in African leadership. It is evident that leadership problems abound in every part of the world. There is no culture that is free from the effects of sinful leadership.
Each culture has horrible leaders. And, each culture gives them a free pass for various and often different reasons.
Bad leaders may not be held accountable for their sin because of their popularity and gifting in certain places (i.e. United States). And, bad leaders may continue unabated because they “must be respected” in other cultures (African or Asian). I am not an expert on cultures, so these are only my opinions after cursory evaluations.
Praise’s Story
When I spoke with Praise (not his real name), he shared his own experience with leadership abuse in the African nation in which he grew up. Praise was a young man when he traveled to a distant village to assist a pastor while going to school. The pastor took him into his house, but did not pay him anything.
Praise enjoyed the work, walking over four miles to the church each day. His living arrangements at the pastor’s home was the “sitting room” where the TV was and had arise early to be out of the way and go to bed late often as the family watched TV.
The real trouble started when he began “dating” a woman and wanted to marry her. The pastor and leadership of the church however, wanted him to marry someone else. Their choice of a wife lived in a neighboring country.
Physical and Spiritual Wounds
While escorting the woman to her home at 6 pm one evening, he was attacked by several men. They took pangas (machetes) to Praise. He was badly hurt. The savage attack was likely tribal according to Praise. To his disappointment, despite using a little room behind the church, no one from the church were of any help to him.
Rather than seek help for and encourage Praise, the pastor accusingly told him, “See, I told you not to marry this lady.”
When Praise was giving testimony to the church about the attack, he expressed his frustration at the lack of help that he received from church members as he recovered from his wounds. But, the pastor told the church, “I don’t know this man. I don’t know who brought you to this church.”
The pastor then proceeded to ask him to write a resignation letter, though his position was only voluntary.
Praise taught a Sunday morning Bible study each week at the church. During the church worship “announcements” following Praise’s Bible study, the pastor publicly railed against Praise, telling the members of the church “not to have anything to do with him.” According to Praise, the pastor told the church he was “excommunicating Praise that day.”
Adding insult to injury, he proclaimed authoritaringly that Praise would “never succeed.”
Praise left and went to another church.
Rampant Authoritarianism
Praise told me, in churches that have “less structure” like mission churches, the “members give a lot of respect to pastors.” He said, “Even when members are being abused by pastors, it is hard to identify.”
He explained, they would “rather be oppressed quietly for the sake of getting something small for the family.” Men of low economic class suffer the most. They see God as speaking more to the pastor. “The Pastor is a mediator between me and God.”
Praise noted that it is difficult for congregant members to know whether the pastor is speaking revelation from the Lord or their own words.
In addition, Praise said, “The calling of individual pastors is defined by how they act socially, economically and how they are connected politically.” If they have money then God has blessed them and therefore, they must be specially called.
“Even if a pastor is a molester, but has money, followers do not speak up.”
Praise said, “It’s very frustrating. They take advantage of widows and orphans . . . even sleep with them, but give them money. Because they are poor they feel threatened by pastors.”
Continued Leadership Struggles
Hurt and confused, Praise left the church and planted another church. It grew significantly. They even brought on an Assistant Pastor to help Praise in his work.
His Assistant invited several friends as preachers to an evening vigil they had planned. It is common for African churches to have long nighttime meetings with much singing and praying with additional guests speaking to the congregation.
However, Praise said, “One of the visiting preachers accused me of not respecting my assistant pastor whom they expected I should work under. He used a traditional saying ‘when the cat is out the rat takes the reins of power.’ In this context, I was the rat and my Assistant Pastor was the cat.”
Another job opportunity was presented to Praise after he had finished his Masters degree. The international church organization seemed to be a good fit for Praise. He made the “shortlist” from those applying but after interviewing he was not picked for the position. Apparently, having come from a “small church” was the reason according to one of the panelists.
Again, another organization had an opening for which Praise applied. However, he was required to attain a recommendation letter from “a local church organization.” When he requested the letter, an American women who was married to a Kenyan told him that they would not provide a recommendation letter. She did not give him a reason, but later he found out that she had asked the church organization to write a recommendation letter for her husband who was also applying for the position.
Most recently, Praise has been teaching for a local university, “but because of tribalism” he was never paid. In the space of three years of serving the university he has received $35.
But, as he continues to somehow provide for his family, he has not given up the struggle.
Healing
When I asked Praise what has provided the most healing for him while going through these many difficult leadership difficulties, he said, “Speaking to a friend to take solace. Just speaking with him – speaking into his life.”
In addition, he explained, “My wife has stood beside me. I almost threw off my doctoral work.” One of his graduate professors encouraged Praise. He helped him know that God would help him in what he was going through if he remain focused.
At times, like Job, Praise asked, “Why did God do this? Why have you taken my life to be an object of test? You are breaking me. You are stretching me too much.”
He said he began asking if he was not praying well? “Sometimes I get too ‘traditional’ . . . some believe that if a person is going through a lot of suffering he has been ‘bewitched.'” But he said in his frustration, “I am born again! Why can’t you, Lord deal with it?”
It was a very hard time, but he neither gave up on Christ nor ministry.
Praise is currently part of an international “think tank” that is seeking ways to help the global church respond to abuse and create safe churches for those who are suffering or have suffered abuse of various kinds.
Praise knows he has experienced trauma, but the Lord is His Good Shepherd and he knows that God provides for the oppressed.
