In this second look at the book of James, we will consider the center of toxic leadership. As was noted in part one of this series, much teaching in leadership circles looks at the outward behavior of the leader as the standard.
I have had the pleasure and privilege of writing alongside academic researchers in the field of toxic leadership—not because I am particularly an academic mind you—and have noticed this particular bent. I understand it and am not opposed to what is being written. Just as the US military takes a decidedly behavioral perspective in its training and discipline (as a friend told me), so too I know in the business world it is more feasible to look at the outward actions of leaders. There is the view that as long as you keep your toxins inside, you are golden as a leader.
However, as a Christian writing mostly to those confronted by toxic leadership in Christian organizations—including the church—I am concerned about leaders who may get a free pass because their toxins are covered up—at least for a time.
And that is a very important point; I believe toxic leadership will [nearly] always raise its ugly head at some point if the leader has a heart that is bent that way.
And so, this blog is looking at what James says about the heart. Because it is getting to the beast within that is going to truly and actually impact the toxic leader’s behavior and help in bringing accountability.
James says in 3:13:
Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.
Notice the interesting interplay here. James first points to the heart: “wise and understanding”. Those are heart issues—the inner man. What does he think and feel. Is he “wise and understanding?”
Then he goes on to note that behavior should come from wisdom and understanding. His good conduct will show whether he is wise or not. His behavior will show what is in his heart.
Then James goes on to explain more:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.
When toxic leaders are described, it is usually with terms like arrogance, liar, entitled, controlling, harsh, and overly demanding.
James goes so far as to say that these heart attitudes—jealousy, selfish ambition—are demonic. That is strong stuff. And not only that, these attitudes give rise to “disorder and every vile practice.”
It comes from the inner man.
If the thinking, emotions, and will are evil then the behavior will be. It may be controlled sometimes out of necessity to keep the job or wife or the respect of others. But the evil will in the end get the best of the most self-controlled of leaders and there will be disorder and vile practices.
Where does oppressive behavior come from? It comes from the heart of man.
Therefore all attempts at coaching or counseling must be directed to the heart of man. It is not enough to give him a nicer suit or less angry words. You can’t dress him up from the outside.
We would all like to think we are correct on every point . . . or even wise in how we lead a church, organization, or business . . . or our home.
However, one look at Genesis chapter three should put our minds at ease. We are neither wise or always right. It is there in the garden that we lost any bragging rights to being . . . right.
The Amos Problem
Amos was a “shepherd and farmer called to prophesy during the reigns of Uzziah (792–740 B.C.) in the southern kingdom and Jeroboam II (793–753) in the north.”1
Things were going well for Judah and Israel at the time. Economically, politically . . . but not spiritually apparently. Amos warned King Jeroboam that he would “die by the sword, and Israel must go into exile.” They were words the king didn’t want to hear.
But maybe even more importantly, the priest—a representative of the Lord who was to remain free from political control, but rather to act prophetically to kings—was more interested in remaining close to the power of the king. He went running to the king when Amos prophesied to encourage the king to take action against Amos.
“Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words.”
Amos 7:10
Sometimes our followers—those subordinate to our leadership or influence, who have less power than we do—bring words that hurt. Our ego is bruised by their words that challenge our actions, heart (motives), or abilities.
In those moments we need to step back. We need to consider carefully whether those words—even when meant to hurt us because of jealousy or arrogance—are words the Lord wants to use to make us better at leading.
King David’s Experience
When King David came to Bahurim, there came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera, and as he came he cursed continually. 6 And he threw stones at David and at all the servants of King David, and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. 7 And Shimei said as he cursed, “Get out, get out, you man of blood, you worthless man! 8 The LORD has avenged on you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned, and the LORD has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, your evil is on you, for you are a man of blood.”
2 Samuel 16:5-8 (ESV)
Abishai, a companion and nephew of King David, sought to protect the king’s ego, and possibly life, and advised the king that he allow Abishai to “take of his head.”
David’s response is a lesson to all leaders. He says, “If he is cursing because the LORD has said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’” It is possible the LORD himself is cursing David through this “dog” as Abishai calls him.
Even those we do not respect may have a word from the LORD in the sense that the LORD is using them to help us see our blind spots and failures.
Leaders need to take warning. Certainly, not every word from our detractors is correct or should be honored or affect our leadership. However, in rejecting the words of Amos, Israel did suffer the fate of being sent into exile. The country continued to rebel against the LORD because they were too proud to hear the words of this shepherd—words from God, Himself.
It is a humble heart that will hear words of criticism as gifts from the LORD.
References
ESV New Classic Reference Bible, Introduction to Amos, (Wheaton, Ill, 2011) ↩︎
I never tire of nor do I ever run short of biblical material for the study of abusive leadership.
I say that because of the number of people out there who don’t think of abuse as of any importance. They don’t believe that the Bible speaks to abuse. They think that all sin is basically the same and should be handled much the same way.
I recognize that most people reading my blog are those who do actually see it in scripture and want to understand it better from a biblical view. But I still have hopes that there are those out there who will come across some of these writings and come to realize that they have shorted God’s Word by failing to see abuse deliniated in its pages.
And in response, become caring and empathetic in their approach to survivers of abusive leadership.
Asa, King of Judah
I often turn to the kings of Judah and Israel for my material. The history of the kings is found in the two books of Kings and two books of Chronicles in the Bible. These summary stories of the kings does not hold back on the good and bad of these kings.
There was a king who ruled in Judah around the ninth century B.C. whose name was Asa. His story is told in 2 Chronicles chapters 14 through 16. His particular story is a good warning for leaders. If you are a leader in any capacity, please consider Asa. As a friend of mine likes to say, “Everyone is good for something . . . even if it is as a bad example.”
There are those leaders who are simply bad. They are toxic to their core and they reap destruction in the workplace.
But, there are leaders who begin well and end badly. We can take a birdseye view of the span of their ministry and sorrowfully recount their failings.
It is said of Asa,
And Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God. 3 He took away the foreign altars and the high places and broke down the pillars and cut down the Asherim 4 and commanded Judah to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, and to keep the law and the commandment.
2 Chronicles 14:2-4 (ESV)
It was a good start to his reign in Judah. There is so much promise in those two verses. Scripture notes in the next verse that “the kingdom had rest under him.” There was peace, clearly as a result of his good leadership.
Then War
As an example of Asa’s good and godly leadership, the story is told of when an Ethiopian ruler attacked Judah. Asa led his army out against Zerah the Ethiopian and the writer of Chronicles recounts Asa’s prayer:
“O LORD, there is none like you to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O LORD our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this multitude. O LORD, you are our God; let not man prevail against you.”
2 Chronicles 14:11
It is a beautiful prayer. It is an expression of Asa’s dependence on the LORD and recognition that his life is in service to God and not his own comforts or power.
Scripture tells us that as a result, the LORD “defeated the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled.”
Spiritual Leadership
The passage goes on to deliniate Asa’s spiritual leadership in Judah. Following his victory on the battlefield, a prophet approaches Asa and tells him, “The LORD is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.”
Leaders, this is your call. As the LORD called Asa to seek Him always, so the LORD calls you to seek Him always. And the promise is sure that if you seek the LORD, He will be evident to you (“found by you”).
Again, there are encouraging words of Asa. He immediately made more spiritual reforms in Judah to show all the people they needed to rely on the LORD not on idols.
Relying on Other
But well into Asa’s reign—33 years—he turned to someone other than the LORD to protect him against an invading army. After all that has been said about it, it is a jarring change of storyline.
Scripture says,
At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him, “Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the LORD your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. 8 Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the LORD, he gave them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him. You have done foolishly in this, for from now on you will have wars.”
2 Chronicles 16:7-9
It was a crushing blow to Asa. In one sentence the fall of Asa is described: “Then Asa was angry with the seer and put him in the stocks in prison, for he was in a rage with him because of this. And Asa inflicted cruelties upon some of the people at the same time.”
Asa is angry (indignent in Hebrew) and raging (storming in Hebrew). His actions towards the seer, who is bringing an opportunity to repent and seek forgiveness in humility, is rather rebellion and anger. Asa belies a toxic heart.
And that toxic heart would give way to physical decline. Three years later he got a disease in his feet and died.
It is such a disappointing end to his reign. A man who clearly loved the LORD and sought him ended his leadership in disgrace and the oppression of others over whom he had power.
Have you seen this in your own leader? Have you seen it in yourself?
You may be becoming enthralled with your image. You may be leading some people who have strong opinions—and share them readily—and feel intimidated by them. You may feel you must show how much smarter and stronger you are and you may be using sarcasm and put downs to show them.
Turn to the LORD instead.
Remember, “If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.”
Recently, I was having one of those imaginary discussions. You know, the conversations where your anger ramps up against whom you had a disagreement—though they are not present to actually fight back?
One of the things I stated to my imaginary combatant was, “You are going to tell me that you are doubting the LORD of heaven and earth, Who created you, and could crush you with His pinky?”
All people, everywhere, at all times have been tempted to distrust the LORD—often many times per day. That distrust of God in essence is what drives our trust in ourselves. We, in practice, believe that we can make better decisions, control situations better, and get the job done better than the LORD, even if we would never admit that.
How could we ever presume to be so powerful. There is one God and he can crush us with His pinky.
So too the Israelite leaders—priests and kings and counselors—thought they knew better than the LORD when Zechariah spoke around 500 B.C.
But Zechariah pummeled the Israelite leadership with these words:
“My [God’s] anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders; for the LORD of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle. 4 From him shall come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler—all of them together. 5 They shall be like mighty men in battle, trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight because the LORD is with them, and they shall put to shame the riders on horses.”
Zechariah 10:3-5 (ESV)
God is angry at the leaders of His people.
So much so, He promises to punish them. This is a common theme among the “minor prophets” of the Old Testament. Prophets like Zechariah were continually calling God’s people to repentance for their evil, often for the way the leaders (more powerful) oppressed the vulnerable (the weaker). The leaders are held to a higher standard throughout Scripture.
How does Zechariah say God will punish these wicked leaders?
He is going to raise up the followers—the house of Judah—to overwhelm the leaders. The humble will overcome the great. The arrogance of the wicked leaders will be judged.
Symbolic Implements of Destruction
Zechariah notes the symbolic implements of destruction as the means by which these subordinates would bring judgment upon the leaders:
From him shall come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
from him the battle bow
Though we see the LORD raise up other nations to drag these leaders into exile, the ultimate fulfillment is found 500 years later through the raising of Jesus—born in the house of Judah—from the dead.
Some commentaries suggest the CORNERSTONE to be symbolic of a ruler or prince. Ultimately, we know that the LORD raised up Jesus Christ to be the true Israelite cornerstone—ruler and prince—and exemplify the leader who brings restoration and healing to the downtrodden Israelites.
However, He does so by also judging the evil of man’s out of control leadership which Israel was experiencing at the time of Zechariah.
Zechariah says the TENT PEG will be brought forth by the LORD. Most suggest this refers to the symbolic purpose of the tent peg:
The allusion is either to a nail, by which the timber in the building is compacted together, and the whole is strengthened, as the church is by Christ: or to a nail to which the cords of tents are fastened, as those of shepherds, travellers, or soldiers; the church is as such a tent . . .
Jesus, the Cornerstone will bring the nation together against these wicked leaders.
However, there may be another interpretation: The allusion may be to Judges 4:21 where Jael, “the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died.”
A wicked king in Canaan, Sisera, was subdued by a “tent-dwelling woman.” So, too it will be a lowly carpenter’s Son [Jesus] who will drive the nail destroying wicked leadership of God’s people (Rev. 20:11f).
And the final implement of war and destruction—of overcoming wicked leadership—is the bow; used as our drones are today to bring down enemies at a distance.
My imaginary conversation came around to the LORD Who can crush me with His little finger. Leaders, in the home or workplace or church, who think they are so powerful to control and suck the life out of their subjects need beware:
The Cornerstone, nail, and bow of the LORD will ultimately destroy those who have been raised up to lead and who have used that privilage and responsibility to oppress God’s people instead of serving them.
Zechariah calls for repentance as all the minor prophets do. Will wicked leaders heed the warning? Will they turn from their wicked leadership before the LORD crushes them with His pinky?
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
“The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care,” says Timothy Witmer, author of “Shepherd Leader.”[1]
That seems basic to the Christian, and yet how many bosses view their leadership this way?
The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.
A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”
The picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord” that is expressed by “words and deeds” says Richard Rardin, author of “The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.”[3]
Rardin says that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4] This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.
Unfortunately, some ministries fail due to shepherds who take advantage of their position and power over the sheep.
To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of a pastor’s assistant who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach – 1 Tim. 5:17) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral position).
The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra or jazz ensemble who perform under the “first chair” or lead player, must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.
This is particularly treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd.
John’s Story
John’s story is very similar to Susie’s [her story]. I heard his story along with Susie’s nearly the same week.
John spent one and a half years serving his congregation before resigning, under pressure, due to the autocratic behavior of the Senior Pastor. He noted, as we talked, that his purpose for accepting the position was that Pastor “Jim” said, “I’ll train you, give you preaching [opportunities], visits . . . the whole gamut of ministry.”
John was very excited to gain valuable experience in ministry following his seminary training and this position appeared to provide the opportunity. However, John resigned from the position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Jim.
Pastor Jim’s toxic leadership came out particularly in “pharisaical” ways which can be understood as practicing (and normally) advocating for extra-biblical rules, treating them as necessary for holiness.
The Pharisee
John described an incident when, as the Youth Pastor, he was encouraged to visit the local crisis pregnancy ministry. He spoke with the director, who had contracted HIV-AIDS from his wife, had experienced his baby (who also had HIV-AIDS) “die in his arms,” was divorced from this wife, and in the end became a Christian.
In the course of the discussion, John decided to bring him to speak to his youth group. There was a 16 year-old mother in the group and he hoped that it would be of real encouragement to her.
He approached Pastor Jim to seek permission. Because the crisis center director had an earring, John decided it would be wise to inform the pastor due to the “fundamentalist” leaning of the church.
After telling him about the earring, Pastor Jim “just killed it right there.”
Stuck in the Middle
In another incident, John was seeking permission to move the 16 year-old mother to the “college group” because “she was still of the mindset that [she was] a teenager” and he believed the college group would provide more maturation for her.
Again, Pastor Jim did not allow him to exercise his authority as the Youth Pastor and John was “stuck in the middle” between the pastor and families that were concerned for their own young children that were in the same group.
John found it necessary, as one under the authority of the pastor, to “come up with some reason of why the pastor [thought it] better to leave her” in the youth group to mediate between his boss and the anxious parents.
Shepherding the Agnostic
John said to me, “Shepherding is my favorite aspect of working in ministry” and related an opportunity he had to shepherd a teenager who had told his parents he was an “agnostic.” The teenager was finding it difficult to believe that his parents loved him and would support him despite his unbelief.
John was able to encourage him and help him through that time of questioning. The young man later turned to the Lord and John believed the Lord has used him in the young man’s life.
However, despite his success, John was placed in awkward positions with the senior pastor, particularly when he was leaving the ministry. His concern for the authority of the pastor and peace of the church was evident in our discussion.
Like Susie, John said, “I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving. I didn’t want to see a schism,” as he described two leaders in the church (Deacons) coming to him to discuss actions by the senior pastor. Though John did not mention the word, “gossip,” he implied that he was very careful with whom he spoke during the crises and when leaving the church.
He also sought to limit the relational damage of the pastor by speaking with few people in the church about his experiences. Though John was very careful to keep his frustration contained by sharing primarily with family members, he said,
“If I had had more interaction with the deacons, who were also frustrated, it would have been very difficult to stay supportive, to not complain, not gossip.”
The Emotional Damage
John experienced many opportunities to use his giftedness for the building of God’s kingdom in his assistant role in the church. However, he noted that seeking to work alongside a pastor that practices autocratic leadership can be emotionally damaging.
John spoke extensively about the emotional difficulties of ministering under Pastor Jim.
Again, like Susie, John observed multiple times when his supervising pastor was highly authoritative and hurtful to those under his care.
However, he realized the significance of the emotional injury only later, as Susie said when I interviewed her.
Long Time of Healing
John said he and his wife took a year and a half out from ministry to heal from the hurt caused by the pastor.
John noted that he spoke with both his father and uncle who are pastors, to gain perspective emotionally. As he evaluated his response to the toxic leadership of the pastor John noted that he “spent most of that year and half frustrated” and didn’t “have good spiritual disciplines established.”
Because of this, he said, “I didn’t process through things as I would have.” His year and a half out of ministry following his resignation was because he “was more broken than I should have been had I been processing my emotions more effectively.”
John believed that had he had a deeper relationship with the Lord, he would have seen his context more clearly and resigned more quickly.
However, according to John, that time of struggle in ministry was invaluable to his growth as a leader. He said,
“I learned from it that my relationship with Christ needs to be what gives me the confidence and satisfaction rather than my relationships with the pastor, or church . . . it needs to be much more personal . . . that union with Christ. Who am I in Christ?”
His ability to be self-differentiated, while operating in an environment of broken relationships and anxiety was a valuable lesson John learned. He shared that though he “didn’t have the guts to argue with [Pastor Jim] at that time,” he would at this point.
In addition, he learned that much of his training in seminary focused on the idea that the pastor receives the vision from God and passes it on to the congregation. Having experienced this form of leadership from Pastor Jim, he recognizes that it is actually devastating to ministry.
Sharing With Others
There can be many emotional challenges for the assistant as he interacts with members of the congregation and an autocratic senior pastor. John noted that most of the leadership (Deacons) in the church have since left the church primarily due to the autocratic leadership of the senior pastor.
When John was preparing to leave this particular ministry, two of the deacons came to him and asked him about his experiences with Pastor Jim. He said,
“I was much more open with them. I knew I could trust their discretion . . . not go blabbing around. I didn’t want to see the church hurt as I was leaving.”
But, to complicate matters, John explained that his supervising pastor was unlikely to respond to any confrontation by him or congregant members, having seen others seek reconciliation and fail.
When describing the pastor, John said,
“He was convinced of his philosophy of ministry so the problem was the church, it wasn’t him. I don’t feel like that there would have been a way for him to see his own shortcomings in that.”
Pastor Jim rejected any exhortation he was given, shifted the blame, or said he would try harder to no apparent effect.
He’s in Charge
John had an amicable relationship with Pastor Jim,
“But, I knew it was very clear, from the moment I got there, he made it very clear he’s the leader of this church. He’s in charge . . . So, the level of authority that he exhibited – that was intimidating to me, because I knew his word was final. So I wouldn’t ever push that.”
John felt “defeated, like my hands were tied. Like I had no authority.” He was given the task of leading the kids, but he had to do exactly what Pastor Jim told him to do.
“But, how exactly is that leadership? I don’t have any authority to make decisions.”
Having come to learn ministry, the actions of the pastor “really took the wind out of my sails.” There was very evident frustration in his voice as he described the inhibiting of his ability to minister to the youth by Pastor Jim’s authoritarianism.
Quitting Leaders
As James Kouzes and Barry Posner say, “People don’t quit their organizations; they quit their leaders.”[5]
It is not an infrequent occurrence that those who are called to gospel ministry find employment in churches led by autocratic pastors. The often devastating emotional effects on those who serve as their assistants are felt for years.
Rather than enter into a joint ministry that provides a learning environment for an inexperienced assistant, the assistant’s gifts are squandered by “self-serving leaders [who] use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves” rather than train and equip their assistant in ministry.[6]
Those caught in these emotional triangles of pastor-assistant-church must navigate relationships that are fraught with emotion, balancing respect and submission to the senior pastor and care and shepherding for the congregation.
Because these senior pastors are often given extensive authority by elder and deacon boards that are more inclined to “herding instincts” – keeping the peace at all costs and doing what the pastor says – the assistant is left to cope with the emotional struggle, sometimes unaided by those in the church.
Assistants that have a high view of the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation have little recourse as the one with whom they seek to correct for the purpose of reconciliation holds the keys to the church humanly speaking and are unresponsive to confrontations described in Matthew 18.
Two to Tango
Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango”.
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.
Sometimes it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.
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.
Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.
Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.
Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.
We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.
Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.
Is He Successful?
But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”
He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.
I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.
They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.
I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the churchI own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.
The Shepherd
The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.
The Strongs Dictionary says,
“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary
We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.
Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.
A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.
But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.
Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13
Responsibility, Not Authority
Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.
A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.
He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.
The sheep do not fear him.
You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.
Not take authority.
Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.
And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.
The Bible is repleat with examples and the modern business and Christian organization world is full of them. It is a huge temptation for any organization that feels more dependent on donor funds than God.
Only in the Christian organization it is spun as “being an example for Christ.”
In other words, truth does not really matter. What really matters is if appearances are kept up for the public. Then Christ is glorified.
And it just so happens, the money flows better that way. Contributions roll in unabated.
But, Jesus never told his people to fake it until you make it. In fact, He most commonly called those who do hypocrites and that was not a positive assessment of their spiritual state (Matthew 6).
Saul and Image
King Saul reigned in Israel approximately 1021–1000 BC. He was their first king, which is a story in itself (not to be discussed here).
At one point he was told by the prophet Samuel to attack Amalek. He did as commanded by the Lord. But, though being told to destroy everyone and everything, Saul spared the king and held onto the best of the sheep and oxen.
Samuel came to Saul having been told by the Lord, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:10)
As Samuel confronted him, Saul immediately began shifting the blame to the people. Samuel told him the Lord was stripping him of his kingship. Saul responded,
“I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30 (ESV))
“I have sinned.” Sounds like he got it right. But listen to those words following.
“Honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. . .” His image is of greatest importance here. His confession is only a ploy to please the prophet. His desire for honor far outweighs his relationship with the Lord.
Samuel seems to think so as well.
He tells Saul that he will not return with him and walks away. However, Saul won’t stand for it and grabs the prophet’s robe, tearing it. Samuel in turn uses Saul’s disrespectful action as a metaphor and tells Saul that God is tearing his kingdom away from him just as he tore Samuel’s robe.
And then Samuel returns with Saul and finishes the job Saul was supposed to do.
Outward Appearances
Saul is a good (evil) example of the image-driven pastor, organizational leader, or business CEO. The Lord does not look on outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:12) and you will never get away with being driven by an image rather than the real deal (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees through that. God knows your character through and through.
You cannot put on airs with Jesus like you do for your adoring public.
Jesus will bring it to light at some point.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and never airs its dirty laundry . . . run.
It is unhealthy and hypocritical.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and tells you all the ways that it does ministry better than anyone else . . . run.
It is unhealthy and they are lying.
We Will Crush You
When an organization is driven by image, you can be assured it will do anything to keep that image alive.
That means the leaders will lie about wrongdoing. They will crush dissent. They will refuse criticism . . . even constructive criticism. They will put on a facade for the donors.
On a side note, this is of what NDAs are made. NDAs are often intended to keep that image alive through silencing its victims while offering cold cash for the buyout.
I worked for a mission agency like this. I watched it in action. And I drank the Koolaid for several years. I am not above being sucked in.
My wife had to confront me (in her gracious way) following a missions conference when I came away all blustery about how our mission was so much better than all those other missions.
It was less than a year later that all that image crumbled before me and we left the mission beaten and bruised by the toxic leadership.
It is insidious. Don’t take part in it . . . it will kill you.
For helpful information on “impression management” by Wade Mullen:
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.
