Strange Fire: Holding Leaders Accountable

Posted on December 30, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

There is a strange dichotomy when it comes to respect and accountability.

There are those who see leaders as just one of the boys. They wish to get rid of as much hierarchicalism as possible. Leaders are just normal people given greater responsibility. They fail like the rest of us. Give them a break.

On the other hand, there are those who look to 1 Samuel 24:6 (or other passages) that say, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’S anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed.” They give great regard to leaders, considering them the “Lord’s anointed” and are careful to show due respect. Probably better just turn a blind eye to their failings.

Both recognize the need for church leaders and a need to follow and submit to them. There is no real disagreement there.

And Then There Were Bad Ones

The difficulty comes when you have a bad—really bad—leader. How does our theology meet this challenge? Do we give the benefit of the doubt? Do we turn a blind eye? Or, do we bring the hammer down?

Scripture is replete with the call to respect, honor, and submit to leaders (Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22, Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 5:17). No organization, religious or political, would survive without followers who submit.

However, some may be surprised that the respect, honor, and submission to leaders in the home, workplace, nation, or church are not absolute according to Scripture.

Bad leaders are held to account by the Lord and His people are called to hold them accountable for their failures where they have that ability.
Tweet

The Lord Holds Leaders Accountable

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. ² And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. ³ Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.
Leviticus 10:1-3 (ESV)

Nadab and Abihu had been instructed clearly what kind of incense—the exact mixture of spices—was to be used in the worship of the Lord in the Old Testament tent of meeting (later Temple). For some reason they had taken this lightly and done their own thing.

The Lord struck them down.

We can surmise that the Lord was making a very clear example of them just as He did with Ananias and Saphira in New Testament times (Acts 5).

Another example of the Lord holding his leaders accountable is Eli’s family in the Old Testament.

Hophni and Phinehas, sons of Eli, were priests who led in the worship of the Lord when Israel was moving towards a monarchy. They were failing to follow the requirements of priests and they were sexually assaulting the women under their leadership who served the worship of God’s people (1 Sam. 2:22-25).

Like Nadab and Abihu, the Lord took them out (1 Sam. 4).

In each of these cases, the punishment was death and it came directly from the Lord. The LORD held them accountable for their leadership sins.

And His People Hold Leaders Accountable

It is important to note that the Lord also reprimanded Eli for his failure to hold Hophni and Phinehas accountable for their sin.

Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me . . .
1 Samuel 2:29 (ESV)

It is not just the Lord to Whom we look to bring accountability, but we, as His people, are also responsible for keeping church leaders accountable. Do note that Eli was both their father and the primary priest who was in authority over Hophni and Phinehas. It is not implied or stated that these men’s wives were expected in the narrative to hold their husbands accountable. It would not have been safe for them.

Paul effectively navigates the honor and accountability of leaders issue when he writes to Timothy, a young pastor he has mentored:

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” ¹⁹ Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. ²⁰ As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. ²¹ In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
1 Timothy 5:18-21 (ESV)

After encouraging congregations to provide for elders (pastors), showing respect for their position, it says leaders can not only be challenged by congregant members for their sin but be publicly rebuked.

Leaders are not free from criticism or accountability by virtue of their high position. Church leaders should hear complaints and investigate in a timely way.

There is to be no “partiality” given to leaders. It was the cultural norm that leaders were given more leeway in their failures. They were very powerful and influential. Even in our time, social media may get blown up, but most leaders are given the benefit of the doubt. Only when things completely fall apart does accountability come.

However, we are to hold leaders accountable. Do not show partiality to them.

Matthew 18 vs. 1 Timothy 5

In addition, Matthew 18 takes us through the normal process of confronting a brother who has sinned against us. In Timothy, Paul raises those stakes when it comes to church leaders.

In this passage, the report (confrontation) is coming from two (or three) witnesses, apparently to the leaders in the church (Timothy). This is not the one-on-one confrontation Jesus teaches in Matthew’s Gospel where the individual is to confront a brother directly and do so by himself.

In Timothy, the witnesses (multiple) go directly to others (possibly other leaders), with no mention of the sinning leader being in the room, and the leader who is sinning is publicly rebuked.

It is at times unsafe to congregant members (or employees of the church) to go to a leader to confront just as it is in a work situation where the boss has the power to fire or make your life miserable. This is often a problem in confrontation ethics. Most naysayers will immediately quote Matthew 18 and complain about someone who is uncomfortable confronting a leader one-on-one. They will say, you must go to the sinning leader one-on-one to be biblical. That is the experience of hoards of people who have sought accountability for their leaders.

But, Paul’s words appear to provide a confrontation ethic for these situations specifically with leaders. In Timothy the Word is speaking about church hierarchy, unlike Jesus’s words in Matthew’s Gospel. And he does not suggest one-on-one confrontation, but rather two or three speaking on the side with other leaders. Again, there is no mention of the sinful leader being present.

The “whistleblowers” are given protection.

And there is more.

The abusive leader is held accountable.

Higher Standards

Yes, we honor and submit to leaders. But, Scripture also makes it evident that those same leaders are called to a higher standard of accountability.

As leaders they are responsible to be an example . . . and so their failure is also to be an example. These are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 5:21. The public rebuke is “so that the rest may stand in fear.” Leaders are not given greater benefit of the doubt. A public statement is not kept under wraps indefinitely in order to show honor and respect.

It says in the ESV, those “who persist in sin” should be publicly rebuked. Note that the word “persist” is not in the Greek text. It is an interpretation by the translators that, after being challenged by the leaders following a report of misdeeds, the one who continues to sin is to be rebuked publicly. This interpretation seems to be saying that only the unrepentant leader is to be publicly rebuked.

But that may not be what Paul is saying. Paul may be saying that because there are multiple witnesses to the leader’s sin, the leader has a pattern of wrongdoing that is doing damage to God’s people (or others) and needs to be stopped now! It is evident that he is unrepentant.

In fact, it may help to look at other translations of that verse:

Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear. (ASV)
Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid. (HCSB)
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (KJV)
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. (NIV)
1 Timothy 5:21

There is no mention in other translations that there is a “persistence” of sin. Other translators did not read in unrepentance but have given us a more literal translation of Paul’s words of exhortation.

Is it possible that Paul is saying that the fact there are two or more witnesses means there is a pattern of sinful failure (or the sin affected multiple people) on the leader’s part and there needs to be a public response?

His failures are not isolated, but rather widespread or major enough and need to be stopped?

It is possible that he has been confronted . . . over and over. This has been my experience in interviews with those who have struggled with a toxic leader.

For the Good of the Church

Maybe the number of gross leadership failures in recent years will be prevented in the future by immediate and decisive action. Maybe Paul’s exhortation would provide an example for leaders who believe they are “above the law.”

Decisive action on the church’s part will bring an end to horrific leadership.

For the good of victims. For the good of future victims. For the good of all those under the leader’s authority. For the good of the church or organization.

And for the good of Jesus Christ.

Hold leaders accountable. Do not put up with their strange fire.

Giving Leaders a Free Pass: The Story of Praise

Posted on November 30, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

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.

Pastoral Steamroller: Michael’s Story

Posted on September 2, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

Editor’s Note: This is the Third in a three-part series. See Part One and Part Two.

They had started, it seemed, on a road to healing from the destruction of relationships and the eye-opening experience with toxic leadership in the church.

“It is with an incredibly heavy heart that I write this letter to inform you of my decision to step down as an elder, and my wife and my decision to leave Peace Community Church.”

The Williams were moving on finding no way to stay.

When Michael Williams wrote his resignation letter to the other elders at PCC, he was heartbroken by the actions of their pastor towards him and his wife, Kate. [P&S has shared her story]

But his story, though closely entwined with Kate’s, is also a unique story of spiritual abuse.

Michael’s Story

Michael has thought that maybe the verbal attack Kate had suffered under Pastor Ensome may have actually been primarily directed at Michael. As Michael said, “Kate got the brunt of it . . . before Pastor Ensome¹ and I had a chance to meet.”

Michael had served as an Elder at their former church and was “confused and frustrated” by the elder meetings at PCC. There was a great deal of focus on Pastor Ensome’s teaching and “harmony,” whereas, the business of the church seemed to be much less talked about. To be discussing the pastor’s teaching and how to create harmony within the church were important topics, but the emphasis just seemed over the top.

Michael had come into the new leadership position ready to learn. He recognized that churches would handle their business differently and he would need to learn the leadership culture of PCC, in contrast to his previous church where he had also served as an elder.

However, leaving important budgetary requests frequently to the very end of the meeting, allowing little discussion, and the Pastor largely steamrolling the decisions seemed unwise to Michael. . . and contrary to the concept of the plurality of eldership considered important in their theological traditional.

One of Those People

So, Michael met with Pastor Ensome to share his suggestions for more efficient and effective meetings (that more time could be spent on important business) and Pastor Ensome seemed amenable, particularily to his suggestion to have an agenda and get it into the hands of the Elders in advance.

The Pastor said he would give his other suggestions some thought.

After several months of meetings and no appreciable change, Michael met with Pastor Ensome once again. But before they even got started, the Pastor asked Michael, “Are you going to bring charges against me?”

In Michael’s denomination, pastors are under the oversight of other pastors and elders. There is a “court system” that handles “charges” brought by members of the denomination. It can at times be very helpful in settling major disputes that are not necessarily matters for the civil courts.

However, Michael had no thought of taking such action to the church courts and was “dumbfounded” by the pastor’s question. Michael told Pastor Ensome,

“I was there to help and I was not making personal accusations . . . the items were primarily organizational in manner and only meant to benefit PCC.”

As they began talking, Michael asked if the church did any staff reviews. He asked to whom Pastor Ensome, for example, was accountable? The pastor clearly got his back up and responded, “Jesus, my wife, and on occasion I speak with a couple pastors.”

In other words, he was not accountable to his fellow elders, only those pastors who he would see infrequently and had little idea of his leadership in the church.

From that point on in their relationship Michael sensed a “defensive” and “cold” manner from Pastor Ensome. Michael said, “I felt I was relegated to ‘one of those’ . . . people who he held in disdain.”

Michael explained that those were “people who disagreed with him were considered less spiritual, or somehow beneath him, as I have learned from others who found themselves in a position of having different opinions than Pastor, including former elders.”

For months the pastor seemed to avoid eye contact with Michael and did not even greet him unless he was in a situation that demanded it.

Common to many toxic organizational structures is either a formal or informal policy of dictatorship. Some organizations, like Michael’s church, have a polity (church structure) that is centered on a plurality of leaders, providing mutual accountability as instructed in Scripture. In addition, the pastor is simply considered “first among equals” in his relationship to the other elders who serve alongside him.

Though the church polity provided for and directed a leadership that is equal in authority, in practice it is apparent that PCC is really a dictatorship as will be seen in Michael’s story.

Building His Legacy

A major property purchase by the church was presented to the elders by Pastor Ensome.

Pastor Ensome sent a draft letter to the elders that he hoped would be approved for him to send to the congregation regarding the purchase. Pastor Ensome was acting as if he was accountable to the other elders.

Michael responded to the letter with some questions and comments. But the pastor’s letter went out to the congregation a week later and it had misleading information without having addressed Michael’s questions.

Michael said, “I was open to the consideration of the purchase, but felt strongly there was a need for discussion, due diligence, and evaluation first for the benefit of the church.”

However, Pastor Ensome wrote in the letter, the “elders believe this is the right course” though Michael had never agreed to it.

“The whole process was one where I had questions and reservations which essentially were prevented from being discussed on a timely basis nor even with a sense of due diligence.”

On Being Shut Down

Michael asked the pastor if the Elders could spend some time in a weekend leadership meeting to discuss the purchase. Ensome told him yes, but that he would have very little time.

Michael waited and waited throughout the meetings over the weekend, finally asking the pastor when he was going to be allowed to discuss the purchase or not. Pastor Ensome grudgingly said maybe later.

It didn’t happen.

Michael was allowed to express his questions and concerns at the next Elder’s meeting. But the ball was already rolling . . . or steamrolling ahead. The purchase was moving forward. There was no encouragement of addressing the questions and concerns by Pastor Ensome, who seemed obviously disturbed by having to allow Michael time to speak. He just wanted to move along.

So, Michael also asked to be present for an inspection of the purchase and was told no by Pastor Ensome. In fact, only those selected by the pastor were allowed to attend the inspection.

As it turned out, there were major problems with the property. The building needed to be torn down and was not feasible for use as the pastor had communicated to the congregation.

The steamroller moved ahead. The purchase was made.

Staying Engaged

Michael was encouraged to continue serving by former elders. But he was learning an unfortunate lesson about PCC’s leadership:

“I found the board to be little more than, a ‘rubber stamp’ for Pastor Ensome as he regularly got whatever he wanted with little pushback or minimal discussion.”

Again, common to these authoritarian organizations or churches, boards are often hand-picked and/or manipulated by the pastor or CEO to become just an “old boys’ network.” Board members who don’t comply, are generally forced off the board one way or another (as was the experience at PCC).

After making the property purchase, Michael was asked to chair a “vision” committee made up of other elders and one other church member. They met with the staff pastor and Pastor Ensome during which “[Pastor Ensome] dominated the conversation at that time and expressed no concerns of the committee.”

The purpose was to develop a ministry plan for the purchase and involved a survey that the Elders and then possibly the congregation were to be given.

Isolating

When the survey was presented to the Elders for their review and input, Pastor Ensome accused Michael of creating an “illegal” committee, going against denominational rules. Michael said the tension among the elders was palpable and Pastor Ensome later sent a letter to the Elders apologizing for his behavior.

There were two elders present who had served on this committee and they said nothing.

It was soon after this, and before Michael could meet with the pastor, that Kate experienced Ensome’s wrath in a meeting of her own [here is her story].

After Kate’s infamous meeting with Pastor Ensome, Michael, Elder John and a staff pastor met with him.

Michael described what happened:

“To begin the meeting Pastor Ensome gave a one-page handout of scriptures beginning with John 14 and other verses including 1 Corinthians 2:14, Acts 1:6 and 14, and Acts 13:2 and 46. He then proceeded with a 20-minute sermon. The message I got was that Pastor Ensome was spiritual like Jesus, while Kate and I were not. He never admitted the cruel words he had spoken or his wide ranging and harmful accusations against Kate, but rather seemed justified in his actions and opinions.”

After the pastor’s “sermon” Michael got a chance to read Kate’s letter out loud to the elders explaining why she had come to Pastor Ensome in the first place for counsel. However, the pastor quickly tried to shut him down by interrupting him as he read his wife’s account. Michael pushed back and told him “firmly not to interrupt” but elder John and the staff pastor present did nothing to stop the bullying – they sat quietly.

The staff pastor has since apologized for his failure. “He said what was needed were men who feared God more than man and sadly, he was not one at that moment.”

In Michael’s experience and many with whom I speak, leaders who abuse their spiritual authority make it difficult for those who serve with or for them to stand against his tide. Whether weilding a sense of spiritual superiority, power over their careers, or simply taking advantage of other’s desire to please the head honcho, standing up can be difficult.

All leaders, who abuse their authority, enjoy the complicity of others who have a say in their employment but do not take the steps to stop toxic leaders.

Michael said,

“We are now aware that while at PCC and after we left, both of us were slandered by Pastor Ensome on numerous occasions, calling into question even the integrity of our faith – not being spiritually minded but worldly in our trust. He tried to control us by how we might share our stories with others before we left, but clearly does not feel the same constraints on his own behavior.”

In a letter to the elders, not including Michael, Pastor Ensome laid further groundwork for his own narrative. That narrative made it evident that to challenge his understanding of God’s plan for PCC was to challenge God. Who can stand against such a standard?

The pastor wrote,

“Were we following a living God who has a plan for his Church, or were we following our own plans, and all the talk of prayer and keeping in step with the spirit was just a pious smokescreen? Michael thought of me as irresponsible when it came to vision; my pushback was that God already had a vision and our mission was to discern and follow it.”

Pastor Ensome’s own pious language is confusing to those uninitiated to spiritual abuse. He made bizarre judgments of the Williams’ hearts – something of which he had accused Kate – and made it clear he was in line with God’s vision.

To go against him was to go against the Lord.

“While Michael and Kate had a passion for purity, and embraced a rigorous moral ethic, I believe the focus of their lives was a personal sense of how things ought to be, not Christ and his kingdom. . . “

The pastor’s “focus” of his life was Christ and his kingdom; the Williams’ was not.

The “Investigation”

Sometime after the Williams left the church, at the urging of the staff pastor and another employee, the elders instigated an investigation of complaints. The elders were encouraged to talk to the Williams but the Williams found it necessary to contact the elders themselves.

There was a former elder who had faced Pastor Ensome’s abuse several years earlier with whom the Williams encouraged the elders to speak. The elders declined and weren’t interested.

There was a “briefing” following the investigation. The congregation was called together and the pastor gave a “confession.” The staff pastor, employee, and Williams were informed of the briefing but were forbidden to speak.

After reading a transcript of the “confession” it takes on the typical type of repentance talk common to abusive leaders. He had been called out for his sin and he found it necessary to show some humility.

However, these confessions normally take on very general ideas – no specific examples of their sin are shared. This was indeed Pastor Ensome’s confession.

Interestingly, he notes a lifelong pattern of abusing (not his term) other leaders, a clear disqualification for eldership. He admits to being confronted by his son . . . and sharing that he humbly received the criticism.

As the Williams noted, “Some members took [it] as an apology and some thought he was talking about sins all of us could relate to because he was vague.”

In addition, Kate explained that she had “an email exchange with one of the elders after and he admitted that the confession was not all it could have been but a starting point.”

True confession and repentance includes specifics. It means truly owning up to the sin and facing the humiliating process of being wrong.

And true repentance means seeking forgiveness and making restitution.

Protecting Others

As Michael finished his letter to the elder board, he urged them to take steps to stop the pastor’s abusive leadership. He wrote that he and Kate came to realize,

“The abuse of power by bullying, control, using the scriptures to condemn, shunning, and slander have been going on for a long time. There are many individuals, particularly those in leadership whose sin was to challenge Ensome in some fashion. We were told that for many years, other elder boards (or the remnants after some elders left) have chosen to defend Ensome, the shepherd, at the cost of the sheep scarred by his attacks.”

Michael and Kate have called upon the elders to take their positions of authority seriously for the protection of God’s people (Ez. 34). They hope that the leaders will hold Pastor Ensome accountable and not be “duped” by his manipulation.

After Michael’s resignation, two elders reached out to Michael. One said he was going out of town but wanted to meet on his return. Michael said he never followed up. The other expressed surprise on reading the letter of resignation and expressed sorrow on hearing about the difficulties (abuses) mentioned.

The details of the attack on Kate had evidently not been shared with all of the elders. Those details were kept quiet by the Elder John and another elder who tried unsuccessfully to address the sinful behavior of the pastor.

The elders have, to date, not sought to meet with Michael and Kate to understand fully what occurred. Apparently, they are content to let them go and protect Pastor Ensome.

Pastor Ensome has never contacted Michael.

Comfort

While Michael thinks of James 1:6 when he thinks of Pastor Ensome, he does not dwell on it. “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”

However, Psalm 9:9 has been a comfort, and Michael has held tenaciously to its words: “The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.”

Indeed, Psalm 9:9 is a banner that flies before many survivors of abusive leadership in the home, church, and workplace. The Lord seems like the only stronghold at times when isolated by the abuse of others and the disbelief of those to whom we turn for help.

NOTES:

¹ The names used in this article are fictitious, but the general story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract others while applying the lessons learned.

Since this story was written, Pastor Ensome was investigated by a third party and soon after retired.

PCC’s Dirty Little Secret: Kate’s Story Part Two

Posted on September 1, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series. Part three can be found here when it is posted.

It has been two years since the Williams left Peace Community Church.¹ They would have remained silent had the abusive leadership not proceeded to crush others the Williams love.

“Michael and I loved being at Peace Community Church. We loved the community, the worship and a place to serve. We were deeply hurt that we felt we could no longer stay. All at once we lost a place to worship, a church community, fellowship with people we loved. And we lost ministries that we felt God had called and gifted us to serve in.”

We carry on with Kate’s story of pastoral abuse.

Part One of Kate’s story may be found here.

Blame-Shifting

Just as we see in the Garden of Eden, we tend to blame-shift when confronted for our sin (Gen. 3). Toxic leaders make an art of it.

What the Williams discovered is that abusive leaders will often “change the narrative from his/her verbal abuse to the person’s (that they have attacked) sins and call the attack a conflict.” It is just another form of blame-shifting where the attention is placed on the offended and taken off the offender.

Pastor Ensome wrote one email to the Williams where he described the experience of a member who came to his house and later told others he had “yelled at her.” He complained to the Williams that his wife and daughter were in an adjoining room and they had said Ensome did not “yell” at the woman.

Pastor Ensome has both admitted to and others have described his anger. It does not come out necessarily in a loud voice but in attitude and words. In his email telling of the story he basically admitted to examples of a significant problem for his leadership – anger [see Titus 1:7-8].

But he skillfully wove the narrative to once again make himself a saint and the woman a liar. The confrontation at his house wasn’t about his sin (what she was confronting him for) but rather about the woman’s perception of his response.

In doing so, he made sure it was understood that he was the humble one AND the persecuted one effectively shifting the blame.

It’s All Your Fault

In an email three months later, the Pastor continued the spiritual abuse, misusing scripture to badger and excuse his poor shepherding, shifting the blame to Kate. He said in the email,

“Jesus knows you, and all that you have done for him. Really, that is all that matters. If my words turn out to be false, then your honor in your service to Christ is all the greater. You are the only one who can fail to walk with integrity with Christ. I really have no power to destroy what matters to you and to the Lord Jesus. My words really make little difference, if any.”

Notice the sleight of hand he uses here? While supposably apologizing and entitling the email “encouragement,” Pastor Ensome in essence told Kate that his words don’t mean anything. It is her fault if she does damage to the integrity of her walk with God.

It is her fault.

The blame for her deep hurt is found in Kate doing damage to herself. Not in his words. Pastor Ensome has no culpability for his words.

As Kate said, a pastor’s words carry a lot of weight. “Especially a pastor whom I had respected, admired and trusted. How could my pastor say such hurtful things in such a mean, and cold manner?” This is why Paul and James suggest teachers and leaders should have more accountability [James 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, 5:19-20]. A pastor’s words have special authority.

Kate shared,

“He told me that my eyes emanated judgement so, for weeks after that meeting I questioned what I looked like to people when I was talking to them. He stated that John (an elder), who I also respected, had issues with me. But, John emphatically responded that he did not. . . He told me the staff pastor had told him I couldn’t get along with the ladies that I had poured so much of my heart and energy into serving. . .Though the staff pastor told me he never said anything like this to Pastor Ensome.“

And yet, Pastor Ensome suggests that words will never hurt her. The only way his words can hurt her is if she is spiritually weak . . . so, now it is her fault.

Isolating the Target

When Pastor Ensome told Kate the staff pastor and elder John both had difficulties with her, he effectively isolated her.

One of the most common, and effective means of controlling the narrative is by forcing the victim into their own little bubble. . . where there is no help. Or, so it seems.

Kate, for a time, thought she was alone in her struggle with Pastor Ensome. She and Michael had no one to advocate for them. According to the pastor, everyone was against her.

But, fortunately the truth won out as both the staff pastor and other elder (John) made it clear to her that they had nothing against her. In addition, the long-time member shared common stories of abuse with her.

Though we do not want to depend on others (rather than Christ) for our strength, God has made us for community and for bearing of one another’s burdens.

And so, they can no longer keep silent.

No Longer Silent

Kate and Michael have learned that their silence for the past two years is not helping the body of Christ.

Though they have gotten free of Pastor Ensome’s abusive leadership, they are determined to stand by those who are continuing to suffer under his misuse of spiritual authority. Just as others suffered before the Williams showed up on the scene, there are others who continue to face Pastor Ensome’s wrath; including two recent employees.

One has resigned and another has been fired.

“Pastor Ensome’s words took away from me part of my identity and undermined the loving relationships I had with those I served. He damaged my trust in others in positions of authority. . . We have come to realize that it may not be in the best interest of PCC for us to remain silent because keeping silent may actually be hurting the church if Pastor Ensome is allowed to stay in his position of power.“

It is a risk to stand up against someone who has authority. There is real danger. But this is the way of the cross; to risk harm in order to seek truth and healing for others who are not free.³ As a friend of theirs helpfully shared,

“There is no neutrality with this sort of sin. You either confront the abuse, or you enable and embolden it. Silence only serves the abuser. Sin grows in the dark.”

Comfort

When I asked Kate what Scripture has been helpful as they have sought healing, she mentioned Psalm 18:1-3. She explained, “He truly was, in the early days after Pastor Ensome’s attack, my Rock and Refuge.”

She also added that she felt ministered to by Psalm 34. It helped her to remember to “praise Him everyday and remember His faithfulness and goodness.” Kate said, “Verses 17 and 18 in particular were promises to hold on to. Even though this was a painful experience, there was sweetness to it because the Lord’s Presence became such a comfort.”

Like many of the psalmists, survivors of leadership and domestic abuse can know that the Lord hears prayer and He knows what it means to be cruelly abused and mistreated. He has faced it Himself.

But, unlike others who have survived abuse, the Lord is powerful and able to bring vindication from the deep wells of His love for His people.

Part Three of this series (Michael’s Story) can be found here on September 2.

NOTES:

³ Was it not this very thing Jesus did to bring us freedom; to suffer the loss of His life at the hands of the authorities in order to bring freedom to others.

The names used in this article are fictitious, but the story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract from the lessons that can be learned from their story.

PCC’s Dirty Little Secret: Kate’s Story

Posted on August 31, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a three-part series. Part two can be found here.

It has been two years since the Williams left Peace Community Church.¹ They would have remained silent had the abusive leadership not proceeded to crush others the Williams love.

The Williams had an amiable relationship with Pastor Ensome. He has pastored over 20 years in the same church and is well respected by other pastors in their denomination. Kate Williams described him as “a good preacher.” She said he could be “charming and self-deprecating.”

Kate also noted that he appeals to people’s pride and sympathies. She explained to me,

“Michael and I loved being at Peace Community Church. We loved the community, the worship and a place to serve. We were deeply hurt that we felt we could no longer stay. All at once we lost a place to worship, a church community, fellowship with people we loved. And we lost ministries that we felt God had called and gifted us to serve in.”

Why did they leave and are now telling their story?

Kate’s Story

It began several years ago when, as a member of the church, Kate was asked to help with a ministry at PCC. She spent some time speaking with each of the members individually and developed a committee to meet the needs that were expressed.

After three years of serving in the ministry, Kate was asked to head up another committee, a committee on which she enjoyed serving at a former church. This was where her heart truly was and so jumped at the opportunity. Kate felt free to move out of leadership of the first ministry as it was moving along smoothly.

After about a year, she was involved in reigniting a ministry of PCC. In the initial phase Kate called Pastor Ensome with her exciting news that there was real interest in the ministry. She was also calling to ask if they had the “church’s support to go ahead” with the ministry.

The pastor was affirming, but was “adamant that he did not want [a particular family] involved in leadership.” Kate didn’t ask why, but said, “This put me in an awkward position of having to either find someone else or do it myself. Pastor Ensome encouraged me to lead.”

It seemed that she could do no wrong. Pastor Ensome was appealing to her skills and she was encouraged. She wasn’t really seeking out ministry opportunities but rather being asked to lead ministries.

Then Something Happened

Kate and Michael were hosting an at-risk child and were struggling with feeling alone in their ministry to the child. She sought out a meeting with Pastor Ensome to share those struggles in hopes that he would share some wisdom, having had experience with special needs children. She knew her husband Michael, an elder, had a disagreement with Pastor Ensome the week before at an elders’ meeting but it did not occur to her that their disagreement could impact her meeting with the pastor.

From the very beginning of the meeting he seemed cold and disconnected from her.

She soon discovered why. Pastor Ensome went on the attack, accusing Kate of all sorts of things and defending himself:

He told Kate she was a judgmental person. He said, “Judgement emanates from you. You can see it in your eyes and that is why people move away from you.”
He stated, “You and Michael are so far off of how a church should be run.”
He “confided” in her that a staff pastor had told him Kate left the first ministry she served because she couldn’t get along with the women and that said something about her personality. The staff pastor confirmed later that this was not true.
He told Kate that John, the elder she worked closely with on a committee “had issues” with her. John, when asked the next day, said that no matter what she had been told, she had not offended him in the slightest. And, in fact, he considered her work inspiring.
He said, “I built this church,” and proceeded to name all the things he had done for the church.

Kate began crying and he told her “that my crying was good because now he could see my heart because most of the time I just seem to be running around checking things off a list.“

She was deeply hurt by this barage, which went on for about 20 minutes, and was baffled by the hurtful comments. She felt completely blindsided.

Michael explained, “There was no love, no gentleness, no kindness expressed. Kate says that she has never been spoken to in such a mean-spirited manner in her life.”

In a later email to the elders Pastor Ensome confessed that he had dismissed Kate and Michael and added he had done that with others before. He confessed that it was offensive to the Christ’s church.

It is still unclear why Pastor Ensome went on the attack.

The Dirty Little Secret at CCC

But soon she found she was not alone.

When talking with another volunteer the next day, the woman said,

“I’m surprised that this hasn’t happened to you earlier. You have made a lot of changes here and Pastor Ensome doesn’t like change. I know of several people the Pastor has attacked through the years.”

Later, the woman found Kate and reiterated her comments, noting that her husband had been verbally attacked by the pastor multiple times.

Two days later, Kate talked with a long-time member and the member told her Pastor Ensome’s behavior was Peace Community Church’s “dirty little secret.” She explained that the pastor attacks anyone who he perceives to be threatening his control over the church.

The member shared with Kate, “There are three groups of people related to PCC: the walking wounded, the unawares, and those who had left.”

As light was shown on the darkness of Pastor Ensome’s leadership, more was revealed:

“I was told that ‘he would destroy me’ if I tried to push back and the best thing for us to do was for Michael to resign as an elder and for me to quit the committee and remove ourselves from any activity that involved Pastor Ensome so that he could not further harm us.”

Keep your head down. Remain under the radar. If you want to continue in any form of ministry. I don’t know how many times I have seen this played out by those who are suffering under toxic leadership in the church, organization, or business.

Unfortunately, the one left standing seems to always be the toxic one.

Changing the Narrative

There are numerous signs of toxic leadership. Though each experience has its unique flavor, there are many common factors.

One of the techniques used by toxic leaders is to “change the narrative.”

It didn’t take long for Pastor Ensome to begin changing the narrative. The pastor became self-righteous in his handling of the situation. He needed to bring Kate down to his level by suggesting she was just as culpable for the broken relationship.

“If both of you [Kate and Michael] feel that the offenses are only my fault or the church’s, I’m not sure anything can be done. Most reconciliation instruction used needs to include each party addressing their own sins (Mt. 7:5). When I have tried to reconcile with people who were unable to identify sins on their part it was not successful. I don’t think it wise to seek reconciliation in those situations. I would recommend you read Ken Sande’s work, ‘The Peacemaker.‘”

Later he wrote, “In my letter I was making the point that there is sin on both sides. But if you and Kate don’t think you have sinned, I don’t think we will be able to have a useful conversation about the conflict.” He added, “But in that case, we will need to discuss your roles in leadership at PCC.”

In other words, we are equal in our sin as we all sin. And if you don’t admit that, you will lose your leadership position.

Apparently, he has always occupied the high moral ground. It was those other people that could not admit their sin and he simply could not do anything with that, thus minimizing his own sin.

In addition, several months later in an “apology” letter of sorts, he told Kate and Michael that he did not have any negative thoughts towards Kate before the meeting in which he originally attacked her. However, in a letter to the elders he delineated the reasons why he needed to confront Kate.

He evidently had done some premeditation.

Pastor Ensome also said in a note that he was blindsided.

Who is the Offender?

Toxic leaders easily manipulate Scripture to their benefit.

Pastor Ensome leveled the playing field by pointing out the biblical concept that no one is free from sin. There are frequently sins committed by both parties in a conflict.

Though admitting that all are sinful, Pastor Ensome sidestepped his own culpability by suggesting they read Ken Sande’s book called The Peacemaker. It was a subtle shift from admitting his own sin to Kate’s supposed sin.

Ken Sande founded Peacemaker Ministries to help churches in managing conflicts. It is very helpful unless there is abusive leadership at work. Sande acknowledges this. He notes in his writing there are different ground rules for managing abusive situations.

In normal relationships, it may be helpful to own up to your own sins when confronting an offender, just as Kate did in one of the meetings. It may help the offending party humble himself and own up to his own sin.

But, the onus still falls on the offender and must be kept there in the confrontation (Matt. 18:15).

Pastor Ensome treated Kate horribly when she only came looking for help. It was his anger that built up towards Kate and Michael. It was not Kate’s sin and should not have been treated as such in managing the situation. There can be no backing down from this or the abuser will take advantage and there will be no resolution. . . in fact, generally there is no resolution when dealing with abusive leadership (or abusers in general).

Toxic leaders manipulate scripture so that they don’t have to come clean regarding their own sin.

Intimidating the Witness

Toxic Leaders spiritually intimidate.

After a meeting between Michael, the staff pastor, John (elder), and Pastor Ensome – that did not include Kate as she was “not emotionally strong enough to attend,” – another meeting was arranged with Kate.

There was still hope to salvage the relationship. Though Kate wanted to confront the pastor, she continued to work hard win his favor. She shared with me,

“It was an awkward meeting. . . I was in so much distress in encountering Pastor Ensome for the first time that I don’t clearly remember all that was said. I found it difficult to even speak. I had shared what I was planning to say with long time members and they told me that was the ‘stupidest thing I could do.’ They told us the only way to stay [at PCC] was to submit to the Pastor. So, at that meeting I basically said I was a sinner, I was open to rebuke, and that if I had done something offensive someone should have told me earlier. Pastor Ensome had already devastated me and I could not risk being destroyed by him.”

Pastor Ensome apparently was pleased by her humility and told her he didn’t mean to hurt her. He stated that his issues were with Michael.

He had effectively intimidated both Kate and other members into believing it was necessary to bow to his superior spirituality or suffer the consequences.

Continued

There is more. Kate’s story continues in Part Two (2). Part Two will be posted on Thursday, September 1.

NOTES

¹ The names used in this article are fictitious, but the story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract from the lessons that can be learned from their story.

^[2]Ken Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 156.

Tyrants Leading the Church: Seekers of Position, Role & Status

Posted on July 27, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

*First in a three-part series* on women who were sexually abused, one of their families, and church leadership that failed to protect and care for them.

Calvin and Charlotte¹ raised their daughters with what they considered a strict adherence to Biblical teaching. When their daughters exhibited concerning changes in behavior in their teen years, Calvin and Charlotte didn’t understand why and searched for ways to change their parenting.

They explained, “In our search for answers, we embraced purity culture and the ‘Vision Forum’ patriarchal teaching.” They did not realize how that would add to their daughter, Mia’s burden.

When Mia revealed that she had been sexually molested at a young age by the son of a church deacon, then later by the nephew of her childhood pastor, and raped as a young teen by two men in the another denomination (one being a youth leader), so much of what Calvin and Charlotte had failed to understand became clear.

Mia’s change in behavior at home and struggle with the church had its roots in her experience of sexual assaults.

The Spiritual Abuse Was Worse than the Sexual Abuse

It was not too late for Mia, but the church and her parents needed to respond to her struggles in light of these horrible experiences as a child.

Unfortunately, Mia did not receive the response she so desperately needed from the church. However, Calvin and Charlotte worked through the issues with Mia, coming to learn much not only about sexual abuse, but also spiritual abuse.

Mia’s pain runs deep and she continues to struggle with the church. The way the community responds to the report of abuse from a victim greatly impacts their healing process and the church failed miserably. Calvin and Charlotte are still hoping that the church leaders will learn from this experience and be biblically responsive in the future.

Her Story

When Mia approached the church leadership – elders who were assigned to care for her – the abuses she had received as a child were only piled on higher and deeper. Mia concluded that, “The spiritual abuse [at the hands of the church leaders] was worse than the sexual abuse.”

Mia’s husband of ten years was disengaging from their marriage so she reached out to the elders. She had remained silent about the sexual abuse by men within the church for 17 years but now shared her trauma with the elders. As her parents explained, Mia must have had a significant trust in the elders to share her story with them after hiding it in the dark so long.

It was a very important step for Mia if she was to begin healing from the sexual assault.

Not only did she share her story of abuse but, in that time of vulnerability, she confessed her own sinful responses that grew out of those horrifying experiences. Rather than a time of care and redemption, she experienced more shame from the elders. [More on this in a future blog]

In a letter to their daughter, Calvin and Charlotte said,

“Unfortunately, your experience proved that your elders were not safe. When you told them about the state of your marriage, when you shared the details of your abuse, their response was not to protect and care. Instead, they put the burden of your circumstances back on you.“

One particular elder, when meeting with Mia, was unbelievably harsh with Mia, who had been sexually assaulted by men within the church as a child and had lost her husband and father of her children.

Mia was crying out for help, and the elder “crushed her”.

Mia recounted an exchange she had with this elder in a meeting with two elders of her church. She was humbly describing to them her lack of “Biblical maturity.” She didn’t want them to treat her like a pastor’s daughter. She told them, “I am not here” (using her hand to point up high), “but here,” (then lowering her hand to designate her “lack of maturity”). The elder responded saying, “You’re not even here Mia, you are here,” while pointing to the ground.

Piled higher and deeper.

Qualifications for Elder

In another conversation, the offending elder asked how Mia and her husband were doing following a meeting with the two elders. Mia told him that she had tried talking to her husband and it was no better. At that point she did not know her husband had been having an adulterous affair. The elder responded, “You do talk too much. . . maybe try not talking.”

At every turn the elder turned the responsibility on Mia rather than listening to and supporting her in her pain.

The other elder and church pastor should have taken their shepherding responsibilities seriously. They should have stepped in when they observed and were informed of the offending leader’s harsh and Pharisaical conduct. However, they continued to defend this elder. In addition, an investigative committee from the denomination’s regional organization seemed to suggest begrudgingly that he had failed in his shepherding.

Calvin and Charlotte continue to ask the question why no one was willing to hold the elder accountable for his unkind and hurtful behavior. What did his fellow elders stand to lose?

Form Over Substance

When Mia wrote a letter to the elders sharing her hurt, they did not respond for weeks. After not hearing anything for weeks, Mia, along with another elder brought an additional concern about the offending elder to the church board. When Mia once again received no response, she brought him up on charges to the regional committee with the hope of getting help from the denomination.

Finally responding, the elder board wrote to her saying, “Your filing judicial charges has complicated the matter,” not, “We are so sorry we have failed to support you in your incredible need.”

Rather than share the love of Christ, providing support to receive counseling for her horrible experiences in the church, they began to cross their t’s and dot their i’s. In a letter to Mia they continued to point out that she didn’t follow the church rules in how she brought to their attention the failure of the offending elder’s shepherding.

“It is clear to us that you have misunderstood the nature of personal and non-personal offenses, as well as public and private offenses. First, our Book of Discipline III.4 states, ‘Offenses are either public or private. Public offenses are those which are commonly known.‘”
Elder Board’s letter to Mia

It goes on ad-nauseum. A bunch of gobbledy-gook to distract from the issue at hand and their duties as God’s shepherds.

In addition, Mia said they “threatened to bring charges against” her for writing what she wrote.

Calvin and Charlotte pointed out to me that they have become convinced that the elders are mostly concerned about “their position, role and status.” They are “puffed up,” as Paul warns Timothy when choosing elders (1 Timothy 3:6).² As I read their letter and listened to descriptions of meetings with the elders, they seem to be pounding their chests, defending, and justifying their actions rather than humbly seeking to shepherd the flock.

And in their wake they are leaving deeply hurt people of whom the Lord Jesus Christ gave them opportunity to serve.

Again, in their letter to their daughter, Calvin and Charlotte said, “Men, shepherds, leaders in Christ’s body went to great lengths to make sure what truly happened was hidden and, in the process, they attacked you.” They went on to say, “[The elders] would not deal with heart issues and hid behind process.”

Where Do They Go from Here?

When the church “courts” fail to bring justice and mercy and faithfulness in the relationships they are called to provide for, protect, and love, where do you turn?

In the case of these elders, they have done nothing illegal to report to the civil authorities. However, they have clearly failed on many accounts to shepherd the flock of God and should be held accountable. Where can Mia, Calvin, and Charlotte turn to bring that accountability?

Waiting for the Lord to bring vindication certainly is a biblical option (Psalm 135:14). However, doing nothing means the elders will be allowed to continue to mistreat God’s people and diminish the church’s Gospel witness to the community. God continually calls His people to step into the melee and seek justice for the vulnerable [Isaiah 1:16, Proverbs 1:2-3].

In their case, the family has chosen to use social media. When the failures of an elder have destroyed many relationships and the complicity of his fellow leaders are compounding the problems, it is important to bring help to others who are suffering under their leadership. In order to warn others, it may mean bringing in the various types of media.

Again, speaking about leadership in the church, Paul tells his young charge, Timothy,

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”
1 Timothy 5:19-20 (ESV)

There is a standard for “charging” an elder. When there has been a significant number of broken relationships (“two or three witnesses”) caused by the elder in question, it is time to bring it to the church – to make it public.

How far abroad is it publicized, Paul does not state. He did not have social media in that time.

But, his letters to various churches were read widely even as they are today in our social media. In more than one place Paul brings to our attention the wickedness of specifically named early church leaders (2 Timothy 4:10, 14). Those men’s names, which appear in Scripture, have gone down in history, having been an example of foolishness and evil to the church for centuries. Those words have been read by millions, if not billions of people.

The “engagements” his words have had far outnumber the most viral post of today’s social media.

Horribly offended members of the church may choose to make known the offenses of a leader in social media, emails, news outlets, or other public places after finding no help from other church leaders. It is my recommendation that, as an advocate, you take a deep breath and walk alongside the abused member to bring accountability to the leader. You may be uncomfortable with broadcasting it far and wide, but the healing of the victims and the accountability of the leader are more important.

The primary goal is love and love demands that an erring leader is brought accountability because scripturally, a leader is held to a higher standard than congregant members (1 Peter 5, James 3:1). It is likely that this is why Scripture holds them to a higher standard. . . from his place of authority and opportunities to teach, the damage he can do goes well beyond the scope of the errors of those under his charge.

Rather than judge the traumatized, seek justice for the oppressed.

Leaning Into Their Story

Let Calvin, Charlotte, and Mia’s story help us learn how to respond to the deep, deep hurt of those who have faced abuse. Recently, I have had numerous conversations with others who do not know how to engage with someone who has been abused.

So often the trauma from abuse has created incredible physical effects and those who have been abused will often seem crazy as they repeat themselves, mix up facts, and struggle to make sense of their experiences. It isn’t crazy; it is the physical response of the body to protect itself from further harm.

Second, leaders in the church need to learn humility, open their ears. . . and close their mouths. Had Calvin, Charlotte, and Mia’s church leaders considered Jesus’s condemning words to the Pharisees, they may have taken a breath and asked how they could help Mia instead of pulling out their church policy manual (Matthew 23 – nearly the whole chapter).

And finally, church leaders need to realize that they are held to a higher standard of behavior and when they fail over and over and show clear signs of abusive leadership, they should expect their story to go far and wide. . . as well it should.

NOTES:

¹Calvin, Charlotte, and Mia are NOT their real names. Though they were unconcerned having their names published, it is P&S’s desire that there be no distraction from their story. The church denominations that failed them have also been kept anonymous for the same reason. Their story could be told in every denomination, and indeed I have heard these stories in numerous denominations. Lest readers think this could only happen in that denomination, P&S wants them to know it IS happening in their denomination.

² 1 Timothy 3:2-3 says an elder should be of “good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome due to the power he possesses.” Several of the items listed by the Apostle Paul are pointed at how the leader is to relate to others. Hospitable, gentle, not quarrelsome, not authoritarian. If a man has significant difficulties with these, he is not qualified to lead in the church.

Accountability Guilt: Jack’s Life in the Wilderness Under Abusive Leadership

Posted on July 22, 2022 by pearlsandswinesite

When is enough, enough?

More often than not, leadership abuse survivors struggle with “Accountability Guilt.”

When we were leaving our mission work after nearly eight wonderful years working with our fellow missionaries and our national hosts, we were driven to bring accountability to our toxic leadership.

We knew that they would shift the blame and justify and defend against individual complaints. So, we reached out to approximately fifty missionaries, no longer serving with the mission, requesting that they sign a letter asking the mission board to hear the stories of those who had been wounded by the abusive leadership.

Over forty responded to that call and signed a letter seeking some kind of accountability for the leaders.

From what we have heard, nothing every happened. No interviews. No change in leadership.

Battle Weary

At this point, do you continue to go to battle? Or do you throw up your hands and give it up?

Pastor Jack was hired by a large church in the south to be a church planter in their city.

The trouble began when he interviewed for the position. He and his wife had flown to the city where he spent the first two days in interviews, was given the third to explore the city, and then would preach on Sunday at one of the daughter congregations.

At 6:30 AM on Saturday, the tourist day, Jack and his wife were awoken to his phone ringing. It was Sam, the church’s Executive Pastor. Sam was not ordained to ministry, but acted and was treated like he was a pastor.

Sam asked Jack to meet him in the hotel restaurant for breakfast. Jack was “confused, but jumped in the shower and went down not knowing what to expect.”

After some pleasantries and small talk, Sam “leaned into” Jack and asked, “Do you want this job or not?”

Jack had sought to be humble in his interviews, noting in his answers that if they were to hire him. . . if he were to come. . . But, now that seemed to be turned on him. Later he would piece things together. The Executive Pastor took on an arrogant posture for which Jack wasn’t prepared. Jack explained that it sounded like Sam was saying,

“Hey, we are the pretty girl at the dance! You’ve been in a small town church planting/pastoring for the past seven years and now you have the opportunity of a lifetime. There are men who would do anything to work at [this church]. Do you want this job or not?”

The Executive and Senior Pastors continued to browbeat Jack following his hiring over silly and inconsequential things. They were critical of his preaching. They were critical that he wasn’t getting enough people in the pews. Jack wasn’t a “skilled master builder.”

Whose Ministry?

On Sunday mornings the various campus pastors got together to pray before heading to their various church campuses. On one of those Sundays, Jack’s wife was not feeling well. They had planned a “new comers'” lunch at their home. They held these lunches in their home over a home cooked meal and in a relaxed fellowship setting.

Jack asked the other pastors to pray for his wife. Sam responded by telling him to take them all out to lunch instead of having them into his home. Jack said,

My gut told me that was a bad idea (taking 14 people to a restaurant in the city would be difficult; plus the point of the new comers lunch was to provide a more relaxed environment for getting to know these folks in our home). So I answered Sam back, ‘If we don’t do it today, I’ll reschedule it for next Sunday.’ I used my own discernment.

The next day, Sam came into Jack’s office, sat down, and said, “Jack, what kind of man are you? The man who says, ‘Yes sir,’ or the man who says, ‘F*%# off,’?”

In retrospect, he believes he should have told Sam to never talk to him that way again and put in his two-week notice. He said,

But. . . What was I supposed to do? I had just bought a house in [the city] 6 months prior. The congregation had just started. My kids were in the schools. I felt like I was in a bad marriage. I was trapped.

Another time, the staff was on a retreat for several days. A member of Jack’s congregation had been diagnosed with leukemia and was pregnant. On the second to last day of the retreat, Jack was informed the family had lost their baby. He decided that he leave the retreat early and minister to the family.

Rather than encourage Jack in his ministry to this hurting family, the pastors took affront. Jack explained,

“Later the next week, I was called into Sam’s office and [the Senior Pastor] and Sam said, ‘Jack, you thought it was pretty important to leave the staff retreat early.’ I was stunned and didn’t know what to say. I was sitting there thinking, ‘Someone’s baby just died and you are chewing me out for leaving the staff retreat a day early?’ Later the next year, the woman with leukemia also died.”

A Better Place

The arrogant, harsh, and authoritarian treatment Jack received under Sam and the Senior Pastor in the end drove him out. He said,

“I do know this. [The church] was a confusing wilderness for me. And in the wilderness, Jesus did an amazing work of grace in my life. I am a better pastor because of my time at [the church]. But not because [it] was a healthy place that taught me how to be a pastor. It was because [the church] was an unhealthy place and taught me how NOT to be a pastor.”

Fortunately, the Lord has given him a much better place for ministry. Jack’s new church has loved him, cared for his family, and encouraged his gifting as a pastor. He is in a new place without bitterness or anger.

The Question Remains

However, the question remains: Does Jack have a moral duty to continue seeking accountability for his pastors?

Jack sent a letter to his denomination’s regional council suggesting there be interviews of others who have been wounded by Sam and his former Pastor. And he would like for these two men to be challenged by the words of those interviewed:

Ideally, I would love to see those two men really listen to my story and the stories of others. And as they listen, I would like them to say nothing. Just listen. And then after some time to reflect on how much they wounded those that were under their authority, how big the debris field of pain and confusion that they left, I would like their hearts to be softened, to be warmed by the grace, the love, the kindness, and the gentleness of Jesus for them. My hope is that when the Lord works His grace in their hearts, they would then respond by repenting for specific sins and asking for my forgiveness, which I have already extended to them in my own heart.
from a letter to the regional council

The regional council responded to his letter, having spoken to the pastor, and asked for Jack to sit down with the pastor and two member of the council to talk about his experience.

The pastor sent an “apology” to Jack. The letter was less than a page long and included a very general apology. 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 going back into the fray with his pastor.

It is the same ol’ struggle. Are we to continue pursuing the steps of Matthew 18 until there is resolution at the highest levels of church authority?

As I have written many times, our responsibility in following Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 at times end with Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:6. Jack has taken numerous steps – one-on-one and with those of higher authority – to bring accountability. But, if there is “danger” in continuing to confront the pastor, he is free to move on and allow those in higher authority to do their job.

It is indeed the council’s job to bring accountability to the pastor as his ruling authority. The question now becomes,

Will those with the authority to act on the employment of a wicked leader take their responsibilities seriously?

Isolation: You Are Not Alone

Posted on December 29, 2021 by pearlsandswinesite

Mary and John joined a mission work. They were excited about their ministry in which they would work shoulder to shoulder.

But, now on a mission field far from home, they were under the director’s seeming complete control. Their work visa, their house, their children in the mission school. Everything was controlled in some way by the mission agency.

And the director abused his authority and created daily drama in their lives. He lied. He manipulated. And he isolated them.

There a number of ways those, who are abused in the home or workplace, are isolated by their abusers. Isolation provides secrecy and a means for the abuser to remain unaccountable for his sin. So, abusers may isolate his victim –

Spiritually — The abuser may use scripture to control and manipulate, twisting it to suit his own needs. He seeks to isolate you from the Lord by suggesting God is on his side and not yours.
Relationally / Emotionally — The abuser may continually remind the victim about her lack of support from others. “Everyone else thinks you are wrong,” he may say though it is just a lie. He wants you to think you must stick with him because no one else has your back.
Physically — The victim may be held in a prison of the home and kept from engaging with other people. Or, the victim may be far from home on the mission field and have few options to reach out or get home to those who can help. An abuser knows this and takes advantage of it.
Financially — The abuser may hold the purse strings, keeping financial accounts secret or only allowing an allowance. If you have no financial independence or choices, you are dependent on him.

Each of these isolation techniques can be overwhelming.

But, Jesus knows our isolation.

When Jesus was on the cross, He “cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?‘”

This cry of despair came just before He died.

Jesus’ agonizing cry of isolation came when He probably felt completely alone in His incredible sufferings. Both Mark and Matthew make the point leading up to this exclamation that all who sat down by His cross, or were passing by, were ridiculing Him. They were making fun of Him.

Not only was Jesus suffering great physical pain with nails in his hands and feet, but incredible isolation from fellow humans. Again, both Mark and Matthew record that even His supporters—women who had followed him through thick and thin—sat a distance off from Him.

I can’t help but think that Mark and Matthew wanted to make a point by the use of their terms that show Jesus’ isolation. Likely, the women knew there was danger in being too closely alligned with this condemned man.

Isolation.

Complete isolation.

Isolation from God

Add to his relational isolation from people the isolation when it seems God is far off. “Why have you forsaken me?” Jesus cried out to His Father.

Jesus was quoting from His ancestor, King David when the king was also in despair.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
Psalm 22:1-2 (ESV)

Jesus, like David, felt the isolation that is complete when even God (Emmanuel—God with us) does not seem to be with us. God, the One Who can truly save. The One powerful enough and loving enough to save does not save.

That is truly isolation.

It is bad enough when men (and women) all around us do not believe our story of abuse in the home or workplace. When they pull back because of discomfort in hearing our story or the church excommunicates you because you seek freedom from your oppressor.

But, when you feel that not even God is answering your cries for help? That is isolation.

Standing by

As God’s people we need to stand by those who have suffered the violence of emotional, spiritual, sexual, economic, or physical abuse. We need to be the hands and feet of Jesus as He calls us to always stand by these who are being crushed.

That may mean we stand in the gap formally or informally.

We may be called by the LORD to be an intermediary (advocate) between a church’s leadership and a victim. Or just be present in court appearances with a victim. Or present a structured separation to the abuser. Or stand up to their boss or board of directors on their behalf.

Each of these should be done wisely and at the direction of the victim. Their safety – in the home or in the workplace – must be the goal of our taking a stand.

Even so, as God’s people stand in the gap, the isolation can be intense and deeply felt. As those on the outside, be cognizant of the victim’s pain, and patiently bear with the abused as they heal. It can be a long and difficult process to once again really experience and know God’s constant presence.

There is more to the story . . .

As we have walked alongside those under abusive leadership in the home or workplace, we have seen the joy that comes in the morning. The isolation, sometimes seemingly unending, does come to an end.

Because, God is never gone.

For those He calls His own, He never rejects or leaves. He will never leave nor forsake you, child of the one true King. This is one of the greatest of trues from the Word. God with us!

David goes on in his psalm to say,

In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
Psalm 22:4-5 (ESV)

David knows from experience that God does and will rescue in time. All Israel had known the presence and liberation of the LORD from their slavery to abusers in Egypt.

“Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning,” David says in Psalm 30.

Joy will come in the morning. The heartache and isolation felt now will be relieved. Other people, including your parents or children, may not believe you. But, your God, in Whom you trust, is there with you and will remain with you no matter how you feel.

And He brings deliverance whether in life or in death.

You are not and will never be alone, child of the King.

Authorized Unity: Loyalty, Allegiance and Fidelity

Posted on July 12, 2021 by pearlsandswinesite

*“If you are not trusting me, you are not trusting God…”*

When a collaborative church planting network chose Jennifer’s city for a new faith community, she and her husband were excited. They had enjoyed being involved in another church plant years before in another city.

Continue reading →

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

Posted on June 22, 2020 by pearlsandswinesite

Dave Marks’ father enrolled him in boxing lessons so “real boxers had a real person to hit instead of a punching bag.”

Dr. Marks wrote a short and helpful blog three years ago on conflict management [see here]. Despite the crazy dad, Dave’s thoughts are helpful for understanding the toxic work environment…or really, any conflict.

He used the boxing analogy to explain that he loved the corner of the ring that he went to when the 90-second round was finished. It was “safe” there. It was where he got to go when done getting pummeled. But the great value of Marks’ blog is in pointing out the underlying causes of how we react in conflictual relationships.

The go-to “corners” of the ring in conflict, as explained by Marks, are “relationships” and “personal needs.” He asks which we value most? The answer will determine in which corner we seek safety when the going gets tough…and, in my analysis, will determine the toxicity of the environment.

The Corners

As applied to leadership, those who seek to meet only their own perceived needs or only relationships will be toxic or useless. They will either be abusive or so passive they do not lead.

The one who is focused on relationships to the exclusion of their personal needs (or the needs of the organization) will be run over by those he (or she) is charged with leading. It may be that the organization needs a particular project to be completed. If the leader is bending to every personal request of his subordinates, the job fails to be accomplished. Marks notes that he will likely withdraw to save the relationship from conflict.

The leader becomes ineffectual.

However, a leader who is intently focused on his own needs (or the organization’s) and could give a hoot about his relationships with his subordinates, is likely to be authoritarian, abusive, easily angered, and controlling. If his relationships mean nothing, it is his own perceived needs that need satisfying. He must control and manipulate others in order to get what he desires.

He will be toxic.

Bad News

Each of these ineffectual leadership qualities can – and usually do, according to management researchers – create chaos in the workplace.[see blog]

Marks nails it on the head in suggesting that a true balance of valuing relationships and valuing personal / organizational needs will provide a safe corner in conflict…as designated on his chart in the upper right corner (“resolve”).

The one who balances these two extremes will have a resolve to bring order out of the chaos of conflict. They will work with the person they are leading and in so doing, will make the goal of their work clear and attainable. The leader will not fear the response of the subordinate but know clearly where they need to go.

The subordinate will know they are valued and will seek to fulfill the mission of the leader (or organization).

From Dave Marks’ blog on “How to Resolve Conflict”

Both Christian and non-Christian researchers have come to variations of this conclusion. The ground-breaking work of Edwin Friedman in “A Failure of Nerve” provides a glimpse into the toxic environments developed by those who are so focused on their own emotional needs, they run roughshod over their co-workers or subordinates.

These leaders often become so self-focused they place their own goals over everthing else and will manipulate and abuse anyone who stands in the way.

On the other hand, he also takes to task those who are part of the “herd.” These are the ones who are so concerned about relationships that they create emotional dependency or allow toxic individuals (who do not care about relationships), whether leader or subordinate, to rule the roost.

As I have written before, Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken Friedman’s research and noted the biblical connections. They point to Jesus Christ as the ultimate “self-differentiated” one as he stays connected in relationships and yet gets the job done. He relates perfectly, knowing the needs of those he engages, and yet always knows his mission and goals.

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

It is the perfect balance we all seek in our Christian leadership.

Ronald Enroth, an authority on cults, writes,

Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation.

We need to take the warning Enroth lays before us. These cultish leaders focus on their own needs and manipulate the relationships. They do not truly care about relationships and their subordinates have allowed themselves to become dependent on their authority. I have seen it in mission organizations, churches, and politics.

We need to remain engaged in relationships and recognize our own needs and the needs of our organizations. When a leader refuses to seek that balance, the organization is headed the wrong way.

It will not go well for the mission of the organization nor for the subordinates.

Book by Editor of P&

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

What others say about the book:

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

Subscribe To the Pearls & Swine Site Blog

And Then There Were Bad Ones

The Lord Holds Leaders Accountable

And His People Hold Leaders Accountable

Matthew 18 vs. 1 Timothy 5

Higher Standards

For the Good of the Church

Share this:

Praise’s Story

Physical and Spiritual Wounds

Rampant Authoritarianism

Continued Leadership Struggles

Healing

Share this:

Michael’s Story

One of Those People

Building His Legacy

On Being Shut Down

Staying Engaged

Isolating

The “Investigation”

Protecting Others

Comfort

NOTES:

Share this:

Blame-Shifting

It’s All Your Fault

Isolating the Target

No Longer Silent

Comfort

NOTES:

Share this:

Kate’s Story

Then Something Happened

The Dirty Little Secret at CCC

Changing the Narrative

Who is the Offender?

Intimidating the Witness

Continued

NOTES

Share this:

The Spiritual Abuse Was Worse than the Sexual Abuse

Her Story

Qualifications for Elder

Form Over Substance

Where Do They Go from Here?

Leaning Into Their Story

NOTES:

Share this:

Battle Weary

Whose Ministry?

A Better Place

The Question Remains

Share this:

But, Jesus knows our isolation.

Isolation from God

Standing by

There is more to the story . . .

Share this:

Share this:

The Corners

Bad News

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

Book by Editor of P&

What others say about the book:

Share this:

Subscribe For Latest Updates