Tag Archives: autocratic

Daniel in the Lion’s Den: A Leadership Quagmire

Posted on by
1
painting by Jerry Antolik

Daniel faced off with a toxic Senior Pastor and lost. That is usually the case.

But in Daniel’s denomination there should have been oversight that stopped the abuse. And yet, the abuse of leadership continues in his former church. It should have been Pastor Jim who packed his bags, not Daniel.

But generally, it is never that simple.

Many denominations have little recourse for those caught under abusive leadership in the church. They may be “congregational” in their church polity, meaning the congregation makes all or most of the major decisions and there is no group of individuals who have oversight outside the local church.

However, there are many denominations that do have some kind of board that practices oversight of the local church. They should provide safety to those in a congregation who are blowing the whistle on toxic leadership.

Daniel’s Story

Daniel knew Pastor Jim as a leader of his college ministry. After being fired by the college ministry, Jim planted a church in a bustling metropolis. Following seminary, Daniel was asked to join Jim as an Assistant Pastor. It seemed like a great opportunity to minister with Jim so, he packed up his young family and moved across the country.

For a year things went swimmingly. Daniel was getting all kinds of experience. Upon arrival, he immediately started an adult Sunday school, taught Sunday school for kids, led the college ministry, oversaw communication for the church, and sought nursery volunteers.

He even filled the pulpit in Jim’s absence 10 days after arriving.

Despite the long hours, he saw it as an incredible opportunity to get varied and valuable experience preparing him for future ministry.

Who is He Really?

But things fell apart quite suddenly.

Daniel lost his job, but as he noted, “The real abuse was not in being fired unjustly [which he was], but in [Pastor Jim] having to control the narrative in every situation…the manipulation, gas lighting, and his constant need to fight.”

Missy, Daniel’s wife, had not met Jim when they arrived to begin ministry. Daniel had said, “He is a big personality. People either love him or hate him.” She noted that Jim was very “charismatic.” “People were really drawn to him,” she added.

However, when things went sideways, things got very nasty for Daniel and Missy. There was such a sudden shift in Pastor Jim’s attitude, it deeply hurt the young couple. Daniel said, “In our final months there, he seemed to be driven by anger, fear of losing control, and a desire to have me painted in the worst light so that he looked like the good guy.”

Messy Accountability Model

When Missy, Daniel, and I spoke, she explained they did not know the “right questions to ask” when Daniel interviewed for the Assistant position. They were young and just out of seminary. They were excited to get going in ministry. It was a great opportunity.

As a church plant, it had “borrowed” leadership. There were several elders who were tasked to oversee Jim’s ministry, but were not local. In fact, all were out of state and two were Jim’s close friends.

As his friends, they would simply do Pastor Jim’s bidding. They really did not provide any oversight to the ministry as an elder board should according to Missy and Daniel.

But Missy noted they would not have likely listened to the answers to tough questions about Jim and the leadership structure had they even known to ask them. They were ready to jump into ministry.

The Battle Began…

One Sunday, Pastor Jim and Daniel had a disagreement when preparing for a particular element of the worship. Pastor Jim decided not to go ahead with that part of worship and seemed fairly gracious, in Daniel’s view, in explaining it to the congregation.

The next day, Monday (which happened to be Daniel’s day off), Pastor Jim called Daniel to come meet him in his office. There was a congregant there as well, one of Jim’s good friends from seminary. Pastor Jim explained how disappointed he was in Daniel bringing up his conscience “right before the service” – no matter that it was an hour and a half before and Daniel had provided a solution that had been used another time when the same problem came up and Daniel had for some reason rejected it.

Pastor Jim proceeded to “suspend” Daniel until the elders met the next week. He was not to have any contact with church members (except the elders). Pastor Jim included students returning to college that week with whom Daniel would normally meet.

Daniel summed up the situation, saying, “Our ‘face off’ on that Sunday morning was only made into that because Pastor Jim took a concern that I had and turned it into a black and white, right vs. wrong conflict, instead of listening and discussing our options and moving forward together.”

When he met with the elders over Skype the next week, the board reinstated him but “with caveats.” He was to “obey and follow” Pastor Jim.

From this point on, Daniel and Missy felt they were “walking on eggshells.”

Crazy Managing

A few weeks later, Daniel was presented with a document by Pastor Jim that included a variety of men’s names with whom he was to meet regularly. The pastor had complained to Daniel that he did not do all the things with which he had tasked him. Pastor Jim would regularly give him responsibility for piles of work.

Daniel noted that it was presented to help him grow personally in ministry, but “much of it seemed arbitrary or like busy work.”  The document was not presented as, “Do these things to the letter, or you are out.”  With so many other responsibilities, he had to figure out what was really important to the running of the church.

Pastor Jim struggled with articulating priorities. “Everything was a high priority in his mind,” and so, over the months, these tasks for Daniel’s personal growth became secondary to the weekly operation of the church.

Daniel said he “never received any feedback from the elders on those extensive reports, and only confirmations that they had been received from Jim.”

Following a very hectic summer of leading retreats and a camp, Daniel was once again called into the pastor’s office. Pastor Jim said, “I am very disappointed in your lack of getting things done. The priorities you set. I have been following up with the guys I had you meet with. You didn’t meet as often as I had specified. I will meet with the elders next week and determine what to do with you.”

Again, Daniel was required to refrain from any contact with anyone at the church while awaiting the meeting with the long-distance elder board.

The Resignation

The elders in the end voted to “dissolve” his calling to the church and ask for his resignation.

It was explained that if he chose to go to the hierarchy of the denomination to challenge their decision, he would give up his severance package. After getting much advice from other pastors, he chose to resign and move on from the “nasty situation” it had become. As I have shared this with others, their responses have been like mine: it sounded like blackmail. 

Pastor Jim wanted him to stay on for a few months to help in the transition. Daniel graciously agreed hoping things would settle down. Unfortunately, following a congregational meeting where they were told that Daniel had resigned, he was given
“strict guidelines to not meet with certain people and had to tell Pastor Jim” what was said if he did meet with someone.

Daniel noted, “If I did talk with people at all, my narrative was to be that ‘I fired myself’ by my actions…that I was the only party to have acted wrongly.”

Pastor Jim continued to retain control as Daniel explained,

“He and his close friend on the [board] constantly followed up with me after I resigned, and would call to berate me if they heard that others were dissatisfied with the way things were being handled, even when I hadn’t had any contact with those congregants.  It reached a point where they actively threatened my severance, my ordination, and informed me that they would never recommend me for a position in ministry.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Pastor Jim is driven, a “fighter,” “opinionated,” and “rough around the edges.” But, of course, very talented. He has attracted many to the church.

But this kind of leadership comes with a high price tag. The fallout may largely be in the inner circle of leadership – losing assistant leaders and elders which has happened – but it is very destructive to the whole body nonetheless. I have yet to see a church continue to flourish under such leadership.

It is a cancer.

There is always a reckoning.

Abusive leadership leads to destruction.

It is imperative that an abuser of God-given authority, like Pastor Jim, be brought to account. That accountability in itself can bring him to repentance…but if it does not, at least God’s people will no longer be oppressed.

Daniel said, “The real hurt came from working closely with him in ministry for three years and then having all bridges of our relationship burned so quickly, and then to watch his efforts to burn the bridges between us and the congregation.”

Daniel finished with a hint of hope.

“We trust that God will use our story to bring light to abusive leadership, give comfort to those who are experiencing similar situations, and be a catalyst for the peace and purity of the church.”

NOTES:

  1. Crippen, Jeff. Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church (p. 48). Justice Keepers Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

Sure Signs of Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
1
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Sure-Signs-of-Toxic-Leadership-e27dqg9

One of the occupational hazards of someone who studies and writes about abuse is an ever-present vigilance – often overdeveloped. I am very attentive to leadership failure. I can find it under every rock.

But I guess that is my job so others can think about other things maybe more productive.

Let me share some of those rocks under which I have found toxic leaders in my various interviews and experience. There are a number of indicators of abusive leadership and it is important to be able to diagnose toxic leadership and root it out from your organization.

Because it is nearly guaranteed toxic leaders will kill your organization if left unchecked.

The List

This is meant as a simple list and it is not conclusive. But it can give you something to consider if you are wondering if you serve a toxic leader:

1. Lack of Humility

Recently, a blogger listed the various evangelical leaders who have fallen by the way-side. He noted that each one lacked humility. “He cannot be wrong.” This is my warning to survivors of domestic violence or leadership abuse: run from those who do not have the humility to admit they are wrong. They are wrong at times no matter how often they tell you someone else is wrong.

2. Focus on Control

From micro-managing to mind-control, leaders who abuse God-given authority want to control everything. In Christian organizations control is often hidden behind the “Christianese” of despising gossip. As one ministry under-shepherd said, “He had to control the narrative.” One Christian business leader (of whom I have heard testimonies) makes it his biggest priority to root out gossip from the organization.

Sounds good.

The Lord speaks against gossip. But his hatred of gossip is in one direction. He is entitled to be free from being challenged for wrongdoing. If someone goes to him directly they are either torn apart (Matthew 7) or their complaint is ignored. Where do you go from there?

Wherever you go, it is then considered gossip by these authoritarians.

3. He is the Center

Closely related to number one is the leader who always takes the credit. Rarely is the leader really the reason something got done. Maybe he directed as a good leader should. Maybe it was his idea.

But it is usually the minions who are doing the hard lifting. The abusive leader makes it very clear he is the center of all that is good in the organization. We all want praise but these leaders are seemingly driven by little else.

And, watch out if they do not get it.

4. Blame-Shifter

Closely related to the first and second is the leader who deflects criticism by sending you in another direction. Someone else must be wrong if the leader is always right. Right? Often they create the environment that there has to be a fall-guy. There must be someone else to blame.

Often blame-shifting comes out when the leader talks about the large percentage of resignations from the organization. “They just weren’t supportive of our mission…They just couldn’t handle the hard work…They just couldn’t handle Africa…”

You might want to actually talk to some of those people to get the real story.

5. No Team is a Good Team

As a musician friend of mine noted not long ago, the conductor’s job is to help the orchestra (or choir or band) use their talents to the best of their ability to serve the audience. It is not his job to create a cult of self. The focus should never be on the conductor.

Good leaders build teams that help each other multiply their effectiveness by enjoying and using one another’s giftedness. Toxic leaders are (back to number 2) the center of their universe. And they want to be the center of yours as well.

6. Image, Image, Image

In our day of marketing genius, this may be a bit harder to get. We want to get our ministries out there so we let people know what we do well; that can include some pretty professional marketing. But those who have been part of a mission organization that practiced this will understand.

One Christian psychologist put it this way:

I often think of a narcissistic pastor who served in a rural setting in a very small church, who by all accounts was diligent and godly but who constantly compared his church to other churches with an attitude of judgment, lauding his church’s orthodoxy while quietly condemning other local pastors. 1

There are many mission groups or organizations out there that are doing God-glorifying work. When a leader is constantly comparing his ministry to others and touting that his organization is the very best, there is a problem going back to number 1.

In fact, maybe he believes his organization is the only one doing the work of God. It is ego-gratifying and it will eat you alive. And it fails to recognize the big team of God that is out there seeking to do His work.

7. Sweetness & Hurt

Not all toxic leaders practice this bizarre behavior but it is extremely confusing to those who do not recognize abuse. One moment the leader will go off on a subordinate, tearing him to pieces . . . the next they are sweetness and light. And usually with no acknowledgement that anything happened at all.

This is an indicator of “borderline” personality disorder. It is manipulative and destructive.

8. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

It is really hard for most employees or church members to believe: There are “Christian” leaders out there that lie through their teeth.

It took several years for us to finally realize that our mission leader was intentionally lying to us. We gave all sorts of justifications for his failure to “remember” what he had told us before. We even calmed others with justifications when they pointed out his lies to them. But it finally came down to him covering his own entitled self with lies.

This is not normal behavior!

Run or Confront?

So, those are some indicators of toxic leadership. If your boss is practicing these, have another vocation waiting in the wings and send out that memo. You can run or confront.

If you want to see repentance, your leader will need to be seriously challenged. They do not change through soft-pedling their wrongs. If you care for the organization and the work it is doing, help the organization root out the toxic leader.

NOTES:

1. Vrbicek, Interview by Benjamin. “The Many Faces of Narcissism in the Church.” ChristianityToday.com. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/march/chuck-degroat-narcissism-comes-church.html.

The Autocrat: The Destruction of a Good Team

Posted on by
Reply

“Self-serving leaders use the trust and authority that accrues to them to help themselves.”[1]

“Autocratic” leaders, as Herrington calls highly authoritarian bosses, rather than seeking the good of the sheep, of whom they are given charge, are self-focused. Their posture is one of self-serving in their decision-making and workplace relationships.

Why, Why, Why

Commonly, autocratic leaders seek to control those in their employ by fear.

Amy Edmondson, a business management expert and author, suggests that many leaders believe that the use of “fear increases control.” And, in their view, control increases productivity. But Edmondson says those who use fear use it unwisely to gain “certainty and predictability”. [2]

The goal for any leader should be to build a group of God-gifted individuals into a team that finds the best solutions for the services they provide in the redemption of God’s world.

But according to her study, the autocratic leaders’ desire for better performance from those under their authority is actually unsatisfied as they create psychologically unsafe environments for interaction and learning.[3]

If a leader wants to build a team, take advantage of his employees’ giftedness, and seek their buy-in, he will be sorely disappointed if he rules in fear. Where team members experience psychological safety – a state of knowing they can share ideas openly without negative repercussions – there is growth and production.

The autocratic leader may believe it takes “forceful advocacy to bring others along,” rather than welcoming the ideas and abilities of those under him. But it has the opposite effect.[4]

The authoritative boss leads by forcing subordinates to do what he deems best to do either through manipulation or fear. Because of the leader’s position of authority employees fear reprimand for any misstep when responding to these destructive managers.

Therefore, they will keep their good ideas to themselves and seek to stay under the abusive leader’s radar. The boss has lost the opportunity to build a better product or service.

Autocratic Dependency

Herrington, Creech, and Taylor describe a highly authoritative leader named “Steve” who felt that, like Moses, he was “responsible to get a vision for his church from God and deliver that vision to the people. In his view, the church members were responsible for accepting it and making it happen.”[5]

Steve’s authoritarian leadership created much dissention and in the end, he lost his position as senior pastor.

Herrington argues, “Emotional dependence on others drives the autocratic leader. Others are there to serve the leader’s purpose.”[6] Many would assume that this kind of leader was quite independent (seeming to have little concern for those under his authority), but according to Herrington, the autocratic leader is driven by controlling those under his authority to selfish ends and is therefore dependent on them to meet his “needs.”

Blame Displacement

In addition, autocratic leaders, being self-focused, often either fail to consider or are fearful of admitting their own failures and practice “blame displacement.”

One abusive leader, under whom I served, when challenged for his failure to protect those under his care immediately blamed a manager for what he was ultimately responsible.

Herrington defines this as, “the human tendency to look outward for explanations rather than inward.”[7] Blame is often placed on those under authority and this adds to an unsafe environment and broken relationships.

Patrick Lencioni argues that,

“Team members who are not genuinely open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation for trust.”[8]

For the interaction of pastor, assistant pastor, and congregation to be truly edifying, a mutual empathy for weakness and failure must be nurtured through the “confession of sins” to one another.[9] Edmondson suggests that when blame is placed on others when things do not go right, “productive discussion of the issues is less likely to occur” and “we begin to think less of others, and then may be less motivated to engage wholeheartedly in teaming with them.”[10]

Humility should be the motto of every leader. He should think about it when he rises in the morning, when he goes to work, when the sun goes down. Though he is called to lead with vision and decisiveness, the leader needs to be continually on his guard to retain the self-awareness that he too is a sinful individual and may be wrong at points.

In admitting those wrongs he will both learn and build a team that can come alongside to provide excellent service to others.

A Functioning Body

A lack of team perspective fails to give rightful attention to the uniqueness with which God has created each person. The Apostle Paul, speaking to a church torn apart by various moral deficiencies draws a picture of the congregation from the perspective of the functioning of the human body. He says,

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many.”[11]

Paul argues that every person’s giftedness is necessary for the correct functioning of the church just as it is for the human body. An autocratic leader fails to encourage this kind of necessary cooperative effort because he thinks he may lose control.

The fear of losing control drives an autocratic pastor to place blame outside his own attitudes and actions. In response, those who serve under his leadership and authority are likely to reserve the use of their gifts due to lacking psychological safety.

The environment created by this brokenness is less than conducive for the “building up the body of Christ” as described by the Apostle Paul.[12]

NOTES:

[1] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 52–53.

[2] Edmondson, Teaming, 508–509.

[3] Ibid., 1163–1164.

[4] Ibid., 4810–4811.

[5] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, 541–542.

[6] Ibid., 589.

[7] Ibid., 804–805.

[8] Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, 188.

[9] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. James 5:16.

[10] Edmondson, Teaming, 1277–1280.

[11] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Corinthians 12:12–31.

[12] Ibid., v. Ephesians 4:12.

Margo’s Story: Playing Second Fiddle to a Wolf

Posted on by
1

Timothy Witmer said, “The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care.”[1] It is unfortunate when those in authority fail to consider that little detail.

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!”

On the other hand, 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,” says Richard Rardin, author of The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.[3]

Rardin adds 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.

Scripture instructs the sheep to consider the shepherds “worthy of double honor.”[5] Witmer argues that God has called congregant members to live in submission to church authorities, specifically those called as “teaching” pastors. He goes on to say that the arrangement of a leader who dies to self and a congregation giving a “willing response of obedience” is an “advantage to all” involved.[6]

That is in the perfect world.

But church members are very vulnerable to those leaders who would take advantage of their weakness as those under authority. The prophet Ezekiel warned the leaders in Israel in the seventh century B.C.,

“You have not taken care of the weak. You have not tended the sick or bound up the injured. You have not gone looking for those who have wandered away and are lost. Instead, you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty. So my sheep have been scattered without a shepherd, and they are easy prey for any wild animal.”[7]

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The people of God are “easy prey” for wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus refers to false prophets. They may look like sheep, meek and mild, but behind the façade of harmless sheep they are “ravenous wolves”.[8] As the sheep, the nation of Israel, was scattered by the “harshness and cruelty” of the leaders, so church members are at times scattered by autocratic pastors and elders in local congregations.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of pastor’s assistants who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral care position).

The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” [drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra who perform under the “first chair” player] must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.

This becomes treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd. I have been fortunate to serve under a humble and empowering pastor, something not all assistants enjoy.

Margo’s Story

“Margo” served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members and has a Masters of Divinity. She served in a pastoral role under the supervision of the Senior Pastor of the congregation who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

Margo was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint. 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.

Margo resigned from her position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Mission Trip

Margo told me of a time that she was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to a southern African nation. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a group of African churches through short-term trips.

Pastor Pete gave Margo much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization in Colorado, 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. He explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to Eastern Africa, a trip neither Margo, nor her committee, had heard about.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told this, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete. In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had gotten his “feelings hurt.”

After the elder challenged the pastor for his lack of consideration, the pastor continued to laugh at him.

Making Matters Worse

Following the trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the southern African churches in which they ministered.

However, at the close of the service, Pastor Pete gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier. It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and team that had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the southern African churches by Pastor Pete.

The Real Power

Margo’s church had an elder board that 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 pastoral control and poor decision-making.[9]

The practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary 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 be perceived as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes 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 is destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

Coping

As Margo pressed on towards her goal of ministering to the congregation, 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.

She was concerned that sharing her struggles with others in the congregation would be gossiping and missing the point of Matthew 18 where much of the focus is on one-on-one confrontation and reconciliation.

So, Margo focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful for those who are bullied to receive encouragement and, possibly, biblical advice from those removed from the situation.[10]

However, the real problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what the assistant is facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the assistant’s 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 Margo’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire her and was under no real authority of elders. And Margo was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip.

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.” Like in the experience of many who have faced domestic violence, a well-meaning brother may suggest that since both individuals involved are sinful, they are both responsible for the broken relationship. 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.

Having said that, the emotional response of those caught in less than optimal ministry environments must be understood and moderated by principles of self-differentiation. It was clear in my interview with Margo that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success.

Responding to the Situation

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.

Margo took submissive postures with her supervising pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.”

It also provided helpful lessons to Margo to work under Pastor Peter.

She was forced to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gave opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God was sovereign over the future of her ministry. This was true to Margo whether she remained in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or went somewhere else.

NOTES:

“Margo” is not her real name.

[1] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 89.

[2] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 50:6.

[3] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.

[4] Ibid., 102–103.

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Timothy 5:17.

[6] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 92.

[7] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4–5.

[8] Ibid., v. Matthew 7:15.

[9] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.

[10] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 1

Posted on by
2

Jim was contacted to apply for a position as Youth Director at a medium-size church in the Midwest. He and Mary, his wife, were excited. They were moving out in ministry. Jim had been praying for more opportunity to reach into the community with the Gospel.

The position appeared to be a God-given break.

This is Their Story

At the same time one committee was hiring Jim, another committee at the church was hiring the new pastor, Carl. A lot of change for the church. Jim had a vision for the ministry and was ready to tackle the new position with gusto.

He looked forward to working with the pastor who came on a month after he did. Jim believed he could get along with anyone, particularly, he told himself, someone “who was a spiritual leader.“

But it was not long for the trouble to begin.

Big Plans

The church was realing from its former pastor’s leadership.

But they were moving forward. The pastoral search committee was headed up by a strong leader, and his vision for a pastor who would lead and teach with authority held sway over the other members.

He wanted a pastor that would “command authority.” A sort of “CEO style” of leadership, Jim said.

Jim shared that the initial conversations with the pastor were a little “awkward.” Jim “expressed enthusiasm,” but did not get much “positive feedback” from Pastor Carl.

After a short time, Jim suggested instituting weekly staff meetings, something that had been very helpful to him for planning in the church he had recently served. It was welcomed by the staff, but he noticed that when they talked about the youth ministry and any difficulties he was having Pastor Carl was taking copious notes.

Approximately five months later, the personnel committee called Jim to a special meeting. He figured it was a “job evaluation” kind of meeting. Everyone on the committee was upbeat when Jim arrived except the chairman…the same chairman from the pastoral search committee.

When the meeting began the chairman opened a file folder of notes that the pastor had taken during the staff meetings.

He began to systematically go through the notes and one-by-one turn it into an “indictment of [Jim’s] character.”

After the meeting several of the members came up to Jim and said, “I don’t know what that was about. I think you are doing a good job. I am going to find out what is going on.”

It seemed to end there however. Nothing more was said and ministry went on.

They Will Come

There was a new facility for the youth that was not really being used.

It kind of a harkened back to the “if you build it they will come” idea. One of the church leaders asked him cynically early on, “Will we ever fill this place?“

Jim looked forward to the day they would fill it with youth and began reaching into the Native American community that had been largely ignored in the past by the church. After three years of faithful ministry, God was beginning to fill the building. They had gone from just a few teens attending mid-week youth meetings to over 100, many of whom were from the Native community.

But of course, every cloud with a silver lining also dumps a boatload of rain.

In the midst of this excitement, Jim was driving home one night from a youth meeting and received a call to come back to the church for a meeting. He still had his basketball clothes on and was sweaty. When he arrived it was evident to him that the meeting had been planned for sometime, though he was not told until he would have no choice but to walk in late.

In attendance were Pastor Carl and a few Deacons who were favorable to the pastor’s views. The pastor proceeded to make statement after statement that implied Jim was doing a poor job and that “nobody liked” what he was doing.

The youth leaders were “very upset so they banded together in a Wednesday night prayer meeting and brought it to the surface. They didn’t understand why there was relational conflict.” Jim said, “People would come up and ask ‘why do you have such a hard time with the pastor.’ Like I had a personal grievence with the pastor.“

Jim was careful not to be derogatory in any way in response and following the prayer meeting things calmed down for a season.

Mission Control

As summer approached, Jim wanted to take a mission trip with the students.

He was thinking a sports camp or VBS. He proposed the idea to Pastor Carl and, to Jim’s surprise, the pastor said it would be acceptable.

Jim had heard of a Colorado church planter looking for a sports camp. He made contact and began arranging for his students to lead the camp. However, soon after Jim began planning, the pastor organized a trip with the church planter for an adult group from the church. It appeared to Jim “it was an ego thing. Like he needed to have a trip if I was.“

Before Jim left on the mission trip, Pastor Carl called him to his office and told him he did not feel Jim was responsible or qualified enough to lead the trip and so he “was going to appoint a chaperone.” Jim knew the man chosen and had a good relationship with him, but would not have appointed him because he had alcohol and abuse issues.

Jim said, “[The chaperone] would often talk about his anger issues…he was jailed as a minor for beating someone almost to death. Kind of proud that it didn’t show up in his criminal record because he was a minor.” Jim also noted he made girls feel uncomfortable to be with him. “On the trip he made lots of comments about women’s bodies and what he liked,” Jim explained.

Used Against Him

It seemed to be a common tactic of Pastor Carl to use things against Jim that would never have been considered negative in the first place or were of little consequence.

On the mission trip, Jim drove the entire trip to Colorado because the chaperone had bragged about his “dangerous driving.” Later the pastor suggested Jim was being dangerous by not allowing the chaperone to help drive the long trip.

After the prayer meeting ordeal one of the leaders suggested that Jim and Pastor Carl go through mediation. The denominational leadership suggested they go through individual counseling first.

So, Jim made arrangements for counseling figuring the pastor would as well. He said, “After a couple visits, the counselor said I don’t know why you need to be here.” Jim fulfilled his commitment and then found out the pastor did not attend any counseling.

But later Pastor Carl said Jim had psychological issues because he had gone to counseling.

The pastor also used people against Jim and Mary.

After Jim had left the church, the chaperone of the mission trip came to him and apologized. He said he was glad to have a friendship with Jim. Apparently, Pastor Carl had asked the chaperone lots of questions about Jim after the trip, but the chaperone had nothing bad to say about Jim’s leadership.

The chaperone felt badly that the pastor had used him.

A new woman began coming to the church and applied to be a nursery worker. Jim and Mary got to know her and enjoyed her friendship. She asked if she could help with Jim and Mary’s kids. One night she babysat for them and when Jim and Mary returned from their date she stuck around talking with them. She asked them many questions about their “thoughts on the pastor.” They said very little.

They realized later she was being used by him to determine if they were against Pastor Carl.

Another couple offered to watch their kids and later were “bad-mouthing” Jim’s ministry behind his back despite their sweetness to Jim and Mary.

Final Straws

Jim & Mary: Pastoral Abuse Part 2.

Janet’s Story: God’s Man & Misuse of Spiritual Authority

Posted on by
1

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a Pope speaking ‘ex cathedra’ on issues of faith or morals is infallible. In general use, the phrase has come to be used with regard to statements made by people in positions of authority, and it is often used ironically to describe someone speaking with overbearing or unwarranted self-certainty. [Merriam-Webster dictionary]

Janet sat under Pastor Joe for several years. He had been hired following the exit of a popular pastor who went on to found another ministry. Pastor Joe was encouraged to spend a few months getting to know his new church before making significant changes in its ministry. 

Go Slow

It was a gracious congregation that had always had a stable, small town ministry. The people were friendly and welcoming to the new pastor. However, Joe did not take the advice and proceeded to shake up the church soon after arriving.

He appointed his own people to a church committee. His intent was to disband the current committee whose members were long-time, committed congregants. Members of the church became fearful of stepping out in ministry as he would possibly disapprove. They had to watch their backs.

Janet was married to Mike, who had been an elder in the church, and was very careful not to criticize the new pastor. Early on, as the volunteer nursery coordinator, Janet was completely ignored when Pastor Joe decided to make changes in that ministry. She had filled the position when it needed a coordinator, and though committed heavily in other areas of the church, believed she was fulfilling a needed role in the church.

One Sunday Pastor Joe explained from the pulpit there would be a meeting regarding the “new” nursery. Mike leaned over to Janet and asked if she knew anything about it.

She was just as surprised as her husband to hear of a ministry meeting to which she, as the coordinator, had not been invited.

She determined not to allow Pastor Joe’s oversight to bother her, however she, “Expected some acknowledgement of the breach of protocol.”  After all, everyone knew it was her role.

Janet decided to go to the meeting anyway and be whatever help she could be in the transition.

It was very “awkward.” It became apparent there was a “team that was recruited to replace her.” She was released of any responsibility and a paid caregiver was let go in that meeting. Janet said she was not terribly disappointed in losing her position, but “took offense at how it was done . . . the process.”

In addition, the nursery was going to be moved into another room. The Sunday School teacher who held her class in that room had not been notified and no one actually went to her to discuss the move.

Janet took it upon herself to “run interference,” something at which she became adept in the following years. She “buffered” some of his poor leadership as members of the congregation suffered from his relational bombs.

Authority & Control

Janet said she “was trying to make excuses or understand why it was happening this way.” She said she felt like she had “been whopped a little bit and didn’t know why.”

It was not until later that she could see the pattern. It no longer seemed like an “isolated incident.”

She realized in an “epiphany moment” that Pastor Joe simply loved exercising authority and control.

In time she recognized the pulpit was his “bully pulpit” as she came to understand the meaning of that term. “He would just bash from the pulpit as no one could respond.”

One Sunday Pastor Joe spoke of his authority while in the pulpit. She got the idea from his sermon he was saying,

“When in pulpit I am God’s man and you must obey. You must not push back.”

She was shocked. He said he spoke with God’s authority in the pulpit and must be heeded.

She looked around at the congregation to see if anyone else was shocked. Janet figured out that Joe was using the pulpit to control his congregation.

Matthew 18

When asked if the Matthew 18 principles of confrontation came into play in their relationship she explained she was in a difficult situation. Early on she considered his poor leadership “stylistic” rather than sinful and so worked hard on her own attitude. She considered his failures small enough to overlook. Janet said others did not know she was struggling so much with him except those who picked up on her body language.

In addition, she was hesitant to confront because Janet’s husband had been involved in the ministry before. She believed it would be misunderstood since she was the wife of a former elder.

In time, her husband Mike became the target of some of his attacks. She then felt even more strongly that she should remain free of the fray. There were others who were confronting who did not have a husband in the battle.

Prayer

Janet explained that when she first began to struggle with Pastor Joe she considered her biblical responsibilities to be clear. She said, she “felt like, right or wrong, it was a matter of applying principles and so not so much a matter of prayer.” But, as others were being hurt by his tactics, she began to pray “for the truth to come out” and for her “heart and motives to be clear.”

Because she was now having to take a position, she jokingly said she prayed that she “would win!”  She prayed that her “position would be vindicated.” [see this article]

Healing

When I asked Janet how she has healed since those dark days, she said she “took it to the foot of cross. Put my own sin and others’ there.” She said she still carries a wound. She added, “The first incident was deep enough that I avoided that ministry for a long time.“

She said she did get some vindication. It was helpful and she is not sure how well she would have healed had there not been some vindication.

Janet also learned valuable leadership lessons from the experience. She was reaffirmed that she should never “mistreat people under” her ministry.

Even now Janet tries to “be in a position of forgiveness.” She noted that forgiveness is transactional. There are times when there is no reconciliation in a relationship. The erring party must be ready to admit and seek forgiveness for their sin (Matthew 18:21-22).

Pastor Joe has never sought her forgiveness, but she would like to be ready to respond in forgiveness should he ever seek it.

Heads Up

Janet made several recommendations to those who are suffering under abusive leadership.

  • Pay attention to your instincts: If you continue to struggle with the sense something is off, believe it and act accordingly.
  • Don’t buy into the lie that makes you believe something that isn’t true: Hold to your core values and work it out from there. Consider getting the thoughts of a third party to assess your perspective on the leader.
  • Share: Be careful of gossip, but have one person you can trust to keep it between you to share your struggles. Recovery needs community and there are leaders that cannot be confronted. You need to share it.
  • The church needs educated: The church needs to learn about abusive leadership. Janet noted we are good at extending grace, but need to learn when to confront.

Because people are tight-lipped for fear of gossiping, the patterns of abuse may be difficult to see as we think we are the only one suffering.

Janet said, “We teach unity, body, grace, etc . . . but not wolves in sheep’s clothing.“

Leadership: Respecting the Image

Posted on by
Reply


It is interesting that in recent years, secular management experts have more and more given leaders help in biblical leadership. Where businesses and organizations were populated by leaders like Henry Ford and more recently, Steve Jobs, the focus in management research has moved towards respecting God’s image-bearers.

God’s Image in My Employees

Mind you, those who have no respect for the Bible do not base their findings on the teaching of scripture, but even their findings are evidence that God created them in His image. They are “thinking the thoughts of God after Him” without knowing it.

Though there is much debate concerning the meaning and implications of this teaching in the early pages of the Bible, there are common threads in the interpretation of it. Genesis 1:26-27 says,

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God made males and females to have dominion over His creation. In doing so, he gave them personalities, gifts, talents, and abilities to rule. And being like God, though not God, they would be creative in the use of those abilities. They would create incredible systems, products, and relationships though always marked by the brokenness of the Fall. They would develop communication as their Creator communicates. And in all of it, they would be pointing to the One who made it all possible, which in biblical parlance is “glorifying God.”

But, unfortunately there are those who believe they are God’s gift to the world and they believe the world does not return the favor.

Leaders with Hubris

Recently, I watched a tennis match on TV between two world-class players. I was amazed how one of the players clearly expected the ball boys and “towel girls” to snap to when he simply put his hand out. He would extend his hand and one or two young helpers would come running to provide a towel or ball or whatever. There were no words said; I never noticed him express gratitude or thankfulness.

Thom Rainer, the CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources, said, “Leaders with hubris see others as inferior. The rest of the world does not get it. Others are just not as smart. As a result, these leaders do not listen well because others really don’t have anything worthy to say.”1

Leaders with “hubris” are self-absorbed. It is made evident by their lack of respect for those around them, particularly under them. They believe the reason they are the leader – whether CEO, manager, supervisor, or other authority – is because they are smarter, quicker, wiser, and better looking than the rest.

Teaming

The problem with this is found at the end of Rainer’s quote: these leaders do not listen well because others really don’t have anything worthy to say. Management experts are finding, especially in this information age, leaders need all the help they can get from their employees as they seek to make wise decisions and pursue creative ideas.

The term, “teaming” has become common in business leadership. When a leader is “full of hubris,” as Rainer puts it, there is no team, only a despot with minions. Rather than an idea incubated by multiple, gifted individuals, becoming more focused, and taking into consideration various pitfalls and dangers, the idea is ill conceivably hatched by a single leader.

Though a leader may believe he is the all-wise-one, he is not.

The reason I can say this nearly 100% of the time is that every person on earth has been created in God’s image with creative abilities. Though some may indeed have a rare idea that fits with the mission of a particular business or organization, every person has something to say that can mold the ideas of others.

As I worked to develop a mission organization, I failed to take into account the varying personalities of those who served the mission. As an extrovert, with very apparent gifts in building new relationships, I had failed to consider how introverts could find a place to minister alongside those of us popping from one new person to another.

It was my daughter and son-in-law, both introverts, who challenged my perspective and gave my ministry new direction and help.

It is still too soon to see if I have really learned that lesson, but I was able to alter my language and the “jobs” of those who found it murder to walk up to a complete stranger and begin a conversation; something I had made the backbone of the organization over the years. It will take the wisdom of those who are introverts in an extrovert mission to help me develop the space for them to use their gifts.

Have you never experienced someone provide a needed direction change in your thinking and action? I have seen it from those I had no interest or desire in hearing. It takes humility for most of us, who are driven entrepreneurs, to hear and respect the ideas of our team.

Creating the Team

And it takes a humble leader who seeks out the ideas from the team to actually create the team in the first place. Dan Allender says, “The reluctant leader detoxifies power by empowering others to bring their vision, passion, and gifts to the enterprise.”2

Members of the organization must know they are respected and their ideas will not go unnoticed or considered, or worse, laughed at.

This creates collaboration, a key component in using God’s image-bearers in fruitful organizational management. One of the finest texts among the secular sources is “Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the knowledge Economy” by Amy Edmondson. In it she says,

Collaboration is a way of working with colleagues that is characterized by cooperation, mutual respect, and shared goals. It involves sharing information, coordinating actions, discussing what’s working and what’s not, and perpetually seeking input and feedback.

Something that becomes apparent in an organization that is ruled by a toxic leader is the lack of this kind of interaction. In fact, there is rarely any kind of interaction. People who have been berated and belittled by a leader will not share information, coordinate actions, or discuss what is working and what is not. They will either leave the organization or keep their head down to stay out of the sites of the bully.

Even some non-toxic leaders have difficulty creating this kind of collaboration. As Edmondson points out elsewhere in the book, leaders who continually present their idea first and with passion will find their employees fearful to disagree with them. She points out, this is simply because of the power differential between leader and employee. Leaders need to put a lid on and make a special effort it if they wish their team to grow into an effective idea machine.

Summary

As a Christian leader, my mission must be to encourage and build the abilities of whom I lead. They do not live to serve my ideas. My followers are made in the image of God with perspective and wisdom I do not have.

References:

  1. “How and Why I Could Fall,” ThomRainer.com, June 25, 2018, https://thomrainer.com/2018/06/how-and-why-i-could-fall/.
  2. Dan B. Allender, Leading with a Limp: Take Full Advantage of Your Most Powerful Weakness (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2008), page 19.
  3. Amy C. Edmondson, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, Kindle 1st edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012), location 1078-1080.

Lions, Tigers, and Bears: Stories of Confronting Toxic Leaders

Posted on by
Reply

Graham, one of my interviewees when researching toxic organizational leadership, expressed dismay at his “naiveté” in believing there would be “healing and reconciliation” when he was involved in a confrontation with his CEO. His organization had been founded and built into an international mercy ministry by the CEO.

Having carefully planned a humble approach with the aid of two other high-profile, well-respected Christian leaders, he believed the confrontation of the CEO for multiple sexual harassment charges would be received in humility. He expected in the end the confrontation team “would hug and get it done!” Graham’s experience ended up in the loss of his job and he was “blackballed” by the CEO as he sought a new position.

Harris & Putting the Fun Back in Dysfunction

Harris told the board of a large Christian organization when interviewing for the CEO position, “I bet the most important relationship in any non-profit organization is the relationship between the CEO and the board chairman. They either push each other to a higher level and bring the organization with it, or they can drag the whole organization down into the swamp.”

He said he had no idea how badly it was going to go between he and the chairman. Harris was told repeatedly, prior to joining the organization, their board was dysfunctional. During the interview process, a charming member of the board said, “You probably heard that we have a dysfunctional board?” He told the board, “Yes, actually I have heard that, but I like to put the fun back in dysfunction.” Unfortunately, despite his extraordinary success in two other major, international mission organizations, the fun was not put back in the dysfunction.

The ideas Harris put to his vision to bring the organization out of its humdrum existence were viewed as an affront to the board chairman. Because Harris’ ideas did not come from him, he would not accept them and went on the offensive to destroy Harris’ ministry.

Isaac & the Cycler

Isaac experienced aggressive toxicity in the final months of his ministry with an educational mission he served. Isaac said he had several meetings with the CEO and the meetings went through a “cycle…of flattery and guilt and threatening…He would flatter us – tell us how great we were – then talk about our obligation. Then he would talk about our supporters – what would they think – then [finish] with threats.”

When Isaac resigned, he continued to work part-time for the mission, seeking to help the organization while they sought a replacement. Because Isaac was beginning work with another organization, the CEO sent a letter to the immigration authorities at the airport asking them to stop Isaac and his family’s entry to the country on their return from a short trip to the United States. Though unsure the letter would have had any impact on their travel plans, Isaac explained they missed a connecting flight and flew into the country through another city, thereby circumventing the immigration at the local airport unintentionally.

Adam & the Wives

Adam, a missionary in the developing world, recounted an experience when his wife had purchased plane tickets for their trip home for furlough and the CEO’s wife “demanded that she change the flight.” Adam’s wife responded, “I’m sorry, I can’t.” Adam said, “That was the moment they realized we weren’t always going to say yes.” The CEO and his wife’s treatment of Adam and his family changed after that. He observed that future conflict “had to travel through my wife.” He said, “She took the brunt of all these incidences and I believe that they knew we were peace loving people…but, I really believed they used that against us, because they knew…like a bully they can get away with it.”

Eugene & His “Friend”

Though Eugene “felt like quitting,” he said, “If I accepted the position of Senior Vice President, I was responsible to the organization as well as responsible to my friend, [the CEO].” He added, “The organization has to be one of the leading international missions, and I just felt like, [the CEO] is bringing this mission down.”

Though he had heard of the CEO’s failure to interact well with those under his authority, he believed, as a friend there could be a positive outcome to his confrontation. He was willing to take the risk of confronting the CEO with the hope there would be a positive outcome. Within days of his confrontation of the CEO, Eugene was told to give over his laptop, credit card, and cell phone immediately. He said, “That was a huge slap in the face.” He said, “I couldn’t believe he could be that cold-hearted.”

Root Canals

Each of the participants in my study had been involved in confrontations with their bosses. All but one were fired or felt it was necessary to resign because of the negative impact the leader had on their families. Only one outlasted her boss.

I asked each what effects there were to them and their families. They each described emotional, physical, and spiritual effects they experienced. Harris summed up the common results of the participants’ experiences when he said, “I don’t like to use inflated language, but some of these things really do have catastrophic consequences for an individual and their family.” Like having a root canal without the tooth being fixed.

Effects on Others

Eugene spoke of the impact his forced resignation had on those who depended on him. He said,

Here are 250 missionaries you have been basically counseling for seven years, intimately involved with their lives…for some of them, I was the one key person on the way to some future they were looking toward. And, all of a sudden, that all disappeared. That was very hard. Basically, we had to trust the Lord knew what He was doing and that he would take care of those people too because it wasn’t our responsibility any more.

After Eugene’s firing, the organization was unable to fill his position because, “Nobody wanted the job. They figured, ‘If Eugene is his best friend and can get fired, I don’t want that.’”

Physical and Emotional Effects

Though Adam and his family resigned from the organization in 2012, he said, “The consequences are still unfolding for our family.” When he first resigned he “felt exhilarated, liberated.” While they finished out their term, Adam said he “enjoyed [the country] in a way that I had not up to that point.”

He remembers watching his “family cry all the way to the airport,” knowing he had made the right decision but it was very difficult. Graham added that he and a few of his closest colleagues who were fired suffered “various levels of depression” over the years since.

One church employee, Susan, described her migraines and depression. Adam says he was “emotionally depressed for at least two years after” leaving. He said he was “physically irresponsible which goes with depression; Eat all I can. Drink all I can. Sleep all I can. Stay inside all I can.”

Considering his own difficulties following his firing, Eugene also suffered physically. He explained, “I had a really hard time getting over it. Physically, I got sick…I lost my voice. I couldn’t get a job.” He lost his insurance and so was unable to work with a speech therapist. Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, adding, “Lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”

Many people have expressed concern and encouragement, but Harris related the analogy,

“You can tell a beautiful woman how beautiful and wonderful she is, but if she feels trashed as a child, she’s like, ‘I don’t care what accomplishments I may have had.’ I was told to get out and stay out and my life has been hard ever since.’”

At this point, Harris does not see an end in sight. He likens the experience to losing a child, “Because something like this was wrongly taken from you…you get past it, you get through it, but I don’t think you get over it.”

Where Now Brown Cow

As a leader of a major Christian organization, Harris had many speaking engagements that were cancelled. He said, “There is a sense in which I don’t have any value. I’m not part of the community. I’m a commodity and the value of this commodity just dropped to zero and I’ve been spit out.”

He said, “There’s a sense of shock, denial,” referring to the stages of grief. Harris does not “feel the passion for world evangelization” he did once and for which he worked so hard. He said, “I have people who want me to mentor them and I have nothing to say. I’m rung out.”

Frances recalls “feeling a bit lost as to what was next.” As she went on unemployment following her firing, “There was a sense of hurt as I’ve tried to ponder it at different times.”

The Buck Just Stops

Eugene was on unemployment for eight months, though all the while seeking a job. Though Frances has an exceptional background and experiences in missions and leadership, getting another job took several months and the new job involved separation from her family for long stretches of time.

She was in her late 50s and she said, “Most organizations are not going to hire someone at that stage of life.” Frances noted the “financial fallout was pretty serious” with a “reduction in income [that] was pretty severe.”

Harris, despite receiving a larger salary than he and his family either needed or wanted, was financially worse off than when he joined the organization. He explained that he “had to hire a lawyer to get out” and spent a great deal of money and received no severance. He said he ended up with credit card debt and bills he could not pay. He went on, “I’ve never ever had financial trouble in my life…I always had good jobs.” Several years later, he is still without a full-time position.

Parting Shots

When Ben and Casandra returned to the United States, they “were very fragile for a time.” They had “hot and cold responses from different churches [that supported them] in terms of understanding and encouragement.” Ben said, “Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say; ‘Well thank you for your service. God bless you as you go.’”

The effects from the battles with toxic leaders are heart-breaking. Few people understand until they have experienced it and even then, the church is so often more concerned with caring for the toxic one, they fail to care for the downtrodden.

Each of the stories shared above caused real-life trauma for the victims. They suffer many of the symptoms of trauma that have long-lasting effects.

May the God of all comfort, care for and uphold the targets of toxic leadership.

Questions to Ask: Getting to the Heart of the Organization

Posted on by
3

Jack and I served the same Christian organization. When he left the mission field, he vowed that he would never work for another Christian organization again. He had developed a distrust for those who name the Name of Christ, but treat their employees (and other stakeholders) like dirt.

Now, after several years of healing and vocational development, Jack has begun looking at job possibilities in Christian organizations once again. His love for what the church of Christ can do for the building of God’s Kingdom is pulling him back. As we talked, his concern was how to determine if an organization is toxic before signing on the dotted line.

What questions can you ask when the typical interviewer says, “Are there questions you have for us?” What steps should you take to identify an organization that is toxic? This is what I found in my research to identify questions you can ask and steps you can take to make wise organizational choices.

If being interviewed by the boss:

Because you are primarily looking for toxic leaders, you may be speaking directly to one in your interview. If that is the case, these questions are hopefully non-intimidating and you might get honest answers that will point to problems if there are any.

  • What is the average length of employment at the organization?

Does the organization have a seemingly high resignation (or firing) rate? Is it due to the pay or because they are particularly hard to work for? Many Christian organizations pay less, but have high loyalty rates. If they have neither, there may be red flags flying.

  • If an employee has difficulty with a manager or other employee, is there a policy / process for complaints in the organization?

This commonly overlooked area of ministry development can go a long ways in making the organization toxin-proof. Is there a clear policy that shows respect for individuals and gives the employee a safe way to complain of mistreatment? Of course, the organization may have a policy in place but fail to implement it well.

  • How do managers in the organization seek to develop and use the God-given gifts of their subordinates?

Ultimately, a Christian organization (or any other for that matter) should be seeking to “take dominion” in the use of employee God-given gifts and talents used for His glory. Leaders in a Christian ministry ought to have considered how they are fulfilling the dominion mandate or they may be seeking to develop their own image and seek their own glory through the work of others.

Ask these questions of Employees:

Discussing the organization with employees is probably the most important step you should take. But, as you begin to gain insight to the organization from the grass-roots level, there is one very important thing to keep in mind: Often employees do not agree on whether a leader is toxic or not. As Kusy and Holloway, in a very helpful book called “Toxic Workplace,” say,

“A tip in recognizing toxicity is that there may be (and likely are) different perspectives about the toxic person; there may even be some people who do not experience the person’s toxicity at all. This is especially true for those who are in a position of power or control access to powerful others, perks, or any number of resources the toxic individual wants.” [1]

There are some big-picture ideas that you need to understand as you interview employees of the organization. Kusy and Holloway say, “When we examined the behavioral items statistically, we arrived at three primary types of behaviors that put a frame around how to identify [toxic leaders] in a simple and straightforward fashion: shaming, passive hostility, and team sabotage.” [2]

Here are some ideas:

  • Do you consistently feel valued by your bosses?

Is the leader demeaning or derogatory? Do they act like a parent disciplining a child when criticizing their subordinates or other managers? Do they intentionally embarrass others?

  • Are your ideas asked for and considered in decision-making?

Are the leaders team-oriented? Do they see a win by a subordinate as a win for the team? In Biblical language: Do they believe their subordinates are creative image-bearers of God so they actually believe they can learn from them?

  • Have you, or someone you know, questioned an idea of the boss / team leader? How did that go?

This could be either a matter of a leader’s sin or simply a leader’s idea that others disagreed with. Usually, toxic individuals will either blow a fuse or shift blame for any implied shortcomings…oftentimes no matter how small an issue it is. In Biblical language: They are unrepentant – unwilling to admit wrong. Be attentive to answers that suggests the managers have little or no humility.

  • Is there respect shown among leaders and followers for other organizations than their own?

Are the leaders very territorial? Do they suggest, “Our organization does it the very best way.” “If you aren’t for us, you are against us.” Even if you get this sense from the employees, it is possible brainwashing has come from the leadership.

  • Do the leaders change decisions “and claim no knowledge of the initial conversation and decision.” [3]

This is common to those toxic leaders who are “passive-aggressive.” The employee may think the leader is very busy, has a lot on their plate, and “probably just forgets things.” They may also go behind a co-worker’s back without discussing issues directly with them. These are particularly manipulative people.

  • Do the leaders trust you to follow through with the details of your job? Do they trust their teams to fulfill the organization’s mission?

Micromanaging is a destructive and toxic approach to management. If the subordinates cannot do their job and will not deal with details, the manager may feel the need to do this. This kind of environment may be or is possibly in process of becoming toxic systemically. This may not mean there is toxic leadership, but by talking to several employees you should be able to get an idea of whether it is employee or leadership induced micromanagement.

There are many other questions that can be asked, keeping in mind the bigger issues and forming questions that get to the heart of those issues. I have found that most people do not really understand when they are in a toxic environment. Often they have drunk deeply from the Kool-aid and refuse to see their organization as toxic. Therefore, you must get the answers by means of non-threatening questions and listen closely for what may be underlying their responses.

Do you have additional ideas born from experience? Please share them with us.

Notes

1  Kusy, Mitchell. Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power (Kindle Locations 378-380). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

2  Ibid. (Kindle Locations 421-423).

3  Ibid. (Kindle Locations 471-472).

 

 

John & Susan: The Power of Pastor

Posted on by
Reply

I sat down with John and Susan over coffee to hear their story. I had heard parts of it before they were done passing through the fire. Now, over two years later, it was time to hear the whole story of abusive church leadership and see the healing that had taken place in their lives.

John and Susan [not their real names] were attendees of a church-plant in a large city. The pastor was known for his hospitality and clear vision. John noted the common traits of a church-planting pastor he read somewhere:

  • Top of their class in seminary
  • Coming from the world of business
  • Great at planning and executing those plans
  • Rarely good at pastoral care

The Trouble Begins

Trouble began when John questioned one of the pastor’s budget plans during a church meeting. He apparently was perceived as a threat and John felt like the pastor “shut him down.” Following the pastor’s angry outburst at his wife at a church event, several men in the church scheduled a meeting with him to encourage the pastor to seek counseling. It was apparent to them there was some level of emotional abuse happening in the home.

They planned to encourage him and his wife to seek counseling and continue in his ministry. In this initial meeting, with his wife present, the pastor agreed to seek marriage counseling. However, the men got a feeling from the pastor and his wife that they were “going some place they shouldn’t go . . . stepping over a line.” John continued to feel that the pastor believed John was questioning his God-given authority.

Three or four months later, John met with the pastor to try to clear the air. In that meeting the pastor suggested John and the other men’s confrontation was against Jesus’ principles outlined in Matthew 18. In addition, he applied the passage to an email John sent to him that included the others as recipients when asking for the original meeting. The pastor said the email was “something someone would do in a corporate setting, copying others in . . . he felt very threatened by that move.”  John said, “It doomed me. That night was when I started to question what was happening.”

Rejection from Leadership

The pastor’s anger at the men became more and more apparent as the church moved from being a “mission” to a “particularized” church. At that time, men in the church were nominated for leadership positions as elders and then went through training. At the end of the training, the pastor chose those whom he wished to have on the board.

John was not chosen for leadership even though, during the training, he humbly admitted to the pastor his need to approach confrontations with more sensitivity. The pastor put the responsibility for the decision (of rejecting him for leadership) on another pastor that was overseeing the process.

John was deeply hurt by the rejection, but his family continued to minister in the church, leading a bible study and doing outreach. However, when an assistant pastor was hired by the church, he joined John’s home Bible study. Later, John believed the pastor was intending to replace John with the assistant.

John and Susan took a year hiatus from leading the small group Bible study and the assistant did step in as leader. John and Susan sought permission to begin a new group. It was to be a group that included teenagers. The pastor and elders refused to allow the start of the group, suggesting John was not a good teacher – though it was his profession – and others would not want teens in the group.

John and Susan requested a meeting with the pastor. In that meeting, survey data from when he led the group before, was brought out. It was from a year and a half before. The pastor showed him parts of the survey in “isolation” that included “inadequate leadership.” John realized he needed to “stay in his box or die.”

When it became apparent John and Susan had little opportunity to use their gifts in the church, they determined it was best to move on. When resigning their membership, John and Susan asked for an “exit interview” with the Elders. However, the elders “shamed” them rather than seeking to know why they were leaving the church. The pastor was particularly “aggressive,” John said.

Over a period of four or five years, several assistants to the pastor “abruptly” left the church. One of the assistant’s wife has “rejected the faith” following their tenure at the church.

John’s assumption is that these assistants, who he assumed were pushed out, “questioned the pastor’s authority and were not operating inside his box.” Each time an assistant would leave, the pastor would speak very “negatively about them and their performance…not meeting his expectations.”

Healing

The move to another church was a slow and tentative process. John was very hesitant to commit to another church body and to put himself “out there…to be vulnerable in any sort of way.” They went to several churches and he said it “almost felt better to keep shopping” which he has never done. “It felt comfortable to be in that role and stay detached.”

John and Susan wondered what it would be like to “dredge” up the story once again when I asked them to tell it. However, John said, “It doesn’t feel as personal now.” He has since seen the hand of God working in and through them as they began attending a church with humble leaders. It was very apparent that significant healing has taken place now that they have a safe place to be.

Some Thoughts

  • John’s story involved spiritual abuse where scripture, usually taken out of context, is used to beat down and control others. The pastor shifted the blame of his behavior to others as he suggested they didn’t approach him according to scripture. However, he didn’t take into account the Apostle Paul’s challenge to leaders in 1 Timothy 5:19-20 as having great responsibility for their behavior. In that passage, there is no mention of one-on-one confrontation. Rather than humble himself before them, admit his wrong, seek help for his abusive behavior, he criticized his counselors’ behavior.
  • On the whole, the congregation values the community the pastor has created so highly, they overlook his deep moral failing. This is not unusual. It is likely the number one reason corporations keep abusive managers or churches their authoritarian pastors is they have gifts and talents the organization feel they cannot do without. Unfortunately, research suggests in the long run, abusive leaders destroy rather than build effective organizations.
  • Had the pastor been humble, he would have sought out the various views of others when making decisions regarding the church. Rather, he clearly wanted “yes-men” in his chamber. One toxic pastor I met asked his board to resign so he could replace them with his own chosen elders.
  • Unfortunately, the pastor is yet to be brought up on charges at the denominational level. I am praying now that members in the church will recognize his destructive behavior and bring it before leaders in the denomination. But, unfortunately, this rarely happens. Until clear evidence is brought forward, much like in a domestic violence case, the “court” will fail to convict the perpetrator and allow the church to suffer further violence.

Consider sharing your story. These are intended as a means for understanding abuse of leadership and how we can get out of it, get on with it, and heal.