I have written quite a lot about “self-differentiation” ever since my doctoral study [see here]. At that time, my research advisor was pressing me to focus on this psychological concept—also biblical—in my dissertation about toxic leadership.
The term basically means to remain free from the psychological control of other people. Christian writers like Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken the idea and brought Scripture to bear on it.1 They point to Jesus as the ultimate self-differentiated individual as he engaged with others in a deep, empathetic way while not being controlled by them.
Jesus is an example to us.
There is another man in Scripture who, though deeply broken, was a “type of Christ” in the Old Testament—Jesus’ forefather King David.
The story of David, a rapist (2 Sam. 11:4) and murderer (2 Sam. 11:15), gives hope to every man, woman, and child that in our wickedness we can be redeemed. In 1 Samuel 17 the story of David and Goliath is told. It provides for us a picture of self-differentiation.
David Shows Up
David, the youngest of his brothers, would go back and forth to the battle lines where his older brothers were engaged in a war with the Philistines. He would bring food and supplies from his family to them.
One day David showed up and heard the giant of a man, Goliath, taunting the Israelite army. As David spoke with various soldiers about it, his oldest brother said,
“Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.”
1 Samuel 17:28
I don’t know what was in David’s heart but his response is certainly self-differentiated:
“What have I done now? Was it not but a word?” And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.
1 Samuel 17:29-30
It is a bit defensive— “What have I done now?” — but he does not allow Eliab (brother) to deter him from gaining more information about Goliath.
What I want to get at is that victims of toxic leadership normally shut down. As they are critisized by their boss, ridiculed by a manager, or demoted because they don’t practice image-control as their bosses require of them, they turn inward, keep their head down, and sort of do their jobs.
Who wants to be criticized? Who wants to face ostracization?
We want to keep our jobs. We want to please our bosses and supervisors.
All normal and all understandable.
But not always self-differentiated.
David’s Self-Differentiation
Rather than sulk away as I did many times under a toxic boss, David went to the big boss—King Saul—when Saul called for him. David told Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail because of [Goliath]. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”
So, David goes out to meet the giant and there meets further scorn:
“Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.”
1 Samuel 17:43-44
I love David’s response. It could sound arrogant, except that it is a testimony to dependence on the LORD. And dependence on the LORD is fundamental to Christian self-differentiation.
Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the LORD’S, and he will give you into our hand.”
1 Samuel 17:45-47 (ESV)
Sunday School materials are full of applications culled from this passage that tell children to stand up to their greatest fears. Sometimes those applications are ridiculed, but that interpretation is not far off.
What can be missing is that it wasn’t in David mustering the strength from deep within, but in his dependence and belief that God had his back and he was doing the right thing in response to God’s calling.
So to trust God alone is self-differentiation for the Christian.
Jesus’ Self-Differentiation
I believe the most apropos passage for defining self-differentiation is when, after Jesus did many signs and wonders, many “believed” in him. John says,
But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
John 2:24-25 (ESV)
Jesus knew what was in man. So too, David knew not to trust in man’s confident assertions (Goliath’s or his brothers’) but in God Himself.
Self-differentiation is just this: Not allowing the anxiety of others to control our own trust in Jesus. It frees us to stand up to toxic leaders where others cower. It frees us to leave the toxic workplace when others fear leaving. It allows us to reject the arrows of our antagonists whether they are a boss, fellow employee, or church leader.
Give your trust to Jesus, not to any other man.
NOTES
Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. ↩︎
King Solomon, maybe the wisest king of all time, had extraordinary gifts from the LORD.
1 Kings 10:23 tells us that “King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.” As time goes along, “the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.”
Earlier in the book of 1st Kings, the LORD appeard to Solomon in a dream and asked him, “What shall I give you (1 Kings 3:5)?”
Solomon answers in a beautiful expression of humility: he needs wisdom more than anything—to discern between good and evil. He has just become the leader of God’s people, who are numerous, and as a young man he needs God’s wisdom to rule well.
The LORD answers his request and more. He says He will give him both wisdom and, because he didn’t ask for it, riches and honor.
And thus, Solomon begins his reign with wisdom and starts to build a wealthy and powerful dynasty. The LORD tells Solomon that he will be wiser than all who came before and all who come after if he will “walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments (1 Kings 3:14).”
Blessings and Honor
Seems simple enough. Solomon, like all men, is not a paragon of virtue, but he humbly recognizes his inabilities and depends upon the LORD’s forgiveness and help.
He became wealthy and other leaders looked to him for wisdom including the Queen of Sheba. You get the sense he is the most powerful man in his part of the world. He received honor and glory from all the nations surrounding Israel.
Every one of them brought his present, articles of silver and gold, garments, myrrh, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year. 26 And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen. He had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. 27 And the king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stone, and he made cedar as plentiful as the sycamore of the Shephelah. 28 And Solomon’s import of horses was from Egypt and Kue, and the king’s traders received them from Kue at a price. 29 A chariot could be imported from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver and a horse for 150, and so through the king’s traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.
1 Kings 10:25-29 (ESV)
What is the Purpose?
So, in receiving all this blessing from the LORD, what do you think Solomon considered his purpose to be?
Scripture has memorialized his thinking in the form of his poetry. The Psalms are songs for the use in worship. David, his father, who was a great musician wrote nearly half of the 150 Psalms contained in the Bible. But Solomon is also a contributor to the book of worship music.
Psalms 72 gives us insight to how Solomon understood his purpose as a leader:
Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice! 3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!
Psalms 72:1-4 (ESV)
What impression do you get as you read his song of praise?
His work as a leader should be like the work of any leader: to provide justice and prosperity for the people. And that includes stopping those who crush others—oppressors.
He goes on to develop the idea in the song:
12 For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. 13 He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.
Psalms 72:12-14
There is a distinct focus on caring for those who are struggling to care for themselves—the poor and needy.
What we see in so many leaders is quite the opposite. Their arrogance, narcissism, raging, and image control cause the “oppression and violence” that Solomon decries in his Psalm. Those behaviors and attitudes are opposite of what a good leader is to do and be.
Solomon sounds like the kind of leader I want.
However, it does not end well for Solomon.
The Fall
The LORD does not withdraw His blessing; Solomon scuttles it.
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
1 Kings 11:4 (ESV)
It is hard to believe that once, having tasted such incredible goodness from the LORD, a leader would turn his back on Him. But, in Solomon’s case, he chose to break God’s law in regards to marriage and took on his wives’ idols for his dependance and worship.
His idolatry was expressed in the worship of mythological gods common to his wives and the nations from where they came. It is more likely that a leader in our culture will turn to the gods of wealth, power, fame, and image control rather than a golden artifact. But these are idols nonetheless—things that are trusted in other than the LORD.
Solomon’s legacy ends up being the breakup of the nation into two parts—northern and southern—and continual hostilities between God’s people.
That breakup was brought about by his son who thought the counsel of his buddies to oppress the people was better than the counsel of justice given by older and wiser men. The young men suggested he take control of the people and say to them:
“‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s thighs. And now, whereas my father laid on you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.’”
1 Kings 12:10-11 (ESV)
It is evident that Solomon had become a slave-driver—doing quite the opposite of what his Psalm 72 says a king should do. Rehoboam also chose to counter his father Solomon’s psalm.
This was Solomon’s legacy because he rejected the LORD’s good and peace-giving guidance on leadership. He created an environment of injustice, power, and authoritarianism that his son learned at his knee. He allowed all those gifts of wisdom and wealth given by the LORD to create a monster.
For those of us in the West, we have the opportunity to reject such leaders. We have freedoms unknown to many throughout the ages to get free from political, social, spousal, and employment leaders who are narcissistic and destructive.
He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.
As I read 1st Peter I was struck by how helpful his words should be to those who are abusive or have tendencies to be controlling, manipulative, and entitled. Those who struggle with these attitudes and behaviors need to take Peter’s words to heart.
Though there is much detailed work to be done in the text, I want to primarily get to the big picture of Peter’s first chapter, moving into the second.
Paul and Peter are both great at giving us in their writing, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the big, beautiful picture first and then moving into the detail of living for Jesus next. They like to provide the “indicatives” first and “imperatives” next, while returning to the indicatives to re-emphasize our place in God’s world and all He has done for us.
They want us to know who we are first and then what we are to do with that knowledge next.
Imperishable
In verse three Peter begins with a beautiful doxology to God’s kindness to his people—those of us who have trusted in his kindness. He has done the work of saving us. He has given us new birth by the raising of Jesus from the dead.
That will never, ever go away. It is unfading . . . it is “imperishable,” he says.
Peter says, even as we go through difficult times—these Christians were going to or were facing great persecutions according to commentators—we can rejoice knowing Jesus wins!
Time for Action
As we come to 1:13, Peter begins to lay before us the call to action that results from this Good News.
It is time to take action. And ultimately this action takes place in the very depths of our soul. It is not simply outward behavior but a complete change of our inward man—mind and heart.
Here Peter quotes, as others in scripture quote, from Leviticus 11:44: “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
Share Pearls & Swine Site with a friend . . . click on the share button below!
Some would take this to be “acting good.” And in fact, this is where the abuser livesand breathes. He puts on an act for his church friends and leadership that he is righteous. But deep down, and for those who are under his authority, he breathes fire and hatred and control.
Peter doesn’t allow for this. Though he begins this passage with what sounds like outward appearances, he doesn’t stay there. He moves forward, digging down deep within our hearts.
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart . . .
Notice the terms Peter uses: sincere, love, pure heart. Every one of those terms involves the inner man, not simply outward behavior. He has talked about “conducting” ourselves which is decidedly behavioral.
But he doesn’t stop there.
Not An Act
In Greek, sincere means “unfeigned.” It is not an act but what we really desire. We are not handing a cup of water out while thinking to ourselves, “I can’t stand this guy.”
Abusive leaders are almost always acting a part. They desire to look good to the watching world. This is why reporting (whisteblowing) is nearly always difficult and often unproductive. Those who hear the report rarely believe it. What they have seen and heard is that the pastor, manager, CEO, or coordinator is wonderful and has a heart of gold. He is skilled at his job. He radiates goodness.
This is what makes Jesus’ use of the term “white-washed tombs” so apropos. The tomb looks good on the outside with newly painted walls, but inside it is rotting fresh. So too, the toxic leader.
Put Away All Evil
All of this is driving to chapter 2 where Peter says,
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
1 Peter 2:1
Put away all the evil. If you abuse your authority—authority given by God to be used for his glory and other’s good—it is time to repent. Let’s look at these words Peter uses.
Malice: “Ill-will, desire to injure.” Maybe from jealousy (see below) or competitivesness you are seeking the downfall of someone subordinate or senior. You desire their demise.
Deceit: You are faking it. You don’t really care about those under your care or ministry even though you say you do. You just want to be in control and the top dog. In order to hold your place of prominence or to get ahead you lie and act.
Hypocrisy: “The acting of a stage player.” Closely related to deceit, you are acting one way while your heart is in another place. You maybe even use some outward humility if it gets you some attention for which you deeply long. But inside it is just an act.
Envy: You are not so much concerned about God’s glory but rather your own. When others get some attention, you seek to diminish it rather than encourage it. The narcissist runs on this.
Slander: This is your means of getting all that glory. “The act of damaging the good character of someone.” You tear them down; put them in their place. You explain, “She just isn’t that committed to the organization.” That way you look better and she must be lying about your toxicity.
If these describe your leadership “style,” it’s time to confess that you are a white-washed tomb.
It is time to do the difficult work of self-awareness; to ask the lord to show you how you have taken his good gifts and used them to destroy and hurt others rather than build up (Ephesians 4:11-13).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of toxic leaders will not listen to Peter, Paul, Jesus, or anyone but themselves. But, if any of this rings true to you of your heart, you are on the road to “recovery” having the humility it takes to repent.
Jesus seeks such ones as these to mold into the leaders He desires in His kingdom.
What happens down, deep within you when your subordinates, or even friends, begin to praise your holy name?
You are smart. You are skilled. You are important. You help the vulnerable.
Does your heart rise up and meet their praises with praises of its own? Does your heart congratulate itself and take on new proportions?
Being praised and being glad to do a job well, care for people well, or be particularly smart is in no way a bad thing. God is good. He has gifted every one of us with abilities and personalities to suit His important purposes of loving Him and our neighbor well. We are His image-bearers.
We can be praised, be thankful to the Lord for His work, and move on to the next task.
Paul and Barnabas knew what it was to be praised . . . in the extreme. Leaders do well to learn from the Apostles as they, in very godly ways, deflected the praise of man:
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.
Acts s 14:8-18 (ESV)
This is a man that was obviously in need. He had “never walked” so there was no “temporary” paralysis about it. Everyone would know that what came after Paul’s command to “stand upright” was miraculous. There was no chance that Paul was a fraud.
God’s Have Come Down
So, how did the people respond? They responded according to their culture and belief system:
11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.
Paul and Barnabas had done something they would expect the mythological gods would do: heal a man who was unhealable by the society’s greatest doctors.
So, they named Paul and Barnabas according to their gods, fitting to their beliefs about those specific god’s jobs. Zeus and Hermes. Or, in Roman parlance, Jupiter and Mercurius.
According to one commentary,
“The main reason for the assignment of the two names was that the listeners recognised in St. Paul the gift of eloquence, which was the special attribute of Hermes . . . there may have been something in the taller stature and more stately presence of Barnabas which impressed them with the sense of a dignity like that of Jupiter.”1
We laugh at Greek Mythology, but they didn’t. It was a very big deal that the people thought Zeus and Hermes had paid them a visit and healed this man who had suffered since birth having no personal means of getting around, working, playing . . .
It was such a big deal that the priests of these mythological gods brought their wares, including oxen, to begin sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas right there in the street.
Turn Away from Little “g” gods
This is where we learn how God’s people, when in positions of influence and leadership and praised mightly for their skills, need to respond:
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” 18 Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.
Turn away from your little “g” gods – Jupiter and Mercurius – Paul and Barnabas say. They deflected the higest of praise, and redirected the people to the One true God.
Yes, this is an extreme example, yet taken into our Western context, the idolatry present in the hearts of these people can be found just as evident in our hearts as we lift up leaders in our society. Jean Lipmum-Blumen suggests our idolatry of leaders (from a non-Christian perspective) is based on “Our need for security and certainty, which prompts us to surrender freedom to achieve them.”2
Indeed, the people in the New Testament times turned to that which could give them answers to their lives’ most pressing questions.
As Leaders, How Do We Respond?
For our purposes, I want to turn to Paul and Barnabas. Their response is educational for influencers. You cannot always help the idolatry of those who observe your skills as a leader, but how you respond to their praises, both outwardly and inwardly, tell much about your own idolatry and may help them as well.
There is much riding on a leader’s response. In some cases, it is just a matter of redirecting the praise as it seems in the Apostles’ (Paul and Barnabas) case. But there is more riding on a leader’s response than simply redirecting. Lipmum-Blumen helpfully suggests:
“Our fear of physical death is not the sole cause of our anxiety. In fact, the anxiety we feel in the face of social death may be just as great, possibly greater, than our dread of physical death. Social belonging is a powerful drive for which we are willing to sacrifice much.”3
When a leader redirects praise he or she may be bringing on “social death.” This act of humility may also have the effect of your adoring masses being less enamored with you. What happens if suddenly you are not so worshipped anymore by subordinates? Can you live with that?
It is a risk that Paul and Barnabas knew they must take. They had no right to steal praise from the One true God who rules over His world and is the One true Healer (Psalms 47:6-8). No matter the results of their redirection, they needed to give God the honor.
The redirecting of praise, as an act of humility by leaders, may be in a variety of directions:
To the Lord,
To another leader responsible for the work ultimately,
To a subordinate who had the orginal idea,
To someone outside the organization who gave you the idea or means for completing the task.
The list could go on, I am sure. All of it ultimately resides at the feet of Jesus, but He has likely used other people to bring good and praising (not worshipping) them is good and right.
Heart of the Matter
But, now most importantly, get to the heart of the matter: your heart.
It is not enough ever in the Christian life to focus on “acts of humility”–“Acting” like you are redirecting the praise. Sure it is helpful for destroying the idols of your subordinates.
But, the Lord looks on your heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Is your heart redirecting the praise? Do you really believe that you gifted yourself? Do you really believe that ultimately your desire, discipline, and self-direction gave you the ability to be great in the eyes of the worshipping subordinates?
Biblically, this is idolatry. It is giving credit to someone other than the Lord for what He does. Consider the following passages (you can read them in the notes below if you are too lazy, like me to look them up):
So, the prescription for us, as we receive adoration, is to consider how the Lord has blessed us and given us even the opportunity to do good, not just the ability.
Allow that . . . in fact, drive it into your heart. Ask the Lord to bring it to mind every time you are tempted to receive and hold onto the praises of man.
NOTES:
Ellicott C. J. 1897. A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. London: Cassell. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 29. ↩︎
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders (p. 39). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, 38. ↩︎
Exodus 31:1-5 (ESV) The LORD said to Moses, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. ↩︎
Job 12:7-10 (ESV) “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; 8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. ↩︎
Acts 17:24-25 (ESV) The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ↩︎
Deuteronomy 8:17-18 (NIV) You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today. ↩︎
Ben taught theology and was a chaplain for a mission college in Africa. In addition, he was responsible for the expansion of the library and development of a master’s degree program. Ben’s wife, Casandra, worked with her husband on the organization of the library and as an administrative assistant.
They served the mission for two years before they resigned.
They grieve the loss of what they had in Africa. Casandra said they loved the “passionate” missionaries with whom they worked and the couple has remained good friends with a number of former African students and co-workers, hearing from them frequently.
It was a very good two years.
The graduate program they designed continues to operate after almost 10 years. They feel they had an impact in their ministry with the mission.
Demeaning and Manipulative
When we talked recently they described a visit they made to the mission the year before they sold their house, quit their jobs, and moved their two children to the African country. Over meals with various missionary families, no one mentioned anything negative about the leadership.
It all seemed like peaches and cream as they prepared to move.
However, after their two years of service, Ben and Casandra described the leaders of the ministry as “demanding,” “demeaning,” “manipulative,” and “harsh.” They described several times that unreasonable “demands” were made by the CEO, including an “email about an additional layer of responsibilities” they received one month prior to moving onto the mission field.
During their first year at the mission, a missionary, who was acting as Director while the CEO was out of country, came to Ben and informed him that the CEO said Ben wasn’t “pulling his weight” and needed to take on night guard duty.
Ben calmly told the intermediary that he wasn’t told that by the CEO and he did not have the time to devote to guard duty.
Ben described that when he would meet with the CEO,
“The moment I walked in, it was not a dialogue. It was a pretend dialogue that I could say what I wanted to say and for as long as I wanted to say it. But, the answer was already etched in stone and was going to be carried out.”
Casandra had few conflicts with the CEO, but when she was helping in one of the other offices, she was “yelled at by [the founder’s wife] to not be involved at all because I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about.’”
Seeking Accountability and Change
Ben did meet with the CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution.
In addition, Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter from a large group of missionaries’ said, “It could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories and make changes.
However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.
Ben explained the “judging” section of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1-5 did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. That passage says,
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Matthew 7:1-6 (ESV)
At that time, following writing letters to the board, CEO, and faculty, he said,
“I recognized that I just needed to forgive them. I was never going to be asked for forgiveness . . . I didn’t need to be putting myself in the seat of judge.”
While still with the mission, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” He explained,
“I began to feel more and more affirmed in my thinking that my job was not to try to change them. I was going to fry myself if I took that campaign on. It was a waste of time and energy to try to change the situation in that sense of casting pearls.”
Dealing with 1 Peter and Matthew
When asked about his consideration of the Matthew 18 principles of conflict management, Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage.
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives direction for confronting the sin of a brother. The multi-step process includes:
Go in private to the one who has sinned against you.
If unrepentant, bring another person or two to once again confront the sinner.
If continuing in unrepentance, tell it to the church.
If rejecting all these pleas for confession and repentance, they are to be treated as an unbeliever.
He explained,
“I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” He had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply [Matthew 18] to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”
Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”
Ben also said there were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage where it says,
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
1 Peter 2:18-20 (ESV)
Ben explained that they said, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.”
Ben said he thought most about the 1 Peter passage. He said he “went back to it again and again and again. Sometimes looking for a loophole.”
However, Ben argued their positions with the organization were “voluntary” and received no funding from the mission. He suggested their “accountability” was “to those who put us there”; The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.”
As an example, Ben recounted a sermon given in the organization chapel by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters who were his mentors for their advice.
He asked them, “Is it me, people.” Ben wanted to be accountable to those who would be honest about his evaluation of the leader.
Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you . . . something’s broken.” He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He explained, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, [the CEO] is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”
As Ben considered the application of Matthew 18 to their situation, he suggested there was no church authority in place for the third step:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:17 (ESV)
No Change
Ben noted the CEO always justified or explained away his sin, often blame-shifting. He saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others approached the boss.
Others in the mission had approached the board prior to their families leaving the organization with no success.
According to a Workplace Bullying Institute survey, this experience is not unusual. In a 2012 survey, only 3.5% of those who confronted their bullies at work experienced a change in bullying.[1] They found that there was little recourse for those under toxic leadership. In another WBI survey, 61% of the victims lost their job, while only 15% of the perpetrators lost theirs.[2]
As a parachurch and mission organization, no ecclesiastical governing body had authority to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.
Family Business
Ben called the leadership a “family business.” He said, “[I had] very little sense that I was part of something whose passion was building God’s kingdom. It was very much building ours,” referring to the family.
He had discovered “if you weren’t in the family, you were out of business.” Ben said the “family called the shots and it didn’t matter the thoughts, opinions, the ideas of anybody outside.” He explained, “Real decisions were made around the family table.”
Party to the Abuse
Ben explained the responses of some staff to the toxicity of the CEO, “Some people were the fighters and some people were just apathetic.” As noted above, in his experience, the fighters were “worn out” through a lack of change coming from their battles.
However, the apathetic ones “put their heads down” and “counted the minutes when they could drive out the gates and do what gave them life and meaning, a purpose and joy.”
Ben determined that he did not want to “become apathetic to leadership” or “go find another mission somewhere for survival’s sake.” However, in the end, Ben and Casandra believed remaining at the organization would mean being “a party to the abuse” and did not want to risk joining either of these “camps.”
The Return and the Church’s Response
Ben suggested the negative effects their experiences had were not as great compared to others possibly due to “living off campus” and being there only two years. However, he said, their “jaws were on the floor with what other people needed to do and go through to unwrap their minds, hearts, and spirits from that experience.”
Though they felt somewhat spared from a lot of direct abuse, Casandra pointed out that Ben had hives for a long time after leaving, and noted, “He had lots of wounds of internal stress from it all.”
Both shared they “were very fragile for a time. We were looking for and very much needed support and encouragement.”
Ben told the story of returning home from the mission field and experiencing two different responses from church supporters. Some seemed to have little concern and apparently did not understand the difficulties he and his family had faced. Ben and Casandra’s sense of failure due to returning so soon from their mission seemed to be exasurbated by these responses.
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.’” In fact, they noted that only one of their five supporting churches really sought to minister to them when they returned.
This church welcomed them back, sought them out, spent time with them, and supported them fully. This was a very healing time for them.
When Ben, Casandra, and I first spoke, Ben said, “It has been three years since we have been back” in the United States. He said he had received that day an email from one of his former students, they were going to be hosting another student at their house in a few days, and their church in the United States continues to support the ministry of another former student.
Ben said, “We didn’t cut any ties with [the country], just with the organization. It is very much an ongoing part of our lives and always will be.” In the end, they believed their multiple communications to the leadership and board of directors provided opportunity for corrections to be made had those entities listened to their pleas.
Casandra said,
I came to a point where I knew in my heart that spiritually, emotionally and professionally that ‘the person I am’ did not line up with who and what the organization leadership had demonstrated to me in the past two years. While, I loved the ‘mission of ECU’ and my role at ECU, I could no longer turn a blind eye to the leadership decisions and how the organization leadership treated its students and especially “the help” (ie. nationals in general). The hierarchy of power and status based on race (“we are white and therefore superior”) and the lack of grace, humility, and servant leadership displayed by the organization leadership was directly opposite of everything I believed that God called me to be and how he called me to serve. I could no longer be part of an organization that manipulated Scripture to promote its own agenda.
Ben and Casandra said they never “questioned their decision to leave.” They had comfort in knowing God had called them “there for that time . . . God has equipped us with the mission of what He wanted us to do. We felt we accomplished what we were there to do.”
Healing
An important period of healing came when they returned to the United States. There was a “mission group” at one of their supporting churches who cared for them. Casandra said, “They just really embraced us and were willing to help.”
Ben added, “They wanted to know how we were doing. How they could help us.”
When we spoke recently – eight years after our initial interview – Ben and Casandra explained that the good response they received from this one church was likely due to the church’s intentional development of a relationship with their missionary.
The group asked Ben and Casandra to come meet with them to “debrief with them, not to pick apart the ins and outs of the organization, but for us. It wasn’t about trying to fix what we left behind.” He said most “people didn’t really understand” and that made this mission group’s support so helpful.
Casandra added,
“There was a measure of failure you wrestle with. We moved our entire lives and sold our house . . . and two years? But, we were never made to feel like failures . . . We were able to make a difference at that time and whether it was two years or 20 years, we gave our best and we left when we could no longer operate there in good conscience before God and our supporters.”
Another aid to their healing came with a new vocational direction. They moved to Europe to pastor an international church. There they found it helpful to be in a cross-cultural setting (which they felt called to all along) and among people who did not know them. In addition, they were not in the United States where the failure they felt was so prevelent.
The process of healing has been a longer process for Casandra. She isn’t sure why. She continues to struggle with how to view missions in the church and she has no desire to return to Africa. Ben, on the other hand, jokingly said, “I’m just dead inside.” Remembering his response to leaving the mission mockingly said, “Well that sucked . . . next?”
When they got free from the toxic leadership, Ben and Casandra found healing in the words of scripture, from those individuals who supported them, and in new vocational directions. God has provided good ministry for both Ben and Casandra.
References
[1] Namie, “2013 Instant Poll – D: The Timing & Results of Targets Confronting Bullies At Work.”
[2] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”
Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.
Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.
Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.
We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.
Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.
Is He Successful?
But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”
He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.
I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.
They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.
I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the churchI own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.
The Shepherd
The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.
The Strongs Dictionary says,
“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary
We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.
Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.
A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.
But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.
Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13
Responsibility, Not Authority
Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.
A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.
He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.
The sheep do not fear him.
You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.
Not take authority.
Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.
And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.
In this writing, I want to bring leaders down to earth . . . with a view to heaven.
I hope these ideas are both biblical and helpful in challenging common misconceptions about our Christian leaders. Leaders are important . . . and so they need to get it right. When speaking with Jada, I was again confronted with the teaching in some churches that leaders are to be obeyed absolutely.
I am going to use Numbers for some analysis of this view. But, I first must begin with a spoiler alert. The Old Testament priests are not in all ways equivalent to the New Testament leader or pastor in the church. I would suggest that there are some general principles that we gleen from OT Scripture for leadership, but we cannot make one-to-one comparisons.
Therefore, I will work from a principled way as we look at the Old Testament priesthood and apply it to current church leadership.
God’s Leaders: The High Calling
Leadership in the church is a high calling. It is likely that every society that gives credence to “religion” gives special honor to leaders of those religions. The spiritual guidance these leaders provide, bad or good, creates a we-them perspective. Religious leaders are normally set apart. They are often looked upon as having special knowledge or skills of the spiritual realm.
Some cultures especially give attention to spiritual leaders. We experienced significant honor in Africa and even in the United States there is a general sense of respect and honor for church pastors.
We see this in the Bible in Numbers 8 where the LORD gave Moses guidance for the establishment of the Levitical priesthood.
“Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.” [Numbers 8:6-7]
The priests were set apart for the work they did, even in their physical appearance. There was clearly a uniqueness to their vocation (calling).
And in the New Testament,
“Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
1 Peter 5:5 (ESV)
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
1 Timothy 5:17 (ESV)
The elder in the church is placed in a position of authority that others submit to them and they are to be “honored,” especially the ones who do it well.
In addition, the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 point to their calling to be guides and examples to God’s people.
Our Leaders: Not So Much
This is where we begin to see the balance with which we must grapple in our view of leaders.
Their authority is not absolute because they are not absolute.
The LORD is the only One Who is absolute and this becomes apparent when we look at the above Numbers passage and consider those same qualifications for elders found in Timothy and Titus.
“When you bring the Levites before the LORD, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the LORD. Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the LORD to make atonement for the Levites.”
Numbers 8:10-12
Note that these leaders—priests—are sinners just as the rest of the people of Israel are. Their sins must be atoned for and that sacrifice for sins is done in full view of the people.
Not only that, the people lay their hands on these priests. The people ordain the priests.
This is significant.
The priests represent the people—they come from among the people. They are not the end-all of leadership. The LORD is.
He calls leaders. He instructs them in righteous leading. He calls His people to follow them.
And He holds them accountable. They have, do, and will sin. It must be atoned for.
“When a leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by the commandments of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD; it is a sin offering.”
Leviticus 4:22-24 (ESV)
The leader is to admit his wrong whether it was intentional or not. And, in the Old Testament law, he was to bring his sacrifice . . . a public presentation of their need for God’s forgiveness.
Leaders are Accountable
But, when those sins deeply affect his leadership, God brings an end to his leadership through His and His people’s systems of justice. God does not look kindly on wicked leaders who feed on the sheep rather than care for them.
So He calls them out:
“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep.”
Ezekiel 34:7-10 (ESV)
Sometimes he strikes them by His own hand and sometimes He uses man’s justice. Either way, it becomes clear that leaders in the church (or anywhere for that matter) are not absolute in their authority or honor.
Some Application
What do these principles mean?
In the big picture, they mean that leaders are given by God, but they are accountable for their leadership. They are to be respected, but they are to be held to high standards of behavior.
To get more specific, we serve our leaders as they call us to follow them towards the heavenly. As they teach us well, we learn well. As they give vision and example for ministry to others, we fulfill the vision and ministry. They are, after all, called to train us for works of ministry (Ephesians 4:12).
On the other hand, leaders who teach or behave contrary to Scripture can be called out by subordinates. Leaders who are unwilling to humble themselves, recognizing their own need of forgiveness from the Lord and others, need to cease being leaders.
Those who are responsible for appointing those leaders need to take their responsibility seriously and provide accountability. And they should never suggest to followers that they keep silent about errors on the leader’s part. As followers we should never feel and be taught as Jada was that we cannot challenge an “elder” in the church.
We must always remember that pastors and organizational CEOs are God’s leaders . . . and they are OUR leaders.
NOTES:
I encourage you to read Dr. Diane Langberg’s wonderful book, “Redeeming Power.”
In addition, this podcast sheds some light on power dynamics in the church: “Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse.”
The Bible is repleat with examples and the modern business and Christian organization world is full of them. It is a huge temptation for any organization that feels more dependent on donor funds than God.
Only in the Christian organization it is spun as “being an example for Christ.”
In other words, truth does not really matter. What really matters is if appearances are kept up for the public. Then Christ is glorified.
And it just so happens, the money flows better that way. Contributions roll in unabated.
But, Jesus never told his people to fake it until you make it. In fact, He most commonly called those who do hypocrites and that was not a positive assessment of their spiritual state (Matthew 6).
Saul and Image
King Saul reigned in Israel approximately 1021–1000 BC. He was their first king, which is a story in itself (not to be discussed here).
At one point he was told by the prophet Samuel to attack Amalek. He did as commanded by the Lord. But, though being told to destroy everyone and everything, Saul spared the king and held onto the best of the sheep and oxen.
Samuel came to Saul having been told by the Lord, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:10)
As Samuel confronted him, Saul immediately began shifting the blame to the people. Samuel told him the Lord was stripping him of his kingship. Saul responded,
“I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30 (ESV))
“I have sinned.” Sounds like he got it right. But listen to those words following.
“Honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. . .” His image is of greatest importance here. His confession is only a ploy to please the prophet. His desire for honor far outweighs his relationship with the Lord.
Samuel seems to think so as well.
He tells Saul that he will not return with him and walks away. However, Saul won’t stand for it and grabs the prophet’s robe, tearing it. Samuel in turn uses Saul’s disrespectful action as a metaphor and tells Saul that God is tearing his kingdom away from him just as he tore Samuel’s robe.
And then Samuel returns with Saul and finishes the job Saul was supposed to do.
Outward Appearances
Saul is a good (evil) example of the image-driven pastor, organizational leader, or business CEO. The Lord does not look on outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:12) and you will never get away with being driven by an image rather than the real deal (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees through that. God knows your character through and through.
You cannot put on airs with Jesus like you do for your adoring public.
Jesus will bring it to light at some point.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and never airs its dirty laundry . . . run.
It is unhealthy and hypocritical.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and tells you all the ways that it does ministry better than anyone else . . . run.
It is unhealthy and they are lying.
We Will Crush You
When an organization is driven by image, you can be assured it will do anything to keep that image alive.
That means the leaders will lie about wrongdoing. They will crush dissent. They will refuse criticism . . . even constructive criticism. They will put on a facade for the donors.
On a side note, this is of what NDAs are made. NDAs are often intended to keep that image alive through silencing its victims while offering cold cash for the buyout.
I worked for a mission agency like this. I watched it in action. And I drank the Koolaid for several years. I am not above being sucked in.
My wife had to confront me (in her gracious way) following a missions conference when I came away all blustery about how our mission was so much better than all those other missions.
It was less than a year later that all that image crumbled before me and we left the mission beaten and bruised by the toxic leadership.
It is insidious. Don’t take part in it . . . it will kill you.
For helpful information on “impression management” by Wade Mullen:
Amber, a young adult, was committed to church. She loved the fellowship and teaching.
Then something happened.
Her friend, Kayla, noticed it in her church attire at first. One Sunday she wore a prom dress. The next, Amber wore jeans to church. Kayla said it was strange.
“I knew something was wrong.”
Kayla’s Story
Kayla was hired by the church when an old friend became the pastor. It was a rough start when she sought to engage a small group of women led by an older, very wealthy matriarch.
Kayla was not welcome. They misinterpreted her reaction to them when they had tried to hide their alcoholic drinks from her, telling others Kayla was judging them (she wasn’t).
When the matriarch was “slandering” her, Kayla asked permission to attend their small group get together to clear the air. She was rebuffed.
So, she went to her pastor and boss, Brandon. Despite having stuck up for the music minister facing a similar situation, the pastor told Kayla to just get over it. “It’s just part of ministry,” he explained. “It’s time to put on your big girl pants.”
The New Elder
Kevin was in training to become a new elder at the church. They were nearing the time that the church would “ordain” him in the new leadership position. But Kayla had heard stories about Kevin that were concerning.
Kayla attempted to warn Pastor Brandon that Kevin had a reputation as possibly an adulterer; she had heard that he had a sexual relationship with a woman, not his wife. The pastor brushed it off and said, “I know Kevin. Of course, he wouldn’t do such a thing.”
The ordination went forward.
Reporting the Abuse
Meanwhile, Kayla sought out Amber, asking her if something was wrong. At first, Amber said nothing was wrong, but a few months later, when Kayla again approached her, Amber poured out her heart.
Amber had been sexually assaulted by Elder Kevin.
Thus began a long road of incredible hurt for Amber, Kayla, and her husband, Zachary. And failure on the part of church leadership.
Kayla convinced Amber to speak with her husband, Kayla’s husband Zachary (a professional Christian counselor), and Pastor Brandon. The first meeting with Zachary and Amber’s husband went well. The men were understanding, attentive, and supportive.
However, if Kayla had it to do over again, she said she would not have pushed Amber to talk to the pastor. Kayla assured Amber the pastor would “hold Elder Kevin accountable” for the assault.
That evening they went to the pastor’s house and Amber bravely shared her story. The first thing Pastor Brandon asked her was, “Were you drunk?”
From that point on it was a battle. Was Pastor Brandon blinded by Kevin’s wealth? Or some kind of loyalty? After all, Kevin had chaired the pulpit committee that had hired Pastor Brandon. Or was it something else?
Standing For Oppression
As Kayla sought to bring accountability to Kevin before the other elders, she faced one roadblock after another.
The elders didn’t believe Amber. She had been drinking so somehow it was her fault. Amber had denied ever being drunk, but they didn’t believe that either.
Amber’s story has been slowly coming out just as those who are traumatized slowly piece things together according to experts. But Pastor Brandon has maintained that she must be lying because her story had changed. However, according to Kayla, Amber has been simply adding to the story as she has processed it over time, as can be expected.
Brandon said when he met with Kevin, “He sobbed like a baby.” Brandon said he had never seen a man so broken.
Shortly after reporting the assault to the church leader, Kevin contacted Amber asking her if he had “penetrated” her. (According to state law, there must be penetration to be classified as rape). In so doing, he admitted the assault, but obviously wanted to stay out of jail.
The elders in the end asked Kevin to leave the church but did not explain to the congregation what was happening and have never taken care of Amber aside from offering to pay for counseling.
There has been no real public accounting for the credible accusations against Kevin.
Kicking a Dead Horse
As Kayla and Zachary pressed on, their livelihoods, spiritual, and emotional health have been profoundly damaged.
In seeking the accountability of these leaders, it has felt like kicking a dead horse. Except, this dead horse kicks back.
In a meeting with Pastor Brandon, he asked Kayla, “What if I said Amber has changed her story?” Kayla explained that it is a known fact that memories change in those who have been traumatized.
Kayla then tried to explain to Pastor Brandon the power differential between Amber and Kevin because of Kevin’s spiritual authority as an elder. In response, Pastor Brandon said “That’s CRT” (Critical Race Theory). Kayla, knowing that the leadership view those who hold any CRT views as “heretics” said, “I’m not a heretic.”
She described to me,
“He moved to the door with his arms folded. I couldn’t leave. Then he moved on to another case I was working on – a case of domestic abuse. He said disbelievingly about the accusation of abuse, ‘There are two sides to every story.’ So, I said, ‘But she works for me.’ He retorted that he had talked to husband for six hours, but I said, ‘I work with her for 20 hours a week!’
Brandon left the office but then came back to her. He said, “I want you to know you have a voice in this. Get it out and at some point we are done talking about this.” Kayla asked, “When?” She said he got angry and threatened, “I will do a nationwide search and replace you.”
He went on, “Though I disagree with 99 percent of Mark Driscoll, I would say he got one thing right: get on the bus or get run over.”
Wow.
How We Always Talk
Kayla’s husband, Zachary was there for this heated exchange.
He was shocked by the outburst and when Brandon left, Zachary asked Kayla if he normally talked to her that way. He explained that Brandon was yelling at her. He described it as a “narcissistic kind of rage,” especially Brandon’s tirade, “I will not be accused here! I will not be put on trial!” in response to Kayla calmly reminding Brandon of something he said which he adamantly denied saying.
In response to Zachary, Kayla said, “That is the only way we talk.” Zachary went on, “He was obsessed with never being corrected.” Mimicking Brandon, he said, “This is how you have to talk to me.”
Kayla said Brandon’s solution to their conflict “was that we would meet once a week where he could correct me if I ‘misinterpreted’ anything he said.” Brandon basically demanded the right to reinterpret Kayla’s experience as it suited his agenda of control.
This was not the only form of gaslighting Kayla experienced. At her first and only performance evaluation, Brandon provided positive feedback but zeroed in on one carefully chosen criticism: “Overly bearing the burdens of those under your ministry has the possibility of clouding your judgment.” This was said with clear reference to her relationship to Amber, and the message was subtle but clear: Brandon saw things clearly, but Kayla’s judgment could not be trusted.
Kayla, burned out and depressed, finally asked for a leave of absence for a couple months. Pastor Brandon encouraged her to resign instead. She pushed back and made clear that her request was for a paid leave, not a resignation.
Kayla explained, “A couple, who met with Pastor Brandon, said he told them that I came to him on Tuesday and resigned and then came in Wednesday and changed my mind.” Kayla thinks it likely that is the same story the pastor told the elders.
At no point did she suggest that she was resigning.
The elders in the end approved Kayla’s leave.
Pastor Brandon then announced to the church staff that she was going to resign. She had to again push back and say loud and clear that she never resigned, she just asked for extended leave.
The NDA
However, during her leave the elders asked her to resign and sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.”
They would provide a severance package if she wouldsignit and resign. It would effectively silence her. She would be legally bound to keep her mouth shut about the failures of the church leadership . . . in particular, Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
However, Kayla and Zachary would not be bought off, as they described it. Despite Kayla’s salary being their family’s primary source of funds, they were agreed that in good conscience they could not take a vow of silence.
Kayla refused the NDA.
The church leadership must have realized they were in trouble as they went ahead with a severance package (but only gave a portion of severance offered with NDA), and at the end of Kayla’s leave, fired her without any explanation or justification.
The Peace and Purity of the Church
After months of silence following the sexual assault, the elders called a congregational meeting to address the firing of Kayla as well as Kevin’s sexual assault.
The pastor began with a statement regarding Kayla’s termination. He explained,
“Let us be clear that there is no sin or character issue that has led us to this decision. Kayla is a remarkably gifted woman of God who has contributed greatly to our church and her ministries.”
The reason she was fired was that she continued to challenge the pastor and elders for their failure to take the kind of action that responding to a sexual predator in the church requires. Pastor Brandon in his statement denied this and did not express remorse for the horrible damage done by the sexual abuse of an elder, of whom they had been warned prior to installing in a leadership position.
Despite being encouraged by a respected abuse specialist in their denomination to seek a third-party investigation, they did not.
They did not make it public to provide a safe place for reports of other victims of Kevin’s abuse (though there were others reported to Kayla). During the congregational meeting questions were asked about the church’s investigation and the elders refused to answer them.
They had not brought in experts, neither law enforcement nor abuse consultants, to investigate.
Pastor Brandon confessed in the meeting that they should have come to the congregation with the information sooner, yet did not and have not asked Kayla’s or the survivor’s forgiveness for failing in this way to support them as they should.
In fact, the pastor noted defensively it was in their “rights” to not report to others there was a sexual offender among them.
When a question-and-answer time was coming to a close, one church member spoke passionately in Kayla’s defense:
“This is an extremely serious issue where, by all appearances, a wonderful person, who had impacted many of our lives very positively, was unfairly fired because she advocated for a victim and because she wouldn’t stop advocating for a victim.”
Bringing the meeting to a close, Pastor Brandon, in exasperation made a last-ditch effort to force submission to the church leadership and silence whistleblowers:
“If you still have issues, come to the elders, talk to them. But go directly to the parties that are offending you, and please, for the sake of the peace of the church, be careful how you talk to one another, or talk to other people, go directly to the source, and get these questions answered.”
Pastor Brandon went on:
And when we have disagreements, take them the session, and, you know, express your concerns and your grievances. But if it is a matter of a judgment call, God has ordained them, and you have elected them, to make those decisions on your behalf. And for the peace of the church, we need to leave it there. And then walk away and love each other.
His plea was to keep their failure to do what was right and failure to confess and seek forgiveness for their failures from destroying the church. Where admitting the wrong and seeking restitution would have healed many wounds that continue to this day, instead he recommended keeping things as private as possible.
As if that would serve “the peace and purity of the church.”
Accountability
Following the meeting, a church family wrote to the elders,
“Abusers need to know that their predation will be met with consequences. Victims need to know that they have a place to turn where someone will listen. And the world needs to see that the church is serious about protecting the vulnerable.”
They went on,
“By your own words you make the case that Kayla’s firing was a retaliatory measure, designed to silence her from bringing Kevin’s sin into the light.”
But rather than seek real accountability for Kevin, the elders sent him to another church to continue his abuse.
Submission to [Bad] Authority
In a recent sermon, Pastor Brandon was speaking on submission to authority. As is common to church leadership abuse, it is not unusual for a pastor to double down on the submission topic when he is being challenged. He said in the sermon, “Never ever confuse authority and biblical leadership with arrogance or a power grab.”
Brandon proclaimed the innocence of the elders’ motives in their decisions. One of the elders argued that their decisions to keep Kevin’s felonies private were simply “judgment calls.” He said, “But when the decision is made, unless it’s something so sinful, you know, or so greatly unbiblical, then, we are called to submit for the peace of the church.”
Sounds very biblical and wise.
But, regarding such horrible treatment of victims and those who advocate for them as simply judgment calls is anathema to the Lord.
As one individual who has experienced leadership abuse said, “It seems that where there is leadership abuse in the church, you will always find spiritual abuse.”
It is when submission is taught from pulpits and in responses to questions about the ways authority is exercised in the church that the Scripture is used to control and manipulate. References in Scripture like Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13f are taken out of context and absolutized to suggest that no matter what the authority does, the subordinate is required to obey and submit.
It is poor exegesis and deeply damaging to God’s people. [see here]
Turned Upside Down
Kayla, Zachary, and Amber’s lives have been turned upside down by the leadership of their church. Rather than responding in silence, deception, justification, and anger, their leaders should have heard their cries. They should have taken decisive action to hold the abuser accountable. They should have sought the healing of those who suffered under Kevin’s sexual assaults.
And they should have seen how this crisis revealed Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
If they haven’t, they should pack their bags. They do not belong in leadership.
NOTE: I recommend the below website. It provides excellent resources for survivors of clergy sexual abuse. God’s shepherds must be held accountable for oppressive behavior as the Lord held His shepherds accountable during the prophet Ezekiel’s time – Ezekiel 34.
Clergy Sexual Misconduct – We provide info & resources to those affected by clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) & ministries desiring to be a safe place.
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.
