Tag Archives: integrity

The Gag Reflex: How Fear Ruins an Organization

Posted on by
Reply

As I interview and discuss toxic leadership among Christian organization (and church) leaders, it has become apparent that head honchos that “gag” subordinates are encouraging a toxic environment.

These leaders need to be warned that they are heading down a road that will get very difficult to navigate.

There has been much attention given to the actions of Liberty University President, Jerry Falwell Jr., in relation to employees and students. I wrote [Liberty U: Slaves to Image] several months ago in response to a World Magazine article reporting Liberty U’s gag orders to their student newspaper.

Buying the Mission

Fundamental to most gag orders in Christian organizations is the argument that employees should be fully “bought into” the organization’s “Christian” philosophy, goals, and actions. And therefore, should never speak negatively about the organization publicly.

There is often a strong submission element in the stated motives as well. Employees should just submit to their leadership or get out. Romans 13 might even be quoted:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


Romans 13:1-2 (ESV)

Or maybe even the misplaced quoting of Joshua’s famous challenge to the man with the drawn sword standing between Israel and Jericho.

When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?”


Joshua 5:13 (ESV)

“Are you for us, or against us?” A bit of throwing down the gauntlet.

However, not only is quoting Joshua in this case going against the context of this passage [the Lord lays Joshua flat], but I would suggest that demanding submission based on Romans is often a thinly disguised attempt to cover the fears of organizational leadership when the “emporer has no clothes.”

It is fear that drives leaders to require employees to remain silent when finding things afoot in the ministry that do not sit right with them.

Unflinching submission from employees is what most authorities would love to have and it takes self-awareness, humility, and some significant self-differentiation (thick skin) to deal with subordinate challenges.

In 2012, Liberty University’s leadership sought to contact an employee late in the evening to order her to cease and desist from posting her frustration over a lack of parking on the campus (making it necessary for her to walk quite a distance to her office) on social media. When an article was written about the event, the employee no longer was working at Liberty.

The employee had found it necessary to complain publicly about an issue she found important and believed she was not being heard by Liberty U’s leadership.

A complaint about parking? Is a gag order really necessary?

Protectionism

When a leader is more concerned about being agreed with and obeyed than the growth of his leadership skill or organization’s quality, he is forgetting the call Jesus Christ gave to His flock to do unto others [His image-bearers] as they would want to be done to. [loose translation of Luke 6:30-31]

In a lecture for the AACC National Conference in Dallas, Diane Langberg said regarding the church’s poor response to abuse in its midst,

Much of Christendom today is in turmoil, trying deparately to protect her name and reputation and institutions. Such things are not the call of God in our lives. The call of God is in the voice of the little ones. Little in size, age, position, and power. We are called to listen to the voices of the abused. We are called to go to places where souls are damaged.  To go to places where we need to bend, to go slowly, to become little so as to not overwhelm. To have patience as souls who have been chained in dark places adjust to some light for the very first time. And in doing so, we will demonstrate before a power-grabbing, watching world the true nature of our great God who became little on our behalf.

She is challenging Christian leaders to go “small” like Jesus did in becoming flesh and dwelling among crazy humans in weakness. Look out for the little ones, not our own reputation and image. We need to quit “trying desparately to protect” our organizations’ and churches’ reputations.

Missing the Jesus Boat

Christian leaders who rely on gag orders to control their employees are missing the Jesus boat. They are abusing the authority God has given them. They are seeking to create a fortress around their reputations and image.

Unfortunately, many leaders, who at least border on being toxic, fail to realize the damage they actually do to their image and credibility when demanding submission. Rather than protecting their reputation, they are saying to the watching world, “Me and my goals are unchallengeable and righteous.” Rather than welcoming the sometimes, God-given and uncomfortable exhortations to becoming better as a leader or organization, they crush those they consider opponents.

We have watched over and over again the attempted salvaging of company, political, or organizational image at the expense of truth-telling following a moral failure. And we have become jaded and cynical to the marketing machines that have become all-too common seeking to cover up the failings of leadership.

We know instinctively what is going to be said and done by the organization to shift the blame, deny, and be obscurantic.

Consider, for instance, Michigan State University as it continues to squash taking responsibility for its horrifying failure to protect young women athletes from sexual predators in their sports programs. I encourage you to read Rachael Denhollander’s new book, “What Is a Girl Worth?”

As Christian leaders, we are called to much better responses. Again, hear the wisdom of Diane Langberg:

“We have seen it in the church, in missions, in Christian organizations, or communities around the world. There is the cancer of immorality, theft, corruption, or sexual abuse, and all the energy of that system goes to maintaining itself and a good appearance while ignoring the disease. Thinking they are preserving the system they call God’s, they fail to see and deal with the disease hidden within. They actually think that if they acknowledge the presence of disease and work to stop it, they will in fact, destroy the work of God. However, it is not a step toward the recovery of a sickly system to disguise the worst symptoms of that system to itself.”

— Suffering and the Heart of God: How Trauma Destroys and Christ Restores by Diane Langberg

“Sickly systems” need to be healed. The failures of our organizations need to be brought to light to be healed. We need to hear those complaints about our organizations…even in social media.

Then we need to respond by “getting small” and helping our employees have a voice, not gagging them.

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.

Like a Shepherd Lead Us: Looking Outward

Posted on by
Reply

How often do you hear a leader of a Christian organization being called a shepherd?

Yet, all Christian leadership should look like shepherding.

I mean every Christian who is acting in a leadership role. He could be a CEO, low-level or mid-level manager, church deacon or elder, committee member, or head of the home.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader. Here is what he had to say about his leadership:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

John 10:10-12

Do Nothing Selfishly

Underlying all leadership should be the understanding that I am looking out for someone else’s interests. In Philippians, the Apostle Paul seems to be amplifying Jesus’ words.

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Philippians 2:3-4 (ESV)

There is always self-care: look not only to our own interests. We need to consider our own needs for emotional and physical safety. But Paul emphasizes looking outward probably because we are naturally inward-looking. We most naturally look out for ourselves…it takes work and a disposition molded by the Holy Spirit to consider the needs of others.

Who Are the Needy?

Who are the needy? They are the stakeholders of our ministry.

As a leader I am responsible for the needs of my subordinates in the organization and the recipients of my ministry. In addition, I am accountable to ministry donors. Unfortunately, in the broken world of service, there are sometimes competing interests at work between all of these stakeholders.

Toxic organizational leaders do what is necessary to get from these stakeholders. They consider their own needs as more significant than other’s.

As a result, all manner of manipulation and control of their employees, ministry recipients, and donors takes place by the leadership to achieve their goal of getting from them.

The leadership might hide behind such lofty goals as, “We are here to serve the empoverished [i.e. recipients of the ministry].” Or maybe, “We are accountable to those who give generously to our ministry.“

Image, Image, Image

But for the toxic leader, that is only a smokescreen for serving themselves as leaders. He cares little about the stakeholders God has given him.

The organization’s stakeholders are only cogs in his wheel of ego production. And he may care little but for the image of the organization to build his own ego or pocketbook.

The leadership of one mission organization for which I worked focused mostly on image-building in what appeared to be an attempt to keep the contributions rolling in and for their own sense of greatness.

When a donor agency sent a team to evaluate the educational ministry of the organization, the CEO instructed the science teachers to prominently display science equipment that was rarely used and never at that point in the students’ studies. The teachers were to have the students working with the equipment when the donors arrived. The equipment was immediately put away following the visit.

One student remarked, “I wish this was the normal, but obviously [the leaders] just want to make an impression.”

The deception was quite apparent to the students and the Principal of the school, who told me of it later. He was embarrassed by the duplicity.

In another sham, the ministry produced a promotional brochure to raise donors that featured two students on the cover. The brochure explained that the students were “orphans.” When it was discovered that they were not orphans, and were quite offended by the deception, the ministry leader shrugged it off and explained that the students had signed off on having their picture on brochures when they registered for the school.

We just scratched our heads.

Image, image, image.

The wiseman had something to say about this:

Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor.

Proverbs 18:12 (ESV)

Putting Our Foot Out

There is certainly nothing wrong with putting our best foot forward. We espouse our strengths in a job interview and we bring attention to our services as an organization to those with whom we seek to partner financially.

But “marketing” for the Christian is really about humbly making known the gifts God has given us so that we may have opportunity to minister to others with those gifts.

It is not about manipulating others for financial gain or ego gratifying image-mongering. When God has gifted individuals or a ministry with the ability to serve others, it is right to make that known that there be those who may receive the ministry the organization provides.

Paul, in essence says this to the Corinthians:

But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you.

2 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

Paul will boast in “regard to the area of influence God assigned.” He will “glory” in the abilities God has given him that he might serve others.

But as we put our best foot forward, it is important to make sure it is our foot (the “foot” God has given us) we are putting forward, not someone else’s as Paul goes on to say. We must act in integrity and consider all our “stakeholders,” whether they be our employees, donors, or ministry recipients.

Integrity, integrity, integrity.

Leadership is a work of shepherding. It is about feeding the sheep – all the stakeholders.

It means loving others. Considering others as more important than your own comfort or ego or image.

2600 years ago, God spoke through the prophet and priest, Ezekiel. [Jesus was likely referring to this bit of Old Testament prophecy as he spoke of his ministry as the true Shepherd of Israel – John 10]. God said,

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.”

Ezekiel 34:1-6

Amen and amen.

Experiencing Matthew 7 Under a Toxic Boss

Posted on by
5

This is part 4 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of Matthew 7:1-6. This site is largely based on this passage as evidenced by the title.

In Matthew 7:1-6, Jesus is coming to the close of his Sermon on the Mount. He challenges his hearers, “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.”[1]

In verse six, Jesus goes on to say, “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.”[2]

In my family’s experience under toxic leaders, this passage became very important. For several years it softened our hearts, helping us to give the benefit of the doubt to the founders of the mission, who were toxic in their treatment of missionaries and nationals alike.

When this passage was shared with me by a friend as we struggled with whether or not to engage our leaders, it took on new meaning. My wife and I had never really paid attention to the final 10 words . . . words that made an enormous difference in our engagement with the CEO.

I wanted to know in my research if others saw what we saw in Jesus’ words. I interviewed numerous mission organization managers and asked if they applied this passage when interacting with their toxic supervisor.

Judge Not – Section 1

Deirdre is a missionary in a developing country serving in an orphanage and school.

She focused on the first section of the passage and had not really considered the second. Deirdre noted her discomfort in hers and other missionaries’ lack of application. She said, “We were all judging [the toxic leader] even though we shouldn’t have been.” 

However, she explained, “It was so continuous, all the little things she did, that it was hard not to.”

She found it very difficult to simply overlook the leader’s failings in her authoritarian and demeaning treatment of nationals and staff. But, Dierdra believed the passage was teaching that their judgments of the mission leader were inappropriate.

Adam was a faculty member and interim Director of a college ministry in a developing country. He said,

I think I used it privately to calm myself after any perceived wrong doing or pattern of behavior. After grieving and being angry for a time that passage would come to mind and I would use it against myself to call me back into line. That I was as capable of the same kinds of things, same kinds of attitudes and actions, as the [CEO] was.

Again, Adam focused on the first section and sought to calm his anger at the actions of the CEO. He felt that if he would cease from judging, viewing the leader as a sinner just as he was, he could keep his relationship intact with the boss and continue ministering with the mission.

Graham worked for a large Christian organization and confronted the founder with two other Christian leaders. When considering Jesus’ imperative, “take the log out of your own eye,” Graham said, “We tried very hard not to be doing any finger wagging. Like, ‘You are a horrible person and the rest of us are bastions of virtue.’ We tried in all humility to bring him to an awareness of what he had done and its effect on the organization.”

He and his friends were rebutted and he lost his managerial position as a result of their confrontation despite their attempt to apply the first section to their confrontation.

Eugene, who worked with an international evangelical mission agreed, arguing it was “not a judging situation as [much] as a helping situation.” Eugene said he was trying to assist the CEO.

He went on to say he was “trying to help him in his own development of his understanding of himself.” In his evangelistic mission, Eugene also approached the boss, a friend for several years, in humility. He wanted to encourage the CEO as a Christian brother.

But, Eugene was rebuffed and lost his job.

Ben explained the “judging” section of the passage (Matthew 7:1-5) did not come to mind until after several months of being away from the organization. He worked for an educational mission overseas. His application of the first section was to his relationship with his toxic leaders after leaving the organization.

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.” He believed he needed to turn judgment over to the Lord and move on in his own life knowing God would do what was best.

Casting Pearls – Section 2

While still with the organization, Ben said he “very much ruminated on” verse seven where it says, “Do not cast your pearls to the pigs.” His application of the second section was based on the pigs trampling the pearls sent their way.

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.”

Ben believed it would do no good to cast his pearls (give godly advice) before the swine (toxic bosses). They would simply ignore or reject his views.

My Opinion

Unfortunately, none of my interviewees attempted to interpret or apply the final 10 words of the passage. This is common for Christians who are suffering under abusive employers. I would suggest there are at least three reasons for this oversight.

  • Discomfort with making a judgment after Jesus has already said not to judge!

Jesus spends five verses emphasizing that we should not judge others. He provides wonderful metaphors that burn his teaching into our hearts. The second section has only one verse and seems to contradict the first five verses.

However, these two seemingly contradictory teachings actually go wonderfully together. The first emphasizes how we go to a brother who has sinned and humbly instruct him. The second describes the kind of so-called-brother of whom we need to stay clear.

In the first case, we need not fear. He may disagree with us, but generally as we go in humility, he will respond in humility. But, in the second case, we can expect, because of earlier experience or other people’s experiences, the brother will respond very negatively and it is likely we will get hurt as they “turn to attack.”

  • An excessive attention to the pigs “trampling” the pearls.

I spent many years considering only the fact that the pig may “trample” the good words I bring.

He will ignore and reject. Why waste my time? I received some comments on that from my interviewees, but just like me, they did not read on. If the pig may just trample the pearls, we can always give it a shot . . . what’s the worst thing that can happen? They reject the wisdom . . . no big deal.

But, the passage goes on. It goes on to say that they are dangerous and should be avoided.

  • A discomfort with calling someone a “dog” or “pig.”

After being told to be careful in our judgments – remember, there has to be judgment if you are going to go to a brother who has sinned – we are told by Jesus to judge that a person is a pig or a dog. This does not seem to fit.

But, as I said above, Jesus is speaking to two different circumstances. We must judge whether our brother is one who may respond in humility to instruction or will turn and hurt us. This is very important in our engagement with toxic bosses. It is a matter of life-giving or not . . . a matter of safety.

Placing ourselves voluntarily in places of abuse is not required by our Lord. We are not normally called to seek out a fight in which we are guaranteed to lose our lives.

Know your pigs and act accordingly. 

[1]Matthew 7:1-2.

[2]Matthew 7:6.

Matthew 18 & the Toxic Boss

Posted on by
8

This is Part 1 of a 2-Part series on Matthew 18. The second – “Stories of Matthew 18 Under a Toxic Boss” – provides real-life examples of those who sought to apply Matthew 18 in their battles with toxic leaders.

Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 were a fundamental struggle for my family when we faced toxic leadership in a mission organization.

Watching as others were run away from the mission for disagreeing with the CEO gave us reason to hesitate to confront him. We had sold our house in the US. We were dependent on the organization to provide housing for our family and school for our children half way around the world. We joined the organization expecting to serve until our retirement. The last thing we wanted to do was jeopardize all of that.

Most the literature I have read takes for granted the applicability of Matthew 18 to all Christian relationships, as most of the Christians whom I have interviewed took for granted its applicability to their interactions with their toxic supervisor in a Christian organization. Some theologians and some who have experienced abusive leadership however, question the use of Matthew 18:15-20 in conflicts with someone of greater authority.

Jesus says in this passage:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 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. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

[Matthew 18:15-18 (ESV)]

There are three steps Jesus encourages when a brother sins against you.

  1. Go one-on-one to confront the brother,
  2. if he doesn’t repent, take one or two more people along to confront him once again,
  3. finally, if he refuses to repent, tell the church.

Though these seem to be pretty straightforward steps to take, there are a number of questions to be asked when that “brother” is toxic in their behavior and is higher in authority in the organization than you are.

When I began studying toxic supervisors in Christian organizations, I expected to find more written about this question from a biblical perspective. Would Jesus apply Matthew 18 to an employee under the authority of a Christian boss? I expected to find that most would believe this passage applies only to two brothers, equal in authority, and under an ecclesiastical [church] disciplinary structure.

One biblical commentator did. France suggested this instruction was intended for professing Christians on “equal footing.” He argued Jesus was giving directions to two professing believers, neither of which had greater authority.[1] In addition, Susan, one of my interviewees, said it did not apply to non-ecclesiastical environments [like a Christian parachurch organization], though she did seek to communicate early in her conflict with the toxic leader in a private, one-on-one manner. Ben, another interviewee, believed he was not responsible to confront his supervisor, the CEO, using these principles.

However, it is more common for commentaries and sermons to gloss over the application of the passage in the context of unequal power structures.

But, a mentor of mine shared a third way – neither ignore the passage in such contexts nor take it for granted in its application to the context. He suggested Matthew 18 be applied in these circumstances, but in a more principled nature. Rather than legalistically demanding its application in the three specific steps outlined by Jesus, the process should consider the threats inherent in one-on-one confrontations with a toxic boss, and proceed to broaden the scope of application to those who have the authority to discipline the non-repentant.

As I have interviewed targets of leadership abuse over the years, this is in fact what I found in their practice of this passage in real life. Though most of the writers and my interviewees believed the process of an employee confronting an erring boss should be modeled on Matthew 18, the steps of going to the toxic boss one-on-one, then taking one or two others along, and then telling it to the church was not a clear or simple process for any of these survivors.

There was no consistency in how my interviewees applied the passage to their given circumstances except in principle.

Step One

In most cases, there were multiple individuals confronting the leader at different times one-on-one.

But, those with whom I have spoken said it was rare the boss responded with a change of behavior to the one-on-one confrontations. Two of my interviewees, John and Arnold, for example, noted their CEOs always justified or explained away their sin, often blame-shifting. They saw this happening both in interactions with him and as others confronted the boss. Two other interviewees, Martha and Eugene, explained their bosses would not respond at all. Frances’ boss cut off all communication with her.

This is to be expected when dealing with those who abuse power.

Mary Alice Chrnalogar has worked with many who have been under the spiritual abuse of churches. In abusive situations she says, “Isolated confrontation of leaders by a layperson is dangerous.”[2] Therefore, Jean-Lipman Blumen helpfully suggests, “Dissenters do better when they have a group standing with them.”[3]

It is my opinion, the first step of confrontation be seen more broadly than the employee personally confronting the boss.

If the supervisor has been confronted by others (for possibly different reasons) and continually shows a lack of repentance, the first step has taken place already.

There is no need to confront an individual who clearly does not have the humility to respond to loving exhortation. It is unnecessary, and unwise, to walk into the lion’s den alone.

Step Two

Sometimes the second step of bringing one or two more along to confront the boss was also unclear.

John said he began immediately with this step when he brought two others with him to confront the CEO on sexual harassment charges. He fully expected the high-profile leader to humble himself, seek forgiveness, and begin the healing process. John said his team had a plan prepared for the leader to get counseling and continue in the ministry. . . a face-saving plan John fully expected to be welcomed by the leader.

However, the leader refused to admit wrong and in the end fired nearly 40 employees who called for his repentance.

Unfortunately, in none of the experiences of those whom I have interviewed has the leader repented of their destructive sin after various kinds of confrontations—one-on-one or in groups.

Step Three

The third step becomes the most complicated for those serving in Christian parachurch organizations.

This has been apparent in my study as in every interviewee’s case, no formal church authority was informed such as the local church to which the leader was a member.

As parachurch and mission organizations, no one ecclesiastical governing body was given authority by the organizations to act as “the church” found in Matthew 18.

Considering this inconsistency in applying the third step of this biblical text to these situations, Arnold suggested the only higher authority he believed he could be accountable to were the stakeholders in his ministry – his donors. Some will consider this route in bringing accountability to their leaders, though most are concerned about gossip. One particular individual contacted several ministry supporting churches with information about the toxic leadership.

Though none brought any formal ecclesiastical charges against the leader, at least one dropped their financial support of the mission agency. This certainly is a form of accountability in keeping with the “third step” of Matthew 18.

Generally, employees of Christian organizations are encouraged to fulfill, in principal, the third step of bringing their complaint before the church by reporting to the board of directors of the ministry.

Few of my interviewees have taken the matter to a higher authority like the ministry’s board of directors. And, as is found in much of the literature, few boards respond to these complaints even if ministry subordinates do bring it to their attention. In one toxic organization, forty missionaries sent a letter to the board asking them to investigate the leader. In response, the CEO encouraged the board to require psychological testing for their missionaries.

The board did not in turn investigate the matter despite the overwhelming number of complaints.

Often boards have been handpicked by the founder or CEO and are “indebted” to him. Their egos are often “stroked” by being part of an important mission or having a nice resume entry. In our case, when the going got tough (as missionaries made clear the toxicity of the organizational leadership to the board), board members resigned rather than seeking to bring accountability to the leader.

There are times when the working conditions get even worse when board members are apprised of the situation because the leader seeks greater control over his employees.

Clearly, the practice of Matthew 18 is not a simple matter in toxic Christian organizations. But, as one interviewee (Living in Liberty Blog) argued, someone must stand up to toxic bosses. How, who, and when takes wisdom and careful consideration of the dangers involved.

NOTES:

[1] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 691.

[2] Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 67.

[3] Jean Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them (Oxford University Press, 2004), 149.

Illustration by Brian Hagen: http://www.brian-hagen.com/latest-art-how-to-overcome-your-fear-of-confrontation/