Recently, I was having one of those imaginary discussions. You know, the conversations where your anger ramps up against whom you had a disagreement—though they are not present to actually fight back?
One of the things I stated to my imaginary combatant was, “You are going to tell me that you are doubting the LORD of heaven and earth, Who created you, and could crush you with His pinky?”
All people, everywhere, at all times have been tempted to distrust the LORD—often many times per day. That distrust of God in essence is what drives our trust in ourselves. We, in practice, believe that we can make better decisions, control situations better, and get the job done better than the LORD, even if we would never admit that.
How could we ever presume to be so powerful. There is one God and he can crush us with His pinky.
So too the Israelite leaders—priests and kings and counselors—thought they knew better than the LORD when Zechariah spoke around 500 B.C.
But Zechariah pummeled the Israelite leadership with these words:
“My [God’s] anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders; for the LORD of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle. 4 From him shall come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler—all of them together. 5 They shall be like mighty men in battle, trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight because the LORD is with them, and they shall put to shame the riders on horses.”
Zechariah 10:3-5 (ESV)
God is angry at the leaders of His people.
So much so, He promises to punish them. This is a common theme among the “minor prophets” of the Old Testament. Prophets like Zechariah were continually calling God’s people to repentance for their evil, often for the way the leaders (more powerful) oppressed the vulnerable (the weaker). The leaders are held to a higher standard throughout Scripture.
How does Zechariah say God will punish these wicked leaders?
He is going to raise up the followers—the house of Judah—to overwhelm the leaders. The humble will overcome the great. The arrogance of the wicked leaders will be judged.
Symbolic Implements of Destruction
Zechariah notes the symbolic implements of destruction as the means by which these subordinates would bring judgment upon the leaders:
From him shall come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
from him the battle bow
Though we see the LORD raise up other nations to drag these leaders into exile, the ultimate fulfillment is found 500 years later through the raising of Jesus—born in the house of Judah—from the dead.
Some commentaries suggest the CORNERSTONE to be symbolic of a ruler or prince. Ultimately, we know that the LORD raised up Jesus Christ to be the true Israelite cornerstone—ruler and prince—and exemplify the leader who brings restoration and healing to the downtrodden Israelites.
However, He does so by also judging the evil of man’s out of control leadership which Israel was experiencing at the time of Zechariah.
Zechariah says the TENT PEG will be brought forth by the LORD. Most suggest this refers to the symbolic purpose of the tent peg:
The allusion is either to a nail, by which the timber in the building is compacted together, and the whole is strengthened, as the church is by Christ: or to a nail to which the cords of tents are fastened, as those of shepherds, travellers, or soldiers; the church is as such a tent . . .
Jesus, the Cornerstone will bring the nation together against these wicked leaders.
However, there may be another interpretation: The allusion may be to Judges 4:21 where Jael, “the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died.”
A wicked king in Canaan, Sisera, was subdued by a “tent-dwelling woman.” So, too it will be a lowly carpenter’s Son [Jesus] who will drive the nail destroying wicked leadership of God’s people (Rev. 20:11f).
And the final implement of war and destruction—of overcoming wicked leadership—is the bow; used as our drones are today to bring down enemies at a distance.
My imaginary conversation came around to the LORD Who can crush me with His little finger. Leaders, in the home or workplace or church, who think they are so powerful to control and suck the life out of their subjects need beware:
The Cornerstone, nail, and bow of the LORD will ultimately destroy those who have been raised up to lead and who have used that privilage and responsibility to oppress God’s people instead of serving them.
Zechariah calls for repentance as all the minor prophets do. Will wicked leaders heed the warning? Will they turn from their wicked leadership before the LORD crushes them with His pinky?
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
If you have been discipled as I have you might be tempted to believe grace means cutting all people some slack.
Forgive and forget.
Don’t judge.
Remember we are all sinners.
I use the term “tempted” quite intentionally. Because it is not biblical.
At least, not always.
There are actually times when grace (which should never be absent from our hearts or actions) means to pronounce judgment and bring accountability rather than cut them slack. But, there is a distinction in Scripture upon whom those judgments are made.
Spreading Like a Tree
I have seen a wicked, ruthless man, spreading himself like a green laurel tree. 36 But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found. 37 Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace. 38 But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psalm 37:35-38 (ESV)
We need to look at some of the words that the psalmist, King David, used.
עָרִיץ (‘ârîyṣ), which is the Hebrew word “ruthless” in the psalm, means “powerful or tyrannical.” Strongs Dictionary goes on to say it means “mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent.”
Do you get the idea? This is why in abuse language “oppression” and “oppressor” are used frequently. David is speaking of a particularly wicked individual. This is someone who is particularly destructive of other people.
We know this in part because other places in Scripture tell us to that when we confront brothers, we can expect a certain amount of humility and willingness to see their sin and repent (Prov. 12:1, Rev. 3:19).
But when Scripture talks about oppressors, generally there is no such expectation and in fact, often the Bible authors tell us to stay clear of them because they are too dangerous to confront or not worth confronting (see Prov. 9:8, 22:24, Matt. 7:6).
Hopelessness
King David in this psalm notes the hopelessness that seems to be the lot of many abuse victims. The ruthless man (oppressor) is like a green laurel tree. One commentary tells us the language refers to a “native tree” which in their interpretation means,
“The idea here is that a tree which thus remains in its own soil is more vigorous, and will attain to a larger growth, than one which is transplanted; and thus the figure becomes an emblem of a prosperous and mighty man. “
Barnes Notes on the Bible
This is part of crushing effects of abuse. The oppressor seems unstoppable. He is large in the victim’s eyes and often he is large in the community’s eyes. He is prospering while the victim shrinks and suffers psychological, spiritual, and physical harm.
Hopefulness
But David does not stop with verse 35. He goes on to say they will be destroyed. In both verse 36 and 38 there is evident judgment and accountability for the oppressor. He is “no more,” “destroyed,” and “cut off.”
And the one of peace – the victim is clearly implied – will have a future. It is like they will instead “spread like a tree.”
I don’t think I have ever talked to a victim of leadership abuse who has not at some point under the crushing weight of abuse felt he or she was without a future. They feel like they have been axed. Cut down and burned up . . . while their oppressor spreads like a tree.
They have maybe tried confronting their boss, manager, or pastor to no avail. They have maybe sought help from HR, the board of directors, the senior pastor, a church elder, or the CEO to no avail.
In fact, often they have received more abuse either by the oppressor or by the foolish ones to whom they reported who ended up being complicit as they failed to support the victim.
The oppressor became large in the eyes of those who should have been helpful.
It’s Really Real
But, the assurance that David gives is real. It may not come about as we hope or envision. But, it is real. There is a future for those who are abused.
God is not mocked by the scoffer (Prov. 9:8).
And it is God’s grace that brings that oppressor down. We ask that the ruthless be destroyed (Ps. 55) not because we lack grace, but that we wish grace to reach the oppressed. The abused. The vulnerable.
Because this is to what we, as God’s people, are called (Isaiah 58:6).
There is often a significant difference between the short-term and the long-term.
We see our oppressors (as the Bible calls them) winning the battle. Their violence goes unpunished. Their manipulation continues to create more supporters and greater isolation.
They arrogantly assume they have the upper hand. And in the short-term, they do.
Church leadership says, “It’s her story against his.”
Business leadership says, “He just doesn’t buy into our vision.”
The organization’s board says, “He is tough, but he gets the job done.”
None of them realize the damage that is being done. And the abuser continues to win the day.
So said Asaph in Psalm 73. The song writer gives a 3000 year old account of the sufferings of those under abuse in the home, workplace, and organization. He is frustrated by the evil he sees and the seeming hopelessness he finds to be his daily existence.
For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind. Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment. Their eyes swell out through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies. They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression. They set their mouths against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth. Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them.
Psalm 73:3-10
But Asaph, like so many survivors of abuse, came to a place when clarity swept him up into the heavenlies.
Asaph sings,
But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.
Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.
Psalm 73:17-20, 23-26, 28
Asaph entered the sanctuary. We may have that moment in a worship service, or mountain hike, or moment of quiet meditation.
It is in that moment that the long-term saves us from the short-term.
No matter what others say. No matter the attitude of a pastor, elder, or CEO. No matter the short-sighted thinking of a board president. No matter a friend’s ignorance.
The LORD is with the oppressed. He is not with the abuser. They are destroyed in a moment.
The LORD is my strength. No opinion of man. No pride of position.
The LORD is my Refuge.
Do you need some help and encouragement? Go to our Resources page.
If I didn’t know the whole story, I would side with the people of Israel (Korah’s group) as they stood up against Moses and Aaron:
“You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”
Numbers 16:3
This statement by “Korah and all his company” in the wilderness following the Exodus from Egypt is a beautiful summary of toxic leadership. Toxic leaders assume a place of prominence (exalt themselves) and refuse to acknowledge the value of their subordinates (all in the congregation are holy).
However, Korah’s analysis of Moses’ leadership was wanting.
Moses was specifically chosen by God to lead His people out of Egypt and into the promised land. God had prepared a man who was deeply driven by justice to be the shepherd of Israel. Moses had stood up against multiple oppressors as a young man, putting even his life at risk (see Exodus 2).
He looked out for the vulnerable. Moses protected those who were forgotten in his society – slaves and women.
God MADE Moses into the leader of Israel.
A False Charge
So, what brought on the complaints and accusations of Korah and his mob?
The Lord had graciously led the people of Israel (by Moses’ hand) to the border of the promised land. It was a land “flowing with milk and honey.” A good land that He was freely giving them.
And they had rebelled against the Lord.
They had refused to go into the land out of fear. The Lord had led them by many miraculous signs – many of which established the fact that Moses was God’s chosen leader – and yet they still had no faith that God would safely bring them into the land.
So, the Lord refuses to lead them into the land after they made an act of contrition for their disobedience and failure of faith.
That brings us to “Korah’s rebellion” in Numbers 16.
His words are in fact hollow and foolish. And we know this not only because over and over the Lord has made clear that His chosen leader is Moses, but because Moses has a heart of love and protection for his vulnerable followers.
When the people had rebelled against the Lord at the entryway to the promised land, He said to Moses,
“How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”
Numbers 14:11-12 (ESV)
God had continually cared for them and they refused Him. Their judgment was sure. So, God promised Moses that He would create a new nation who would follow Moses and He would destroy the current Israel for their failure to follow him.
What does Moses do? Did he say, “Sounds great to me. I am sick of their bellyaching, myself. Give me a people who will bow and submit to me!” No.
But Moses said to the LORD, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for you brought up this people in your might from among them, 14 and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O LORD, are in the midst of this people. For you, O LORD, are seen face to face, and your cloud stands over them and you go before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. 15 Now if you kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard your fame will say, 16 ‘It is because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land that he swore to give to them that he has killed them in the wilderness.’ 17 And now, please let the power of the Lord be great as you have promised, saying, 18 ‘The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ 19 Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”
Numbers 14:13-19 (ESV)
True Leadership
Moses stands between the Lord and His people.
He seeks their pardon. He desires to assuage the Lord’s anger at his rebellious people. And Moses seeks the glory of God among the nations.
This is true leadership.
Moses should have the respect and honor of his subordinates because he continually proves that he is faithful to them and to their God. He is a shepherd who does not turn and run from danger, but seeks to protect and guide (John 10).
But Moses is a man and he fails at times. In fact, the Lord holds him accountable for his own lack of faith and refuses him entry to the promised land later (Deuteronomy 34:4). Moses then humbles himself.
Moses is a leader to emulate.
Then There Are Abusive Leaders
When a leader is abusive of his authority, what then?
Is a church leader, by nature of the office he holds, the “Lord’s anointed” as David calls King Saul in 2 Samuel 1:14? Should he be obeyed no matter what?
2 Samuel 1 seems a strange Scripture to turn into a principle and apply to church leaders today. And yet, I hear this over and over as a criticism of those who have stood against a pastor or Christian leader. By calling out a church leader due to his misuse of spiritual leadership, these church members are shamed for “touching the Lord’s anointed.”
When a leader has “hands laid upon him” – “ordained” – there is an anointing that has taken place. As the “Book of Church Order” in one denomination states,
“Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.”
Book of Church Order – Presbyterian Church in America
Though he has been set apart for work as a pastor in the church, by those same standards he
“should possess a competency of human learning and be blameless in life, sound in the faith and apt to teach. He should exhibit a sobriety and holiness of life becoming the Gospel. He should rule his own house well and should have a good report of them that are outside the Church.”
BCO
There are high standards for pastors. And we are called to submit to them by the writer of Hebrews:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:17 (ESV)
The New Testament Leader
Though these instructions provide a high view of church leaders, there is no sense in the New Testament church that leaders cannot be challenged or “touched” as if they are somehow untouchable in their position of authority in the church.
Church leaders’ lives are to be such that they can be emulated by congregant members, not unchallenged.
Paul, speaking of his Apostleship, says to the Corinthian church:
“This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.”
1 Corinthians 4:1-2 (ESV)
Verse one points to the high position Apostles have (not speaking of pastors) as “stewards of the mysteries of God.” But verse two notes the responsibility even the greater (Apostles) have for faithfulness. Without that faithful living, even the Apostles would stand accountable. It is all the more so for pastors in Christ’s church who are not called “stewards of the mysteries of God” anywhere in the New Testament.
This principle of authority (do not touch) comes more from Old Testament Israel. In that context, leaders often provided spiritual and political leadership (Moses, Joshua, the Judges, David and Saul). But, that is not the case in the New Testament church. The “theocracy” of the old has passed away (and in fact, there is a clear shift in how the church is to now engage the world around them).
Church leaders do not have the same authority over the lives of their sheep as Moses did. He was given the law “face to face” by the Lord. Other leaders were given the Word directly to pass on to God’s people, who in turn were to believe and follow the leader appointed by the Lord.
However, a New Testament church leader’s spiritual authority only goes so far because all of God’s people are “priests” (Revelation 1:5). And it should be obvious that they have no political authority being that there is no longer a nation that is a “church” as Israel was (nor is there a desire on God’s part that there be one found in the New Testament).
Whereas, leaders in the Old, both spiritual (priests) and political (kings) were God’s mouthpieces to His people, the New Testament saint (believer) has the Word of God written and available to all and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to illuminate.
Hold Them Accountable
Yes, we submit to our church leaders. Yes, we respect and honor our leaders. Yes, we listen to them.
But, we also hold them accountable to teach rightly and to live rightly.
Please do not use the line, “Do not touch the Lord’s anointed” again in reference to a church pastor. Particularly when his life of abusive leadership has disqualified him from that leadership.
Give your church leader respect and accountability.
It describes the Lord. He acts with compassion. He calls His people to be compassionate as He is.
For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free.
Deuteronomy 32:36 (ESV)
Compassion means to “comfort or console” someone else in the Old Testament terminology. It means “to be moved as to one’s bowels, hence to be moved with compassion, have compassion (for the bowels were thought to be the seat of love and pity)” in the New Testament.1
Bowels. Not a word we use every day.
But the meaning is that there is a whole body response to the hurt of someone else. We truly feel their pain. We are moved to respond to their difficulties from the depths of our being.
Today I ran across a passage that speaks to this.
If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity . . .
Leviticus 5:1 (ESV)
This is compassion. “Adjuration” means a call. It means that there is a need for those who have witnessed or heard of sinful action to speak up. They are “called” to speak up.
When you combine this call to action and compassion, it says to me that if I wanted someone to stand up for me as a witness to the abuse I had or am receiving from a boss or husband or parent, then I would feel the need to do the same for someone else when I witness or hear of it.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
This is what we call “advocacy.” Sometimes the words to describe the suffering of violence don’t come for victims and they need that witness to advocate for them. To go to those church leaders. To go to the board of directors. To confront the oppressor.
To go to someone who has the power to make a change.
Bearing Guilt
Scripture tells us that we bear the guilt of silence if we do not answer that call to stand by the side of victims of abuse.
Remember the passage says either witness or come to know of the matter. Have you come to know of abuse? Has your friend told you a little of their boss or husband’s abusive behavior? Has someone else mentioned that so-and-so is abusive to their employee or spouse?
Listen.
Stand.
Care for.
And advocate for them. Our compassionate God has called you to do it.
A Warning
Darby Strickland, a counselor who has written excellent resources for churches handling abuse, says the following:
“Before engaging an oppressive husband [or boss], know the risks of realitation and plan according.”2
Darby Strickland
Strickland goes on to note that if the woman, and I would add employee, is concerned about her safety when engaging the abuser, then back off. Being compassionate and advocating for the victim means in this case to stand down and wait for there to be safety before confronting the abuser.
NOTES:
1 James Strong, The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Expanded edition (Thomas Nelson, 2010).
2Note: Advocating must be done at the direction of the victim. Their safety from retaliation must be foremost in the advocate’s thinking as they determine future steps.
This Article is Part Three of a series telling the stories of two women who were sexually abused, one of their families, and the church leadership that misused their spiritual authority in response.This article includes topics such as sexual assault, domestic violence, physical violence, and spiritual abuse. I acknowledge that this content may be difficult. I also encourage you to care for your safety and well-being.
“As a pastor’s daughter I was always expected to be a bigger person.” Mia is a tough girl. She has been through a whole lot in her life.
A turning point for her was when she was sexually molested by a son of a Deacon in her church at ten years old. Her father was an Associate Pastor and he and her mom noted her change in behavior after that. But knew nothing about the assault. [Mia’s mother and father noted in a video they created that he had assaulted another girl and the church had handled it badly, covering it up and giving him a slap on the wrist.]
There was something “dirty” about that horrible experience, but she saw it as her own rather than the perpetrator’s sin. She just couldn’t bring herself to share it with her parents or others in the church.
So, it stayed hidden for years.
Mia went through two more horrendous experiences of violence—forcefully sexually molested a short time after and then raped by a youth pastor and his friend when she was 14 years old.
Like many who have been sexually assaulted, Mia took it on herself and did not share her story for many years. There were more than the usual reasons for her to remain silent about these horrible sins that were not her fault at all.
Unsafe Church
Mia was raised in an unsafe church environment.
As I listened to her story, I was overwhelmed with sadness, anger, and disappointment as I heard the litany of reasons why Mia has left the church. But, to be clear, she has not left Jesus, just the church. The bride of Christ has horribly added to her suffering and she cannot even enter a church without a raised heart rate and breaking out in a sweat.
At one point in our conversation Mia apologized to me, knowing that I am a leader in the church. But, I could only shake my head and commiserate with her. I know that many have experienced the kind of oppressive behavior Mia has in the church.
Mia’s story is for leaders who want to make church a safe place for sinners who have been sinned against in often the most egregious ways. Church leadership—elders, deacons, Sunday school teachers, etc. —are called by the Lord (like everyone else) to be a solace to the vulnerable among us.
As was written in the blog prior to this, Mia went to the elders in her church believing that this was what a congregant member should do when struggling in her marriage. Though she didn’t know it at the time she went to them, her husband had been having an affair for several years and his paramour was pregnant with his child.
When Mia approached the elders, she shared openly her stories of sexual abuse. She also shared the sinful life she had lived during her teen years following those assaults.
Mia had abused alcohol and drugs and had an abortion when she was 16. She explained that it was about two years before coming to the elders that she had really dealt with her abortion. Mia shared that when she had her first child, she felt shame, believing that she should have been judged by God and should not have been allowed to get pregnant again.
She believes that this attitude came from the Pharisaical teaching of her childhood church.
Mia was still living with this kind of self-loathing despite knowing Jesus’ forgiveness when she came to the elders.
Rather than consider the incredible violations of Mia as an image-bearer when men used her body so wickedly, one of the elders (Sam) wanted her to know she was still dealing with consequences. It did not appear that he had any concern for the forgiveness she was promised in Christ. He couldn’t get beyond her long-ago sin in order to focus on the healing and help she needed in her marriage and from the after-affects of sexual assaults.
Mia explained that Sam said “she was a horrible sinner and needed to deal with this.” She went on, “I had created a godly family with my husband, but Sam had to go back and pound on those times.”
Those times for which Jesus had forgiven her.
As Mia explained, “He was never kind. He never said, ‘We will get through this.'” Mia said, “He is such a prideful man…convinced he is an amazing person.“
As explained in the earlier blog, Mia suffered under a leadership that was more concerned about following their church rules than the love of Christ. Instead of responding to her hurt and trauma, they had to protect their own leader at all costs when she challenged Sam’s shepherding.
They have never held Sam accountable for his failure to shepherd Mia as Christ has called His elders to shepherd.
Oppressed by the Church
What has Mia learned from her church leadership?
She said she had to leave the church to find healing.
At one point, when I asked what had most helped her healing, Mia said, “To be free from the church.”
She explained, “Separating from that church took away their power.” Mia had been raised to respect and honor the authority church leaders have been given by Christ. But, that power had been misused to crush their sheep and their Phariseeism and failure to love and serve God’s people, to which Christ calls His leaders, destroyed Mia’s respect for them.
Mia shook her head, “It is so sad that non-Christian friends are way more understanding. They don’t judge you that you didn’t come to Sunday school two weeks.”
But There are Some
However, Mia has found some healing from those who take Jesus’s calling seriously. She described being dragged to an organization called “Journey to Heal Ministries” when she was still bitter and angry.
When she was introduced in the meeting, she said, “I would not lie about my life anymore.” She expected a response like she had received in her church, but the response was so different.
“They said, ‘We are so happy to have you here.’ I wrote my story and was apologizing like crazy and they told me, ‘IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.’ It was the first time I had heard that from Christians. It was the most healing from my sexual abuse.”
The spiritual abuse continues to gnaw at her soul. But, Mia said, “My dad is very important. He says, ‘It’s okay to be where you are at.‘” She continued, “In the old days, it was discipline until you get to where you need to be. But, now it’s okay to struggle. I am not kept at an arm’s distance from my parents. When leaders lie to you, you have to question.”
Her parents are okay with that now.
Mia has remarried a good man and hopes her story can help others trapped in legalistic and uncaring church environments.
Where Do We Go
I am praying that church leaders who hear Mia’s story will recognize their own tendencies of self-protection and failure to extend grace to those who bear their souls before them. Jesus covers the sins of these hurting lambs and those sins are removed as far as the East is from the West.
And when it comes to those who have been horribly sinned against, like in Mia’s case, look to the Good Shepherd as an example. “A bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench.” [Isaiah 42:3]
I wrote a blog a couple years ago that described my frustration at seeing the online praise and honor given to a toxic leader of a Christian organization. He had died and he was praised on social media by several who knew his toxic leadership.
I was frustrated by the lack of vindication. I had suffered under his ungodly leadership and I felt isolated. Quite frankly, I would have prefered having those same people explaining his toxic leadership on social media.
My friends contacted me soon after that blog to apologize for their honoring of this toxic leader.
In addition, In just a short time, I have witnessed (not on the spot, mind you) the burning down of one church, the flooding of another, and death of another tormentor (ministry leader). The two churches were those who had horribly mistreated sexual abuse victims and supported their perpetrators.
Ah, vindication.
Today I was reading in Psalm 54 and got another take on this by the Holy Spirit impressing upon me God’s vindication. I was deeply challenged for the attitudes I have had.
Psalm 54 says “strangers have risen up against me.” But David, the composer, says,
Behold, God is my helper; the Lord is the upholder of my life. He will return the evil to my enemies; in your faithfulness put an end to them.
Psalm 54:4-5 (ESV)
I was struck by David’s confidence that the Lord would “return the evil” to his enemies.
A question came to mind: Will that “evil” God returns to my enemies be in this life (through trials and tribulations), the end of their life, or simply in the final judgment? He says, in faithfulness, he will “put an end to them.”
I wondered if the end of those who attack God’s people is consistently a horrible end? Maybe they will suffer financial disaster. Or flooding and fire. Or broken relationships with those close to them. Or some particularly difficult death?
Asaph certainly didn’t think so:
For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.
Psalm 73:3-5 (ESV)
Whether or not God judges these people, who are set against God’s children, by bringing visible hurt upon them in this life or not, there will be vindication for His people according to David in Psalm 54.
I felt badly that others had praised my tormentor (ministry leader) but David, in Psalm 54, showed me that my vindication comes by God’s hand. I need not see it through man’s judgment. And certainly not on social media! I can rest in forgiveness knowing that God will either bring my oppressor around to repentance or bring him to the grave to face eternal fire or a cleansing of glory (if a true believer).
I will be vindicated…but it will be by the Lord.
David’s words are freeing. They set free my captive heart to see the vindication I so desire. I can lay my head down knowing that it matters not in what form that vindication comes. My God, the Creator of the Universe, is on my side because I am His child.
And He will bring His justice to pass…either by convincing the abuser of his wickedness or bringing him well-earned justice.
Ethan began his pastoral ministry as an Assistant. After the Senior Pastor left the church of approximately 200, the search was on for a new leader. When Pastor Fredrick was hired, he made a strong first impression.
Ethan noted, “Fredrickresonated strongly with some of my focus.”[1] He said that Fredrick focused on Christ and grace and he added that his “emphases were interesting and helpful.”
Amelia said, “Fredrick gave vocabulary to how I was thinking. He commanded a room.”
Pastor Fredrick told the search committee and his new congregation that he was the “victim” of the elders of the church he had served prior to coming. Amelia said she “felt bad for the guy.“
On the other hand, he was very complimentary of Ethan. He said to Amelia that he told the search committee “the only reason he was coming was because of Ethan.”
In hindsight, Ethan said, “He was already grooming me to be his ally.”
Those Dirty Red Flags
Ethan said there were red flags he should have seen, and to this day, several years later, clearly lives with a certain guilt that he failed himself and his congregation.
Pastor Fredrick was not actually about “grace.” Certainly “manipulation,” but not grace.
Early on Pastor Fredrick told them a strange story. A visitor to the church went to lunch with Fred and there was a huge thunder storm. Apparently, Fredrick and the visitor had a disagreement and the visitor dropped him off in the rain. The pastor appeared at the church completely soaked.
The story made no sense, but they figured, “Why would someone make up something like that?“
When Fredrick moved into his office, he immediately put black paper over the small window in his office door. Though they considered it weird, they figured he just wanted his privacy. Later some pornographic videos showed up from Netflix in the church office. He explained to the secretary it was just “some enemy of church” sending them.
One member walked into his office one day and there was male pornography on his screen.
Pastor Fredrick said his office was robbed at one point. But he said the only thing taken was disposable water bottles. Ethan noted, “All his expensive computer equipment? No.”
These stories didn’t make sense to Ethan and Amelia.
Oh, But He Preaches!
“Meanwhile, everyone loved his preaching.” He said, “The church grew considerably.” After three or four years there was around 300 to 400 in average attendance.
He added, “There was a ton of success. Finances were good.”
But Pastor Fredrick “created an environment that the goal was to keep the church successful at all costs.” Amelia noted the church had a lot of pride in itself for its success under Fredrick.
However, about a year and a half after the arrival of Pastor Fredrick, Ethan began to notice things that he had heard Fredrick say, write, and preach that he had seen in other sources. It looked like plagiarism to him.
He then found out that Fredrick was under investigation by the regional church court for plagiarism. Ethan went to Fredrick two times to talk with him about his discoveries.
Amelia told the story of Fredrick teaching a women’s Bible study and providing a handout that was presented as “his own.” She went home and googled the text and found it was someone else’s writing. When Ethan confronted him on it, Fredrick explained the other church, that had it online, had stolen from him.
Just Want to Believe
Ethan explained, “I wanted to believe and support my senior pastor.” He said, “I was confused. I wanted to be the loyal, supportive, associate pastor.“
To add to the confusion, “[Pastor Fredrick] was preaching that love gives the benefit of the doubt.” Ethan added, “He talked about how his assistant in his old church had been hacking him.” He just could not bring himself to be cynical like Amelia was. She explained she was no longer charmed by Pastor Fredrick after about nine months.
As Ethan struggled to make sense of the evils perpetrated by Pastor Fredrick, he did not have a category to recognize what was going on.
Ethan said, “There was a lot of deceit from him in every corner of the church. He seemed to be a sociopath. You could see he was looking for drama.“
He could not believe a pastor would be so deceptive.
Ethan said the pastor was “pitting one person against another.” But few knew what was going on. “People not [in leadership] had a such a hard time understanding how he could preach such good sermons and be so bad.”
It wasn’t until later that church leaders began to connect the dots…only after Pastor Fredrick had resigned. Then the stories came pouring in like an “avalanche.”
Ethan described Pastor Fredrick as having the “seared conscience” that Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 4:2 describes.
He “came to see this as descriptive of the pastor. There’s no conscience. It was burned over.“
Defrocked
The pastor, while under investigation, encouraged his elders and congregation to leave their denomination. The congregation voted to split the sheets, but both Ethan and Amelia struggled with the decision, with Amelia ultimately voting against her pastor.
The denomination, acting on its bylaws, continued the plagiarism trial despite the church vote, keeping Pastor Fredrick from moving out of the denomination and accountability to the denomination.
In the end, he was found guilty and “defrocked” from the pastorate.
Pastor Fredrick was put under the care of another church and not allowed to minister. However, he soon left that church and started his own, independent church.
The Learning Curve
There were a number of things Amelia and Ethan learned in their trial of being under toxic leadership in the church. They told their story that others may be comforted with the comfort they received from the Father of mercies as 2 Corinthians 1:3-5 says.
Emelia has found that she is “always leery of someone who plays the victim card” in the wake of this trial. She feels his victimhood should have been a red flag when he criticized his former church.
Ethan said he is “skeptical of crazy stories that don’t make sense.” Prior to this experience he had operated with the underlying belief that a pastor could never be so deceptive. However, this incident has formed his understanding of the biblical concept of the seared conscience.
Amelia and Ethan ask, “How do you keep your soft heart and at same time maintain a healthy discernment?” Having been burned by Pastor Fredrick and having believed his manipulative assurances, it is now easy to be hardened and see manipulation behind every rock.
When speaking of muddling in the mess of the brokenness created by Pastor Fredrick, Ethan said, “There is a natural tendency is to run away. You don’t want to deal with the mess. Just want to get to a healthier place.” But Ethan believes that the “hard work of being with the people was very healing.” It was important to them to work through what had happened with others who went through it with them before moving on to another ministry.
Pastor Fredrick always portrayed himself as the “chief of sinners,” as Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:16. But Ethan noted he would not confess specific sin. “There was a shield of humility that was about protecting his postion.”
This particular point was striking to me. In my research [see blog] and hearing story after story, a common denominator in abusive leadership is a lack of humility in the leader. However, I find there is often a veneer of humility that hides an aversion to admitting any particular sin.
Just as one person told me: “I was fine with Jesus dying for the world’s sins, but not so keen on Him dying for my sin.”
Advice to Other Survivors of Toxic Leadership
When asked how they would advise others going through the mess of toxic leadership, Ethan and Amelia gave some helpful comments.
“Try to give categories for them to process what is going on.” It was helpful for Ethan to start understanding the abusive leadership in categories like “sociopath” or “seared conscience.”
“Maybe talk about Psalm 55 and people whose consciences are seared.” Ethan said, “People can actually be this way. Try to give them some context for what they are experiencing.“
“Depending on the situation, some may need to get out. Someone has got to go…it may not be the problem pastor that goes!“
In the end, Ethan expressed his sorrow over not seeing the signs of abusive leadership early on. He explained it cut to the core of his understanding of his calling. He asked himself if the pastorate really was his calling if he was so easily manipulated this way.
He noted that the shepherd of the sheep is called to “protect the sheep” and yet he feels that he was unable to do that.
However, experience teaches us that these trials instruct God’s people and it is rare that people get it right the first time around…or even the second or third time around.[James 1:2-4] God calls us to give the benefit of the doubt to our brothers and to forgive freely.[Matthew 18:23-35]
If grace is our default position, there are bound to be some failures in reading the signs of abusive leadership.
NOTES:
Ethan, Amelia, and Pastor Fredrick are not their real names.
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.
