Among those who have been abused there is a constant friction between the belief that God calls us to forgive our enemies and God’s desire for justice to reign.
How are these two seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive attitudes to be reconciled?
In a recent interview of a pastoral leadership abuse survivor, my interviewee said he realized that forgiveness was not an option but necessary in his walk with the Lord. But understanding how it can take place in the midst of such hurt was difficult for him.
When we returned from the mission field, having been beaten up by the leadership of our mission, we struggled with this question. We desired to follow the Lord in his leading; to not be like the master’s servant who had been forgiven much and yet sent his own servant packing to jail [Matthew 18:21-35].
But it was difficult to make theological or emotional sense of justice and forgiveness.
A Cry for Justice
Shelley Hundley, the author of “A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You,” does a marvelous job explaining how we can move from anger and bitterness to forgiveness without forgetting justice.[1]
How is it possible to seek justice for these horrible wrongs committed and forgive?
This blog is in part dedicated to holding abusive leaders accountable [justice] for their actions, a mark of the true church.[2] Biblically, justice is clearly an important attribute of God’s character and a legitimate desire of man having been made in his image.
Yet, the grace found in forgiveness is also characteristic of our Creator who sent his Son to die on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and who commands that we go and do likewise.
Finding Forgiveness in Justice
Hundley, who suffered sexual mollestation as a child of missionary parents in Columbia by a pastor, explains that she found forgiveness in God’s justice.
The work of Dr. Robert Burns has been helpful to me for several years in understanding a two-fold approach to forgiveness [see this blog].[3] Hundley adds some helpful perspective.
Often we think forgiveness is sweeping the wrongs we have suffered under the rug. Forgive and forget, just as Psalm 103 seems to say:
For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
Psalm 103:11-12 (ESV)
However, Hundley points out that it is in the justice of God that forgiveness can truly be offered to our offenders. She explains,
“As believers, we are no longer objects of God’s wrath, but we are objects of His jealous love.” [page 110]
That “jealous love” of Jesus Christ works out in protecting His “bride,” the church. As His bride, I am taken under his care and he will go to the end of the heavens to protect me from evil…in fact, ultimately he died for my protection.
Hundley notes that others tried to encourage her by saying things like there would be “light at the end of the tunnel because ‘things would get better.'” She added, “In the darkest moments of my journey, pats on the back and teary-eyed sympathy brought little consolation.”
God is Judge
What did bring healing for her was the recognition that Jesus was Judge! And as her “groom,” He would stand by her in the injustice of her suffering.
She points to Romans 12:
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Romans 12:18-19 (ESV)
She says that knowing God as Judge gives us a totally different perspective.
It enables us to leave room for God to right the wrongs and to trust that our heavenly Judge will make sure we have what we need. [page 153]
But as Christians we are not sitting there, licking our lips, waiting for the gavel to fall on the heads of our tormentors. Rather, we can know and trust that there are three possible judgements God brings on our oppressors and he knows which is best:
ultimate judgment,
forgiveness through his judgment of the oppressor’s sin on Jesus’ cross,
or temporal judgment.
Ultimate judgment is hell. And as Hundley notes, when you recognize the wrath of God on those who reject him, it may be difficult to pray for this kind of judgment even on your worse enemies.
On the other hand, God may forgive him, choosing to save the oppressor from his sin and radically change him. It is for sinners that Jesus died that they may be forgiven.
And finally, temporal judgment may be that the oppressor actually knows the Lord and God determines to take him out of this life so that he will no longer oppress others.
Unlocking the Chains
Dr. Edith Eva Eger, the writer of “The Choice: Embrace the Possible,” was a teenager when her family was imprisoned at Auschwitz. She now speaks on PTSD for “military resiliency training.” [4]
In her book, she discusses her own struggle with forgiveness. She said,
“It is easy to make a prison out of our pain, out of the past. At best revenge is useless…at worst, revenge perpetuates the cycle of hate.” [page 176]
She goes on to say that she forgave Hitler not for him, but for herself. Eger says that the chains she had kept him in encircled her own life. It kept her locked in her grief. She needed to forgive.
She defines forgiveness:
“To forgive is to grieve for what happened, for what didn’t happen, and to give up the need for a different past. To accept life as it was and as it is.” [page 176]
Though not a Christian, Eger recognizes the power and importance of forgiveness. As Christians we can read her words and recognize a call to give up living to meet out justice on our oppressors. Rather, as Christians, we have a loving Groom who is powerful enough and wise enough to wrap his everlasting arms around us and provide justice in his time and way.
Rest in those arms.
NOTES:
1 Shelley, Hundley. A Cry for Justice: Overcome Anger, Reject Bitterness, and Trust in Jesus Who Will Fight For You. Charisma House, 2011.
In 1 Samuel 25, the story is told of David, Nabal, and Abigail. You can really feel the tension in this little triangulation.
You have the village idiot, a wise woman, and a bit of a hothead. And in the end, the confrontations of toxicity work together swimmingly.
The story goes a little something like this
David, anointed king of Israel but not yet in place to do his thing, is running from King Saul. Saul, a toxic leader, is jealous of David’s exploits and continually jumps back and forth between murderer and penitent.
Meanwhile, David and his band of loyal followers are living off the land on the run and come across a wealthy landowner named Nabal. Nabal had a boatload of goats and sheep and quite a few employees looking after them.
Chapter 25 describes Nabal as “harsh” and “badly behaved.” He is our second toxic leader in the story.
On the other hand, his wife, Abigail, was a beauty and is described as “discerning.” And that makes for the big face off and a great story.
A Man Scorned
David and his men had been hanging out and a “feast day” is upon them. He sends his men to Nabal to ask that his men be allowed to join Nabal’s feast. He tells his men to make mention that in all the time he and his men were chilling with Nabal’s shearers, there was no stealing from Nabal’s herds or other such nonsense.
Nabal, because he is harsh and badly behaved [aka village idiot], told David’s men,
“Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse? There are many servants these days who are breaking away from their masters. Shall I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have killed for my shearers and give it to men who come from I do not know where?”
[1 Samuel 25:10-11 (ESV)]
Nabal was not lacking for resources…he was just a downright scoundrel. In that culture, this was the height of offense to decline hospitality to travelers. And unbiblical to boot.
David, because he is a bit of a hothead, tells his men to gird up their loins…actually, he said to strap on their swords (no AK47s back in those days) and prepare to wipe the idiot off the face of the earth.
But a wise servant of Nabal’s went to the woman of the house, who you will remember is discerning and beautiful, and told her of her husband’s inhospitableness. And he explained that David’s men not only did not steal from them, but was a protective “wall to [them] both by night and by day.“
Abigail, wise and wonderful as she was, made haste with a boatload of wine, bread, raisins, figs, and sheep and had a visit with David.
Her speech is really quite something
She bows before David and begins by taking the blame for her “worthless fellow” of a husband, Nabal. She praises David’s wisdom for not killing Nabal (though David has just noted before she got there, that he was going to do just that). She asks David to forgive her worthless husband.
Now, the best part.
David recognizes and admits his foolish hotheadedness. He says,
“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand! For as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there had not been left to Nabal so much as one male.”
[1 Samuel 25:32-34 (ESV)]
I love that.
A toxic leader would have either ignored Abigail or come up with a way to suggest he would never have done such a thing as attack Nabal, taking the praise for being so wise.
David notes first of all his sinful desires to murder Nabal.
He, secondly, gives Abigail the honor of having been the one to challenge his sin.
And, thirdly he recognizes that the Lord, Himself has protected Abigail where David may have let his wrath fly on one so intimately connected to the worthless fellow…thereby being under judgment for a great evil himself.
There is a fourth thing David recognizes
Abigail stopped him from bringing what he thought was justice by his own hand rather than trusting God to do what was true justice. And in so doing, he had the opportunity to see the Lord bring judgment on Nabal.
In the end, when told that David would have destroyed him if it were not for his wife, Nabal dies.
God indeed brought vindication and we (and David) get to see the hand of the Lord working on his behalf, strengthening the faith of his people for millenia to come.
For the Christian, we know God has given us what we need to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
However, we sometimes feel trapped by our understanding of His direction. We may think when we are serving in a Christian ministry that there is a one-way road map when dealing with a self-serving and destructive ministry leader.
However, there is more than one response to toxic bosses found in scripture.
The Bible gives at least three ways by example and instruction for dealing with abusive supervisors:
Head Up
Head Down
Head Out
Head Up
There is Nathaniel who, as a prophet, who went to King David (who had the man-given power to destroy him) and confronted him for his sin against Bathsheba and her husband Urriah (2 Sam. 12). Because David was not a toxic boss (though horribly sinful), he responded well to Nathaniel’s challenge. He repented.
After reposting this blog, a friend pointed out to me the example of Paul when being held by Roman authorities. My friend wrote, “Paul’s response in first submitting, and when wronged, appealing to a higher authority, where his rights were demonstrably violated . . . was helpful in guiding my response as those with authority wronged me . . .” (see Acts 22 for one such story)
On the other hand, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar and he did not respond as David did. The trio said:
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
Daniel 3:16-18
And the King’s response?
“Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated.”
Daniel 3:19
The three men trusted in the Lord, and kept their heads high. Nebuchadnezzar was intending to fry them to a crisp, but God saved them. He does not always save those who stand up against oppression, but he did in their case.
Sometimes, God calls his children to hold their head high when facing abusive authorities so it can be cut off!
Head Down
However, there are those who feel there is nowhere for them to go. They feel trapped and unable to make any real change in their circumstances. They fear the results of the heads up approach.
For example, we see in Peter’s first epistle instructions for the slave dealing with a “unjust” master.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
1 Peter 2:18
When interpreting this passage, we must firstly remember that Peter was speaking specifically to slaves, not your average 21st Century employee. Though there is much to be learned in the passage throughout the ages and in voluntary work situations, these slaves, whether forced into servitude or by choice signed their lives away because of financial need, were not at liberty to leave their place of employment.
Peter says, “Keep your head down so it will not be any worse for you.”
I believe Peter is speaking to those who are convinced nothing good can come of responding to the boss. The employee is convinced that any response will only make matters worse, bring greater emotional trauma, and possibly the loss of his job.
He goes on to say that it is better to be treated badly when doing the right thing than doing wrong.
I believe he is critiquing responding with abusive tactics to the abusive tactics of the leader. We at times feel justified in striking back in anger and using one-line clever quips to put someone down. However, even engagement with evil people should be a witness to the abuser and others.
So, we are called to show respect for the image of God in that evil person though they be unjust.
Peter bases his instruction on the example of Christ when he went before the authorities who unjustly abused Him and he did not strike back . . . though he could have done away with all of them with one word as the Son of God. Jesus did not attack.
God gives permission to keep your head down and take the abuse at least when you see no other good options in the circumstances.
Head Out
Finally, there is one last way to respond to nasty bosses:
Get out of there.
Jesus, in Luke 4, chose to disappear into the crowd rather than be thrown over a cliff. His time had not come for Calvary and so He walked away from the abuse. There would come a time when he would keep His head up (responding to the Chief Priest especially) and keep His head down (responding to Pontius Pilot), but in Luke 4 He got out of there.
Trauma increases with greater and greater exposure to abuse. Distrust in organizations, boards, leaders and all things Christian build over time. Several of my interviewees testified to these results of their experience of staying in a toxic organization.
My Own Experience
I have seen all three of these responses from others who have suffered under toxic leadership. My wife and I used all three when working with a mission agency for eight years.
I challenged the CEO on one occasion (head up) and he shifted the blame and let me know it was not appropriate for me to challenge his views.
We refused to get sucked into a discussion (which would likely be used against us) about our issues with the CEO (head down). He had shown himself to be lacking in humility and to use what was said in meetings with missionaries to hurt them later.
And, we finally left the organization knowing there was nothing left to be done about the leadership.
Rest in knowing that the Lord leads His people and gives wisdom as we ask (James 1:5). Though we can seek justice (head up), there are other options that are just as biblical and should be considered according to the circumstances, the Lord’s leading, and your conscience.
Our CEO’s wife was a bear. She bragged how she would run off roommates in college so she could have the room to herself. She had not changed in the ensuing years.
On the other hand, her husband was rather charming. You mostly knew where you stood with her—in the doghouse. But, her husband? He manipulated circumstances with great skill.
There are times when a Christian struggles with what kind of attitude he should have towards a boss who seems quite beyond the reach of the Gospel.
Maybe the boss is unwilling to see his evil behavior. Maybe the power differential between the boss and subordinate makes it non-condusive to confronting the boss’ sin. Maybe attempts have been made to bring reconciliation in the relationship and failed miserably. In fact, maybe the attempts made it even worse.
Christians read the Psalms and find statements that seem to conflict with the open-hearted, mercy-oriented, forgiveness-driven Gospel we preach from our pulpits. King David, a man after God’s own heart, says,
For it is not an enemy who taunts me— then I could bear it; it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me— then I could hide from him. But it is you, a man, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to take sweet counsel together; within God’s house we walked in the throng. Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart.
Psalms 55:12-15 (ESV)
Imprecatory Psalms
Psalm 55 is among the Psalms called “imprecatory.” These Psalms are those that call for the destruction of or curses upon the enemy of the writer. An article on the Bible Gateway website lists Psalms 5, 10, 17, 35, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, and 140 as imprecatory Psalms.[1]
One commentary on the imprecatory Psalms said, “These prayers awaken the conscience to the human cry for redress, the cosmic demand for moral order and justice. They can lead one to feel as deeply as one ought the horrendous insult to Yahweh and his creation perpetrated by those who lie and cheat and kill and abuse and blaspheme . . .These prayers awaken that outrage, which is to be offered to God and which motivates to redemptive action.“
Discomfort with Judgment
When I have spoken with Christian employees about Psalm 55, they were clearly uncomfortable with the judgmental character of it. Even among theologians there is obvious discomfort. More often than not, the words of David are ignored or downplayed and it is suggested we should pray for evil people to be redeemed—not destroyed.
It was not until serving under a toxic boss and doing research into the dynamics of abuse that I began to understand the imprecatory Psalms.
In Matthew 7, Jesus calls those who do not respond well to confrontation “pigs,” and suggests silence rather than confrontation. David, in Psalm 55, takes it a step further, praying for the judgment and destruction of his enemies. He says, with apparent assurance, “But you, O God, will cast them down into the pit of destruction.”[2]
A Familiar Friend
To many who have suffered under toxic leadership, David’s struggle is very familiar as it was for my wife and me. David noted that his enemy is not an unknown person. He is David’s friend. David calls him “my equal, my companion, my familiar friend.”[3]
David says he could have tolerated “oppression and fraud,” however “what incurs his wrath is the treachery of a trusted friend.”[4] The psalmist explains it was not an adversary who oppressed him, but an individual with whom he took “sweet counsel together.”
The word counsel “implies intimacy,” according to The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Donald Guthrie says, David “had known unity of heart” with this friend “as they worshipped God” together.[5]
Some of those with whom I have spoken believed they had good relationships with their leader. Many worshiped, worked, recreated, and socialized with their leader. The Christian organization is sometimes a family-like setting. Often the mission station is a tight-knit group living communally.
Adam, a missionary in Africa, believed his relationship with the CEO was professional, but he also recalled being taken to dinner and enjoying family outings together. Graham said, “We really, really thought we were a Christian family.” My family went on vacations, to dinner, concerts, and to church with our leaders.
When abuse became apparent, the participants were often surprised and confused by the dysfunction in the organization. They, like abuse victims Lundy Bancroft describes, were perplexed by the cruelty displayed by these “friends.”[6]
However, like some commentators, the participants were hesitant to pray as David prayed in their situation. Guthrie said David was God’s “anointed king” and so had a get out of jail free card. He distinguished his circumstances from normal relational conflict. Yet, the Psalms were sung in worship by all Israel, not just David.
Graham, an one of my interviewees, specifically sought to keep such thoughts of “adversary” or “enemy” out of the team’s thinking as he and other employees went through the steps of confrontation with the CEO. To this day he refuses to use this terminology. I heard about a well-known pastor’s experience when an elder in his church was creating division and strife. People were praying for the pastor and the elder died unexpectedly. But, the pastor was unwilling to suggest it was due to God’s judgment.
The Prerogative of a Sovereign God
However, one of the commentators on Psalm 55, Gerhard Vos, believes it is appropriate to ask for God’s judgment on evil. He says, “The total destruction of evil . . . is the prerogative of the sovereign God.” Some consider it “loving” to refrain from praying for the destruction of an evil person. But, it is important to consider not only the perpetrator, but his victims.
How loving is it to suggest the diabolical one keep reaping destruction on his followers? Is it not more loving to look out for those under his oppression—a perspective that God seems to lean heavily towards in His Word—rather than in any way supporting the abuser? Even when a deeply, unrepentant, evil person repents, it is likely the abuse will continue for some time while God sanctifies him.
Vos goes on to say,
“It is right not only to pray for the accomplishment of this destruction, but even to assist in effecting it when commanded to do so by God himself.”[7]
The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms
“Assisting” in the destruction, as Vos suggests, may mean seeking his firing. Or calling him to account before others. The final steps of the Matthew 18 principle of confrontation involve group confrontation and shame. This may be the only way others will find relief from his abuse.
This is loving!
There is a clear distinction in scripture between those who continually refuse repentance and those who have a “heart of flesh” that is teachable. There is a time when trying to “work with someone” comes to an end and public disgrace is necessary to bring justice to the broken-hearted.
This is God-given direction for confronting evil: Praying that God’s mercy will save those suffering from the destruction of the evildoer and doing all in our legitimate power to stop the abuse.
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.” Luke 6:27-29 (ESV)
Oh, if only Jesus stopped at “pray for those who abuse you.” That would have worked for me. Easy to interpret. Not necessarily easy to implement, but at least doable to some degree on the horizon.
When a boss abuses his authority by harassing, demeaning, overly controlling, and taking credit for the work of his subordinates, he certainly can be classified as an “enemy.” His hatred is evident in his actions against his employees.
In this context, how should the target of a supervisor’s abuse “love” him, “do good” to him, and “bless” him? I would suggest Jesus is giving examples of the principle Paul stated elsewhere that we are not to “repay . . . evil for evil.”
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
[Romans 12:17 (ESV)]
Rather than strike the abuser back in like manner— “strike on the cheek” —we are to actually return “good” for the evil they perpetrate.
It Gets Tricky
It gets more tricky at this point. If it just meant we are to go about our business and continue to be beat up by the boss, taking it on the cheek, it would be a simple, ethical, decision-making process. However, this does not jibe with the rest of scripture.
Passages such as Matthew 18, that call the Christian to a confrontational response to sin, would suggest that turning the cheek is not meant as pacifistic. Therefore, I would suggest Jesus is calling his people to not respond in kind. We do not respond abusively to the abuser. We do not slap them back on their cheek metaphorically or otherwise. We respond in love as the beginning of our passage states.
But, love is not mamby-pamby. Love involves looking out for the other’s good. In this context, it is calling the toxic boss to repentance. What is “good” for him is that he turn from his sin and seek forgiveness.
Bringing a toxic boss to repentance normally takes accountability, not a sweet talking to.
His self-interest either needs to be appealed to (It will go better for you if you stop harassing your subordinates), needs to be threatened with consequences by someone in authority, or he needs to be fired.
As abusers are not known for considering the feelings of others[1] appealing to their compassionate side will not work. They do not have one of those sides.
Make no mistake, this is love bringing them to account. God brings judgment and condemnation on those who oppress others. This was on the list of top reasons for Israel and Judah being sent into exile by Yahweh [Amos 4:1]. For the abusive boss to come to repentance, he will need the loving actions of the oppressed, and those who will stand with them, to bring them to accountability.
But, again it is not fighting fire with fire, cheek for cheek. It is lovingly seeking out ways to bring them under accountability.
NOTES
[1] Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (Berkley Books, 2002), 64.
