Tag Archives: Leadership

Strange Fire: Holding Leaders Accountable

Posted on by
3

There is a strange dichotomy when it comes to respect and accountability.

There are those who see leaders as just one of the boys. They wish to get rid of as much hierarchicalism as possible. Leaders are just normal people given greater responsibility. They fail like the rest of us. Give them a break.

On the other hand, there are those who look to 1 Samuel 24:6 (or other passages) that say, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’S anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed.” They give great regard to leaders, considering them the “Lord’s anointed” and are careful to show due respect. Probably better just turn a blind eye to their failings.

Both recognize the need for church leaders and a need to follow and submit to them. There is no real disagreement there.

And Then There Were Bad Ones

The difficulty comes when you have a bad—really bad—leader. How does our theology meet this challenge? Do we give the benefit of the doubt? Do we turn a blind eye? Or, do we bring the hammer down?

Scripture is replete with the call to respect, honor, and submit to leaders (Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22, Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 5:17). No organization, religious or political, would survive without followers who submit.

However, some may be surprised that the respect, honor, and submission to leaders in the home, workplace, nation, or church are not absolute according to Scripture.

Bad leaders are held to account by the Lord and His people are called to hold them accountable for their failures where they have that ability.

The Lord Holds Leaders Accountable

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.

Leviticus 10:1-3 (ESV)

Nadab and Abihu had been instructed clearly what kind of incense—the exact mixture of spices—was to be used in the worship of the Lord in the Old Testament tent of meeting (later Temple). For some reason they had taken this lightly and done their own thing.

The Lord struck them down.

We can surmise that the Lord was making a very clear example of them just as He did with Ananias and Saphira in New Testament times (Acts 5).

Another example of the Lord holding his leaders accountable is Eli’s family in the Old Testament.

Hophni and Phinehas, sons of Eli, were priests who led in the worship of the Lord when Israel was moving towards a monarchy. They were failing to follow the requirements of priests and they were sexually assaulting the women under their leadership who served the worship of God’s people (1 Sam. 2:22-25).

Like Nadab and Abihu, the Lord took them out (1 Sam. 4).

In each of these cases, the punishment was death and it came directly from the Lord. The LORD held them accountable for their leadership sins.

And His People Hold Leaders Accountable

It is important to note that the Lord also reprimanded Eli for his failure to hold Hophni and Phinehas accountable for their sin.

Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me . . .

1 Samuel 2:29 (ESV)

It is not just the Lord to Whom we look to bring accountability, but we, as His people, are also responsible for keeping church leaders accountable. Do note that Eli was both their father and the primary priest who was in authority over Hophni and Phinehas. It is not implied or stated that these men’s wives were expected in the narrative to hold their husbands accountable. It would not have been safe for them.

Paul effectively navigates the honor and accountability of leaders issue when he writes to Timothy, a young pastor he has mentored:

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

1 Timothy 5:18-21 (ESV)

After encouraging congregations to provide for elders (pastors), showing respect for their position, it says leaders can not only be challenged by congregant members for their sin but be publicly rebuked.

Leaders are not free from criticism or accountability by virtue of their high position. Church leaders should hear complaints and investigate in a timely way.

There is to be no “partiality” given to leaders. It was the cultural norm that leaders were given more leeway in their failures. They were very powerful and influential. Even in our time, social media may get blown up, but most leaders are given the benefit of the doubt. Only when things completely fall apart does accountability come.

However, we are to hold leaders accountable. Do not show partiality to them.

Matthew 18 vs. 1 Timothy 5

In addition, Matthew 18 takes us through the normal process of confronting a brother who has sinned against us. In Timothy, Paul raises those stakes when it comes to church leaders.

In this passage, the report (confrontation) is coming from two (or three) witnesses, apparently to the leaders in the church (Timothy). This is not the one-on-one confrontation Jesus teaches in Matthew’s Gospel where the individual is to confront a brother directly and do so by himself.

In Timothy, the witnesses (multiple) go directly to others (possibly other leaders), with no mention of the sinning leader being in the room, and the leader who is sinning is publicly rebuked.

It is at times unsafe to congregant members (or employees of the church) to go to a leader to confront just as it is in a work situation where the boss has the power to fire or make your life miserable. This is often a problem in confrontation ethics. Most naysayers will immediately quote Matthew 18 and complain about someone who is uncomfortable confronting a leader one-on-one. They will say, you must go to the sinning leader one-on-one to be biblical. That is the experience of hoards of people who have sought accountability for their leaders.

But, Paul’s words appear to provide a confrontation ethic for these situations specifically with leaders. In Timothy the Word is speaking about church hierarchy, unlike Jesus’s words in Matthew’s Gospel. And he does not suggest one-on-one confrontation, but rather two or three speaking on the side with other leaders. Again, there is no mention of the sinful leader being present.

The “whistleblowers” are given protection.

And there is more.

The abusive leader is held accountable.

Higher Standards

Yes, we honor and submit to leaders. But, Scripture also makes it evident that those same leaders are called to a higher standard of accountability.

As leaders they are responsible to be an example . . . and so their failure is also to be an example. These are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 5:21. The public rebuke is “so that the rest may stand in fear.” Leaders are not given greater benefit of the doubt. A public statement is not kept under wraps indefinitely in order to show honor and respect.

It says in the ESV, those “who persist in sin” should be publicly rebuked. Note that the word “persist” is not in the Greek text. It is an interpretation by the translators that, after being challenged by the leaders following a report of misdeeds, the one who continues to sin is to be rebuked publicly. This interpretation seems to be saying that only the unrepentant leader is to be publicly rebuked.

But that may not be what Paul is saying. Paul may be saying that because there are multiple witnesses to the leader’s sin, the leader has a pattern of wrongdoing that is doing damage to God’s people (or others) and needs to be stopped now! It is evident that he is unrepentant.

In fact, it may help to look at other translations of that verse:

Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear. (ASV)
Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid. (HCSB)
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (KJV)
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. (NIV)

1 Timothy 5:21

There is no mention in other translations that there is a “persistence” of sin. Other translators did not read in unrepentance but have given us a more literal translation of Paul’s words of exhortation.

Is it possible that Paul is saying that the fact there are two or more witnesses means there is a pattern of sinful failure (or the sin affected multiple people) on the leader’s part and there needs to be a public response?

His failures are not isolated, but rather widespread or major enough and need to be stopped?

It is possible that he has been confronted . . . over and over. This has been my experience in interviews with those who have struggled with a toxic leader.

For the Good of the Church

Maybe the number of gross leadership failures in recent years will be prevented in the future by immediate and decisive action. Maybe Paul’s exhortation would provide an example for leaders who believe they are “above the law.”

Decisive action on the church’s part will bring an end to horrific leadership.

For the good of victims. For the good of future victims. For the good of all those under the leader’s authority. For the good of the church or organization.

And for the good of Jesus Christ.

Hold leaders accountable. Do not put up with their strange fire.

Giving Leaders a Free Pass: The Story of Praise

Posted on by
1

Having spent nearly a decade working for a mission college in Africa, I have a keen interest in African leadership. It is evident that leadership problems abound in every part of the world. There is no culture that is free from the effects of sinful leadership. 

Each culture has horrible leaders. And, each culture gives them a free pass for various and often different reasons. 

Bad leaders may not be held accountable for their sin because of their popularity and gifting in certain places (i.e. United States). And, bad leaders may continue unabated because they “must be respected” in other cultures (African or Asian). I am not an expert on cultures, so these are only my opinions after cursory evaluations.

Praise’s Story

When I spoke with Praise (not his real name), he shared his own experience with leadership abuse in the African nation in which he grew up. Praise was a young man when he traveled to a distant village to assist a pastor while going to school. The pastor took him into his house, but did not pay him anything.

Praise enjoyed the work, walking over four miles to the church each day. His living arrangements at the pastor’s home was the “sitting room” where the TV was and had arise early to be out of the way and go to bed late often as the family watched TV. 

The real trouble started when he began “dating” a woman and wanted to marry her. The pastor and leadership of the church however, wanted him to marry someone else. Their choice of a wife lived in a neighboring country. 

Physical and Spiritual Wounds

While escorting the woman to her home at 6 pm one evening, he was attacked by several men. They took pangas (machetes) to Praise. He was badly hurt. The savage attack was likely tribal according to Praise. To his disappointment, despite using a little room behind the church, no one from the church were of any help to him. 

Rather than seek help for and encourage Praise, the pastor accusingly told him, “See, I told you not to marry this lady.”

When Praise was giving testimony to the church about the attack, he expressed his frustration at the lack of help that he received from church members as he recovered from his wounds. But, the pastor told the church, “I don’t know this man. I don’t know who brought you to this church.” 

The pastor then proceeded to ask him to write a resignation letter, though his position was only voluntary.

Praise taught a Sunday morning Bible study each week at the church. During the church worship “announcements” following Praise’s Bible study, the pastor publicly railed against Praise, telling the members of the church “not to have anything to do with him.” According to Praise, the pastor told the church he was “excommunicating Praise that day.” 

Adding insult to injury, he proclaimed authoritaringly that Praise would “never succeed.” 

Praise left and went to another church. 

Rampant Authoritarianism

Praise told me, in churches that have “less structure” like mission churches, the “members give a lot of respect to pastors.” He said, “Even when members are being abused by pastors, it is hard to identify.” 

He explained, they would “rather be oppressed quietly for the sake of getting something small for the family.” Men of low economic class suffer the most. They see God as speaking more to the pastor. “The Pastor is a mediator between me and God.” 

Praise noted that it is difficult for congregant members to know whether the pastor is speaking revelation from the Lord or their own words. 

In addition, Praise said, “The calling of individual pastors is defined by how they act socially, economically and how they are connected politically.” If they have money then God has blessed them and therefore, they must be specially called. 

“Even if a pastor is a molester, but has money, followers do not speak up.”

Praise said, “It’s very frustrating. They take advantage of widows and orphans . . . even sleep with them, but give them money. Because they are poor they feel threatened by pastors.”

Continued Leadership Struggles

Hurt and confused, Praise left the church and planted another church. It grew significantly. They even brought on an Assistant Pastor to help Praise in his work.

His Assistant invited several friends as preachers to an evening vigil they had planned. It is common for African churches to have long nighttime meetings with much singing and praying with additional guests speaking to the congregation.

However, Praise said, “One of the visiting preachers accused me of not respecting my assistant pastor whom they expected I should work under. He used a traditional saying ‘when the cat is out the rat takes the reins of power.’ In this context, I was the rat and my Assistant Pastor was the cat.”

Another job opportunity was presented to Praise after he had finished his Masters degree. The international church organization seemed to be a good fit for Praise. He made the “shortlist” from those applying but after interviewing he was not picked for the position. Apparently, having come from a “small church” was the reason according to one of the panelists.

Again, another organization had an opening for which Praise applied. However, he was required to attain a recommendation letter from “a local church organization.” When he requested the letter, an American women who was married to a Kenyan told him that they would not provide a recommendation letter. She did not give him a reason, but later he found out that she had asked the church organization to write a recommendation letter for her husband who was also applying for the position.

Most recently, Praise has been teaching for a local university, “but because of tribalism” he was never paid. In the space of three years of serving the university he has received $35.

But, as he continues to somehow provide for his family, he has not given up the struggle.

Healing

When I asked Praise what has provided the most healing for him while going through these many difficult leadership difficulties, he said, “Speaking to a friend to take solace. Just speaking with him – speaking into his life.” 

In addition, he explained, “My wife has stood beside me. I almost threw off my doctoral work.” One of his graduate professors encouraged Praise. He helped him know that God would help him in what he was going through if he remain focused. 

At times, like Job, Praise asked, “Why did God do this? Why have you taken my life to be an object of test? You are breaking me. You are stretching me too much.” 

He said he began asking if he was not praying well? “Sometimes I get too ‘traditional’ . . . some believe that if a person is going through a lot of suffering he has been ‘bewitched.'” But he said in his frustration, “I am born again! Why can’t you, Lord deal with it?”

It was a very hard time, but he neither gave up on Christ nor ministry.

Praise is currently part of an international “think tank” that is seeking ways to help the global church respond to abuse and create safe churches for those who are suffering or have suffered abuse of various kinds.

Praise knows he has experienced trauma, but the Lord is His Good Shepherd and he knows that God provides for the oppressed.

Pastoral Steamroller: Michael’s Story

Posted on by
Reply

Editor’s Note: This is the Third in a three-part series. See Part One and Part Two.

They had started, it seemed, on a road to healing from the destruction of relationships and the eye-opening experience with toxic leadership in the church.

“It is with an incredibly heavy heart that I write this letter to inform you of my decision to step down as an elder, and my wife and my decision to leave Peace Community Church.”

The Williams were moving on finding no way to stay.

When Michael Williams wrote his resignation letter to the other elders at PCC, he was heartbroken by the actions of their pastor towards him and his wife, Kate. [P&S has shared her story]

But his story, though closely entwined with Kate’s, is also a unique story of spiritual abuse.

Michael’s Story

Michael has thought that maybe the verbal attack Kate had suffered under Pastor Ensome may have actually been primarily directed at Michael. As Michael said, “Kate got the brunt of it . . . before Pastor Ensome1 and I had a chance to meet.”

Michael had served as an Elder at their former church and was “confused and frustrated” by the elder meetings at PCC. There was a great deal of focus on Pastor Ensome’s teaching and “harmony,” whereas, the business of the church seemed to be much less talked about. To be discussing the pastor’s teaching and how to create harmony within the church were important topics, but the emphasis just seemed over the top.

Michael had come into the new leadership position ready to learn. He recognized that churches would handle their business differently and he would need to learn the leadership culture of PCC, in contrast to his previous church where he had also served as an elder.

However, leaving important budgetary requests frequently to the very end of the meeting, allowing little discussion, and the Pastor largely steamrolling the decisions seemed unwise to Michael. . . and contrary to the concept of the plurality of eldership considered important in their theological traditional.

One of Those People

So, Michael met with Pastor Ensome to share his suggestions for more efficient and effective meetings (that more time could be spent on important business) and Pastor Ensome seemed amenable, particularily to his suggestion to have an agenda and get it into the hands of the Elders in advance.

The Pastor said he would give his other suggestions some thought.

After several months of meetings and no appreciable change, Michael met with Pastor Ensome once again. But before they even got started, the Pastor asked Michael, “Are you going to bring charges against me?”

In Michael’s denomination, pastors are under the oversight of other pastors and elders. There is a “court system” that handles “charges” brought by members of the denomination. It can at times be very helpful in settling major disputes that are not necessarily matters for the civil courts.

However, Michael had no thought of taking such action to the church courts and was “dumbfounded” by the pastor’s question. Michael told Pastor Ensome,

“I was there to help and I was not making personal accusations . . . the items were primarily organizational in manner and only meant to benefit PCC.”

As they began talking, Michael asked if the church did any staff reviews. He asked to whom Pastor Ensome, for example, was accountable? The pastor clearly got his back up and responded, “Jesus, my wife, and on occasion I speak with a couple pastors.”

In other words, he was not accountable to his fellow elders, only those pastors who he would see infrequently and had little idea of his leadership in the church.

From that point on in their relationship Michael sensed a “defensive” and “cold” manner from Pastor Ensome. Michael said, “I felt I was relegated to ‘one of those’ . . . people who he held in disdain.”

Michael explained that those were “people who disagreed with him were considered less spiritual, or somehow beneath him, as I have learned from others who found themselves in a position of having different opinions than Pastor, including former elders.”

For months the pastor seemed to avoid eye contact with Michael and did not even greet him unless he was in a situation that demanded it.

Common to many toxic organizational structures is either a formal or informal policy of dictatorship. Some organizations, like Michael’s church, have a polity (church structure) that is centered on a plurality of leaders, providing mutual accountability as instructed in Scripture. In addition, the pastor is simply considered “first among equals” in his relationship to the other elders who serve alongside him.

Though the church polity provided for and directed a leadership that is equal in authority, in practice it is apparent that PCC is really a dictatorship as will be seen in Michael’s story.

Building His Legacy

A major property purchase by the church was presented to the elders by Pastor Ensome.

Pastor Ensome sent a draft letter to the elders that he hoped would be approved for him to send to the congregation regarding the purchase. Pastor Ensome was acting as if he was accountable to the other elders.

Michael responded to the letter with some questions and comments. But the pastor’s letter went out to the congregation a week later and it had misleading information without having addressed Michael’s questions.

Michael said, “I was open to the consideration of the purchase, but felt strongly there was a need for discussion, due diligence, and evaluation first for the benefit of the church.”

However, Pastor Ensome wrote in the letter, the “elders believe this is the right course” though Michael had never agreed to it.

“The whole process was one where I had questions and reservations which essentially were prevented from being discussed on a timely basis nor even with a sense of due diligence.”

On Being Shut Down

Michael asked the pastor if the Elders could spend some time in a weekend leadership meeting to discuss the purchase. Ensome told him yes, but that he would have very little time.

Michael waited and waited throughout the meetings over the weekend, finally asking the pastor when he was going to be allowed to discuss the purchase or not. Pastor Ensome grudgingly said maybe later.

It didn’t happen.

Michael was allowed to express his questions and concerns at the next Elder’s meeting. But the ball was already rolling . . . or steamrolling ahead. The purchase was moving forward. There was no encouragement of addressing the questions and concerns by Pastor Ensome, who seemed obviously disturbed by having to allow Michael time to speak. He just wanted to move along.

So, Michael also asked to be present for an inspection of the purchase and was told no by Pastor Ensome. In fact, only those selected by the pastor were allowed to attend the inspection.

As it turned out, there were major problems with the property. The building needed to be torn down and was not feasible for use as the pastor had communicated to the congregation.

The steamroller moved ahead. The purchase was made.

Staying Engaged

Michael was encouraged to continue serving by former elders. But he was learning an unfortunate lesson about PCC’s leadership:

“I found the board to be little more than, a ‘rubber stamp’ for Pastor Ensome as he regularly got whatever he wanted with little pushback or minimal discussion.”

Again, common to these authoritarian organizations or churches, boards are often hand-picked and/or manipulated by the pastor or CEO to become just an “old boys’ network.” Board members who don’t comply, are generally forced off the board one way or another (as was the experience at PCC).

After making the property purchase, Michael was asked to chair a “vision” committee made up of other elders and one other church member. They met with the staff pastor and Pastor Ensome during which “[Pastor Ensome] dominated the conversation at that time and expressed no concerns of the committee.”

The purpose was to develop a ministry plan for the purchase and involved a survey that the Elders and then possibly the congregation were to be given.

Isolating

When the survey was presented to the Elders for their review and input, Pastor Ensome accused Michael of creating an “illegal” committee, going against denominational rules. Michael said the tension among the elders was palpable and Pastor Ensome later sent a letter to the Elders apologizing for his behavior.

There were two elders present who had served on this committee and they said nothing.

It was soon after this, and before Michael could meet with the pastor, that Kate experienced Ensome’s wrath in a meeting of her own [here is her story].

After Kate’s infamous meeting with Pastor Ensome, Michael, Elder John and a staff pastor met with him.

Michael described what happened:

“To begin the meeting Pastor Ensome gave a one-page handout of scriptures beginning with John 14 and other verses including 1 Corinthians 2:14, Acts 1:6 and 14, and Acts 13:2 and 46. He then proceeded with a 20-minute sermon. The message I got was that Pastor Ensome was spiritual like Jesus, while Kate and I were not. He never admitted the cruel words he had spoken or his wide ranging and harmful accusations against Kate, but rather seemed justified in his actions and opinions.”

After the pastor’s “sermon” Michael got a chance to read Kate’s letter out loud to the elders explaining why she had come to Pastor Ensome in the first place for counsel. However, the pastor quickly tried to shut him down by interrupting him as he read his wife’s account. Michael pushed back and told him “firmly not to interrupt” but elder John and the staff pastor present did nothing to stop the bullying – they sat quietly.

The staff pastor has since apologized for his failure. “He said what was needed were men who feared God more than man and sadly, he was not one at that moment.”

In Michael’s experience and many with whom I speak, leaders who abuse their spiritual authority make it difficult for those who serve with or for them to stand against his tide. Whether weilding a sense of spiritual superiority, power over their careers, or simply taking advantage of other’s desire to please the head honcho, standing up can be difficult.

All leaders, who abuse their authority, enjoy the complicity of others who have a say in their employment but do not take the steps to stop toxic leaders.

Michael said,

“We are now aware that while at PCC and after we left, both of us were slandered by Pastor Ensome on numerous occasions, calling into question even the integrity of our faith – not being spiritually minded but worldly in our trust.  He tried to control us by how we might share our stories with others before we left, but clearly does not feel the same constraints on his own behavior.”

In a letter to the elders, not including Michael, Pastor Ensome laid further groundwork for his own narrative. That narrative made it evident that to challenge his understanding of God’s plan for PCC was to challenge God. Who can stand against such a standard?

The pastor wrote,

“Were we following a living God who has a plan for his Church, or were we following our own plans, and all the talk of prayer and keeping in step with the spirit was just a pious smokescreen? Michael thought of me as irresponsible when it came to vision; my pushback was that God already had a vision and our mission was to discern and follow it.”

Pastor Ensome’s own pious language is confusing to those uninitiated to spiritual abuse. He made bizarre judgments of the Williams’ hearts – something of which he had accused Kate – and made it clear he was in line with God’s vision.

To go against him was to go against the Lord.

“While Michael and Kate had a passion for purity, and embraced a rigorous moral ethic, I believe the focus of their lives was a personal sense of how things ought to be, not Christ and his kingdom. . . “

The pastor’s “focus” of his life was Christ and his kingdom; the Williams’ was not.

The “Investigation”

Sometime after the Williams left the church, at the urging of the staff pastor and another employee, the elders instigated an investigation of complaints. The elders were encouraged to talk to the Williams but the Williams found it necessary to contact the elders themselves.

There was a former elder who had faced Pastor Ensome’s abuse several years earlier with whom the Williams encouraged the elders to speak. The elders declined and weren’t interested.

There was a “briefing” following the investigation. The congregation was called together and the pastor gave a “confession.” The staff pastor, employee, and Williams were informed of the briefing but were forbidden to speak.

After reading a transcript of the “confession” it takes on the typical type of repentance talk common to abusive leaders. He had been called out for his sin and he found it necessary to show some humility.

However, these confessions normally take on very general ideas – no specific examples of their sin are shared. This was indeed Pastor Ensome’s confession.

Interestingly, he notes a lifelong pattern of abusing (not his term) other leaders, a clear disqualification for eldership. He admits to being confronted by his son . . . and sharing that he humbly received the criticism.

As the Williams noted, “Some members took [it] as an apology and some thought he was talking about sins all of us could relate to because he was vague.”

In addition, Kate explained that she had “an email exchange with one of the elders after and he admitted that the confession was not all it could have been but a starting point.” 

True confession and repentance includes specifics. It means truly owning up to the sin and facing the humiliating process of being wrong.

And true repentance means seeking forgiveness and making restitution.

Protecting Others

As Michael finished his letter to the elder board, he urged them to take steps to stop the pastor’s abusive leadership. He wrote that he and Kate came to realize,

“The abuse of power by bullying, control, using the scriptures to condemn, shunning, and slander have been going on for a long time.  There are many individuals, particularly those in leadership whose sin was to challenge Ensome in some fashion. We were told that for many years, other elder boards (or the remnants after some elders left) have chosen to defend Ensome, the shepherd, at the cost of the sheep scarred by his attacks.”

Michael and Kate have called upon the elders to take their positions of authority seriously for the protection of God’s people (Ez. 34). They hope that the leaders will hold Pastor Ensome accountable and not be “duped” by his manipulation.

After Michael’s resignation, two elders reached out to Michael. One said he was going out of town but wanted to meet on his return. Michael said he never followed up. The other expressed surprise on reading the letter of resignation and expressed sorrow on hearing about the difficulties (abuses) mentioned.

The details of the attack on Kate had evidently not been shared with all of the elders. Those details were kept quiet by the Elder John and another elder who tried unsuccessfully to address the sinful behavior of the pastor.

The elders have, to date, not sought to meet with Michael and Kate to understand fully what occurred. Apparently, they are content to let them go and protect Pastor Ensome.

Pastor Ensome has never contacted Michael. 

Comfort

While Michael thinks of James 1:6 when he thinks of Pastor Ensome, he does not dwell on it. “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”

However, Psalm 9:9 has been a comfort, and Michael has held tenaciously to its words: “The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.”

Indeed, Psalm 9:9 is a banner that flies before many survivors of abusive leadership in the home, church, and workplace. The Lord seems like the only stronghold at times when isolated by the abuse of others and the disbelief of those to whom we turn for help.

NOTES:

1 The names used in this article are fictitious, but the general story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract others while applying the lessons learned.

Since this story was written, Pastor Ensome was investigated by a third party and soon after retired.

PCC’s Dirty Little Secret: Kate’s Story Part Two

Posted on by
1

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series. Part three can be found here when it is posted.

It has been two years since the Williams left Peace Community Church.1 They would have remained silent had the abusive leadership not proceeded to crush others the Williams love.

“Michael and I loved being at Peace Community Church. We loved the community, the worship and a place to serve.  We were deeply hurt that we felt we could no longer stay. All at once we lost a place to worship, a church community, fellowship with people we loved. And we lost ministries that we felt God had called and gifted us to serve in.”

We carry on with Kate’s story of pastoral abuse.

Part One of Kate’s story may be found here.

Blame-Shifting

Just as we see in the Garden of Eden, we tend to blame-shift when confronted for our sin (Gen. 3). Toxic leaders make an art of it.

What the Williams discovered is that abusive leaders will often “change the narrative from his/her verbal abuse to the person’s (that they have attacked) sins and call the attack a conflict.” It is just another form of blame-shifting where the attention is placed on the offended and taken off the offender.

Pastor Ensome wrote one email to the Williams where he described the experience of a member who came to his house and later told others he had “yelled at her.” He complained to the Williams that his wife and daughter were in an adjoining room and they had said Ensome did not “yell” at the woman.

Pastor Ensome has both admitted to and others have described his anger. It does not come out necessarily in a loud voice but in attitude and words. In his email telling of the story he basically admitted to examples of a significant problem for his leadership – anger [see Titus 1:7-8].

But he skillfully wove the narrative to once again make himself a saint and the woman a liar. The confrontation at his house wasn’t about his sin (what she was confronting him for) but rather about the woman’s perception of his response.

In doing so, he made sure it was understood that he was the humble one AND the persecuted one effectively shifting the blame.

It’s All Your Fault

In an email three months later, the Pastor continued the spiritual abuse, misusing scripture to badger and excuse his poor shepherding, shifting the blame to Kate. He said in the email,

“Jesus knows you, and all that you have done for him. Really, that is all that matters. If my words turn out to be false, then your honor in your service to Christ is all the greater. You are the only one who can fail to walk with integrity with Christ. I really have no power to destroy what matters to you and to the Lord Jesus. My words really make little difference, if any.”

Notice the sleight of hand he uses here? While supposably apologizing and entitling the email “encouragement,” Pastor Ensome in essence told Kate that his words don’t mean anything. It is her fault if she does damage to the integrity of her walk with God.

It is her fault.

The blame for her deep hurt is found in Kate doing damage to herself. Not in his words. Pastor Ensome has no culpability for his words.

As Kate said, a pastor’s words carry a lot of weight. “Especially a pastor whom I had respected, admired and trusted. How could my pastor say such hurtful things in such a mean, and cold manner?” This is why Paul and James suggest teachers and leaders should have more accountability [James 3:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, 5:19-20]. A pastor’s words have special authority.

Kate shared,

“He told me that my eyes emanated judgement so, for weeks after that meeting I questioned what I looked like to people when I was talking to them. He stated that John (an elder), who I also respected, had issues with me. But, John emphatically responded that he did not. . . He told me the staff pastor had told him I couldn’t get along with the ladies that I had poured so much of my heart and energy into serving. . .Though the staff pastor told me he never said anything like this to Pastor Ensome.“

And yet, Pastor Ensome suggests that words will never hurt her. The only way his words can hurt her is if she is spiritually weak . . . so, now it is her fault.

Isolating the Target

When Pastor Ensome told Kate the staff pastor and elder John both had difficulties with her, he effectively isolated her.

One of the most common, and effective means of controlling the narrative is by forcing the victim into their own little bubble. . . where there is no help. Or, so it seems.

Kate, for a time, thought she was alone in her struggle with Pastor Ensome. She and Michael had no one to advocate for them. According to the pastor, everyone was against her.

But, fortunately the truth won out as both the staff pastor and other elder (John) made it clear to her that they had nothing against her. In addition, the long-time member shared common stories of abuse with her.

Though we do not want to depend on others (rather than Christ) for our strength, God has made us for community and for bearing of one another’s burdens.

And so, they can no longer keep silent.

No Longer Silent

Kate and Michael have learned that their silence for the past two years is not helping the body of Christ.

Though they have gotten free of Pastor Ensome’s abusive leadership, they are determined to stand by those who are continuing to suffer under his misuse of spiritual authority. Just as others suffered before the Williams showed up on the scene, there are others who continue to face Pastor Ensome’s wrath; including two recent employees.

One has resigned and another has been fired.

“Pastor Ensome’s words took away from me part of my identity and undermined the loving relationships I had with those I served. He damaged my trust in others in positions of authority. . . We have come to realize that it may not be in the best interest of PCC for us to remain silent because keeping silent may actually be hurting the church if Pastor Ensome is allowed to stay in his position of power.“

It is a risk to stand up against someone who has authority. There is real danger. But this is the way of the cross; to risk harm in order to seek truth and healing for others who are not free.3 As a friend of theirs helpfully shared,

“There is no neutrality with this sort of sin. You either confront the abuse, or you enable and embolden it. Silence only serves the abuser. Sin grows in the dark.”

Comfort

When I asked Kate what Scripture has been helpful as they have sought healing, she mentioned Psalm 18:1-3. She explained, “He truly was, in the early days after Pastor Ensome’s attack, my Rock and Refuge.”

She also added that she felt ministered to by Psalm 34. It helped her to remember to “praise Him everyday and remember His faithfulness and goodness.” Kate said, “Verses 17 and 18 in particular were promises to hold on to. Even though this was a painful experience, there was sweetness to it because the Lord’s Presence became such a comfort.”

Like many of the psalmists, survivors of leadership and domestic abuse can know that the Lord hears prayer and He knows what it means to be cruelly abused and mistreated. He has faced it Himself.

But, unlike others who have survived abuse, the Lord is powerful and able to bring vindication from the deep wells of His love for His people.

Part Three of this series (Michael’s Story) can be found here on September 2.

NOTES:

3 Was it not this very thing Jesus did to bring us freedom; to suffer the loss of His life at the hands of the authorities in order to bring freedom to others.

The names used in this article are fictitious, but the story is not. Pearls and Swine does not publish names, places, or identifiable information as it is our desire to keep victims of abusive leadership safe and to not distract from the lessons that can be learned from their story.

Accountability Guilt: Jack’s Life in the Wilderness Under Abusive Leadership

Posted on by
3

When is enough, enough?

More often than not, leadership abuse survivors struggle with “Accountability Guilt.”

When we were leaving our mission work after nearly eight wonderful years working with our fellow missionaries and our national hosts, we were driven to bring accountability to our toxic leadership.

We knew that they would shift the blame and justify and defend against individual complaints. So, we reached out to approximately fifty missionaries, no longer serving with the mission, requesting that they sign a letter asking the mission board to hear the stories of those who had been wounded by the abusive leadership.

Over forty responded to that call and signed a letter seeking some kind of accountability for the leaders.

From what we have heard, nothing every happened. No interviews. No change in leadership.

Battle Weary

At this point, do you continue to go to battle? Or do you throw up your hands and give it up?

Pastor Jack was hired by a large church in the south to be a church planter in their city.

The trouble began when he interviewed for the position. He and his wife had flown to the city where he spent the first two days in interviews, was given the third to explore the city, and then would preach on Sunday at one of the daughter congregations.

At 6:30 AM on Saturday, the tourist day, Jack and his wife were awoken to his phone ringing. It was Sam, the church’s Executive Pastor. Sam was not ordained to ministry, but acted and was treated like he was a pastor.

Sam asked Jack to meet him in the hotel restaurant for breakfast. Jack was “confused, but jumped in the shower and went down not knowing what to expect.”

After some pleasantries and small talk, Sam “leaned into” Jack and asked, “Do you want this job or not?”

Jack had sought to be humble in his interviews, noting in his answers that if they were to hire him. . . if he were to come. . . But, now that seemed to be turned on him. Later he would piece things together. The Executive Pastor took on an arrogant posture for which Jack wasn’t prepared. Jack explained that it sounded like Sam was saying,

“Hey, we are the pretty girl at the dance! You’ve been in a small town church planting/pastoring for the past seven years and now you have the opportunity of a lifetime. There are men who would do anything to work at [this church]. Do you want this job or not?”

The Executive and Senior Pastors continued to browbeat Jack following his hiring over silly and inconsequential things. They were critical of his preaching. They were critical that he wasn’t getting enough people in the pews. Jack wasn’t a “skilled master builder.”

Whose Ministry?

On Sunday mornings the various campus pastors got together to pray before heading to their various church campuses. On one of those Sundays, Jack’s wife was not feeling well. They had planned a “new comers'” lunch at their home. They held these lunches in their home over a home cooked meal and in a relaxed fellowship setting.

Jack asked the other pastors to pray for his wife. Sam responded by telling him to take them all out to lunch instead of having them into his home. Jack said,

My gut told me that was a bad idea (taking 14 people to a restaurant in the city would be difficult; plus the point of the new comers lunch was to provide a more relaxed environment for getting to know these folks in our home). So I answered Sam back, ‘If we don’t do it today, I’ll reschedule it for next Sunday.’ I used my own discernment.

The next day, Sam came into Jack’s office, sat down, and said, “Jack, what kind of man are you? The man who says, ‘Yes sir,’ or the man who says, ‘F*%# off,’?”

In retrospect, he believes he should have told Sam to never talk to him that way again and put in his two-week notice. He said,

But. . . What was I supposed to do? I had just bought a house in [the city] 6 months prior. The congregation had just started. My kids were in the schools. I felt like I was in a bad marriage. I was trapped.

Another time, the staff was on a retreat for several days. A member of Jack’s congregation had been diagnosed with leukemia and was pregnant. On the second to last day of the retreat, Jack was informed the family had lost their baby. He decided that he leave the retreat early and minister to the family.

Rather than encourage Jack in his ministry to this hurting family, the pastors took affront. Jack explained,

“Later the next week, I was called into Sam’s office and [the Senior Pastor] and Sam said, ‘Jack, you thought it was pretty important to leave the staff retreat early.’ I was stunned and didn’t know what to say. I was sitting there thinking, ‘Someone’s baby just died and you are chewing me out for leaving the staff retreat a day early?’ Later the next year, the woman with leukemia also died.”

A Better Place

The arrogant, harsh, and authoritarian treatment Jack received under Sam and the Senior Pastor in the end drove him out. He said,

“I do know this. [The church] was a confusing wilderness for me. And in the wilderness, Jesus did an amazing work of grace in my life. I am a better pastor because of my time at [the church]. But not because [it] was a healthy place that taught me how to be a pastor. It was because [the church] was an unhealthy place and taught me how NOT to be a pastor.”

Fortunately, the Lord has given him a much better place for ministry. Jack’s new church has loved him, cared for his family, and encouraged his gifting as a pastor. He is in a new place without bitterness or anger.

The Question Remains

However, the question remains: Does Jack have a moral duty to continue seeking accountability for his pastors?

Jack sent a letter to his denomination’s regional council suggesting there be interviews of others who have been wounded by Sam and his former Pastor. And he would like for these two men to be challenged by the words of those interviewed:

Ideally, I would love to see those two men really listen to my story and the stories of others. And as they listen, I would like them to say nothing. Just listen. And then after some time to reflect on how much they wounded those that were under their authority, how big the debris field of pain and confusion that they left, I would like their hearts to be softened, to be warmed by the grace, the love, the kindness, and the gentleness of Jesus for them. My hope is that when the Lord works His grace in their hearts, they would then respond by repenting for specific sins and asking for my forgiveness, which I have already extended to them in my own heart.

from a letter to the regional council

The regional council responded to his letter, having spoken to the pastor, and asked for Jack to sit down with the pastor and two member of the council to talk about his experience.

The pastor sent an “apology” to Jack. The letter was less than a page long and included a very general apology. At first Jack was encouraged by the words from his former boss. But, as he considered what repentance should look like from abusive authority, he began to question the wisdom of going back into the fray with his pastor.

It is the same ol’ struggle. Are we to continue pursuing the steps of Matthew 18 until there is resolution at the highest levels of church authority?

As I have written many times, our responsibility in following Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 at times end with Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:6. Jack has taken numerous steps – one-on-one and with those of higher authority – to bring accountability. But, if there is “danger” in continuing to confront the pastor, he is free to move on and allow those in higher authority to do their job.

It is indeed the council’s job to bring accountability to the pastor as his ruling authority. The question now becomes,

Will those with the authority to act on the employment of a wicked leader take their responsibilities seriously?

Good Leadership Gone Bad

Posted on by
Reply

How difficult is it for Christian leaders to end well? I will try not to be too cynical.

Many years ago, I attended a young adults retreat. The speaker shared with the ragtag group of college students gathered at Fort Huachuka army base that the odds are against finishing well as Christians. I don’t remember the statistics, but the warning was clear. Many Christians start their walks with the Lord with passion but the worries and cares of the world turn their hearts over the years.

Among leaders the statistics may be even more discouraging. How many leaders who start with godly desires to lead with integrity end up toxic? I am pretty good at making up statistics but won’t here.

Asa, King of Judah

Asa, the king of Judah around the turn of the 9th Century BCE, began with a noble commitment to leading Judah under the authority of Yahweh. It is written in 2 Chronicles 14:1-12 that, “Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God.”

Asa, with great zeal, cleared out the worship of false gods in the land. Even the “high places,” locations of worship not sanctioned by the Lord, were taken down despite often apparently justified by Judah’s leaders as places making the worship of Yahweh more accessible.

Then, more than a million fighting Ethiopians came up against Judah and Asa sought the Lord to save Judah. He knew his strategizing and smaller army could not possibly defeat such a great force.

And Asa cried to the Lord his God, “O Lord, there is none like you to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, you are our God; let not man prevail against you.” 

2 Chronicles 14:11

Asa recognized his need. He recognized he did not have the power. Asa recognized God was the One on Whom Judah needed to rely. He knew Yahweh in reality ruled Judah, not himself.

Those are not the responses of a toxic leader who must make all things about himself.

God, in response, saved Judah from the hand of Ethiopia. Scripture does not even tell us how. It simply states that “the Lord defeated the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled.”

A chapter later in 2nd Chronicles, a prophet came to Asa and further encouraged him to stay the good course. The prophet explained that Asa was unique among Judah’s kings as he had turned the nation to the Lord. He had led Judah well. Azariah not only encouraged Asa in his past leadership but exhorted Asa to continue:

The Lord is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.

2 Chronicles 15:2

Keep it up, Asa. You can hear the tone of Azariah’s voice even. Go get ’em, Asa. Attaboy.

All that begins well…

But one chapter later, we see King Asa turning and the hand writing is on the wall.

The northern kingdom, Israel, determined to make Asa and his nation’s life miserable. Asa inexplicably turned elsewhere for help. He did not turn to the Lord despite Yahweh defeating the Ethiopian army, over a million strong, before his eyes.

What could have happened? Why did Asa turn to Syria when he had seen the Lord in action in a mighty way? Why did Asa not turn to the Lord who had proven Himself faithful when up against overwhelming odds before?

The words he would hear from a seer were not the encouraging words he heard before from Azariah.

Hanani, the seer, came to Asa king of Judah and said to him, “Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand.”

2 Chronicles 16:7-8

This was bad. Judah would now be at war constantly the seer told him. Many lives would be lost because Asa refused to rely on the Lord, instead turning to men. Maybe Asa had a moment of weakness. All of us do. We all rely on ourselves or other men (women) at some point…often many points.

But it appears worse than that. Asa’s heart would be laid bare as he responds to Hanani.

Then Asa was angry with the seer and put him in the stocks in prison, for he was in a rage with him because of this. And Asa inflicted cruelties upon some of the people at the same time.

2 Chronicles 16:10

Not only does he punish the seer for telling him the truth, he turned on his own people. Scripture does not tell us what exactly Asa did to “some of the people” but it should be evident that his faithlessness had a deep impact on his leadership.

He would become toxic as he rejected God’s “headship” over his reign.

As he failed to love God, not trusting Him with leadership, he would fail to love man. He would become an abusive leader. This is the way of the toxic leader.

In Asa’s final years as King, he got some form of disease in his feet. Chronicles tells us that it became “severe.” What should have been his response? Unfortunately, it was not that. He did not rely on the Lord as he had early in his reign.

And Asa died.

It did not end well.

What are the lessons for leaders? Leaders need several things to keep them strong. And all of them are seen as weaknesses by the world:

  • Daily reliance on the Lord to mature and strengthen his leadership skills.
  • Daily recognition that the Lord is the true Leader of the organization or business or church…not him.
  • Reliance on subordinates to advise and challenge his failures.

Each of these requires humility. Humble yourself under the mighty hand of God and in His time He is the One who will exalt you.

And when exalted…remember where it came from.

To Africa On a Lark

a book by Pearls And Swine’s Editor

The editor of Global Missiology writes of To Africa On a Lark:. “extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the ‘razor’ image, comes through clearly.” 

Read your free preview here:

Stupid [Toxic] Leaders: Lessons from Proverbs

Posted on by
Reply

A fundamental character trait of good leaders is humility. However, many have experienced quite the opposite in their Christian organizations.

There seems to be a pervading sense of arrogance and hunger for power in our current culture, though I have no statistics to back it up nor do I know the heart of man. Though the business world has made great strides in the development of leadership models that emphasize a form of humility, the Christian community continues to struggle along with the world around them.

We continue to create more James MacDonalds, James Bakkers, Mark Driscolls, Bill Hybels, Jerry Falwell Jrs….etc.

There seems to be a love affair with leaders who thumb their noses at community and authority alike. They operate on the assumption that their way is always right and simply claim persecution when confronted.

My recent reading of Proverbs has given me a glimpse at the kind of people who should be in leadership in Christian organizations and the church. It is chock full of references to humility. And the Proverbs don’t pull punches.

Take for instance:

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Proverbs 12:1

Those who don’t respond to reproof – or criticism – are stupid. I have been on a crusade lately to rid our public discourse, and mine, of words like that. But that word certainly gets to the core of the problem. The leader (or anyone else) who refuses to listen to criticism – who blows off any discussion of how they may have failed – is stupid. They are hurting themselves and hurting others. They are failing to grow and become more what the Lord wants them to be.

Toxic leaders, that are being challenged, market it as persecution. They must retain their image. They must be “right.” But Proverbs has something to say about that:

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12:15 (ESV)

These people see themselves as right. A toxic leader will always see themselves as right. There is no humility that would mold their response to criticism. They can’t possibly be the one in the wrong.

Dan Allendar, a Chritian psychologist, has written many helpful books. One in particular, Bold Love, discusses the “scoffer.” Scoffer is a title given to a particularly evil person in the Proverbs.

All of us are capable of doing evil things, but evil people are driven by a self-interest that is so heartless, conscious, and cruel that it delights in stealing from others the lifeblood of their soul. Often the one who delights in evil is an ordinary, unassuming person who hides behind a facade of normalcy. Few people who are evil ever appear evil, even after the evidence of their deceit, destructiveness, and hardness is exposed.

Bold Love, page 233

These are the scoffers that Allendar describes.

A wise son hears his father’s instruction,
but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Proverbs 13:1 (ESV)

Humility drives out self-interest. Humility answers a rebuke with…well, humility. Exhortation provides an opportunity for growth and community interconnectedness. Not power and self-interest. And in humility, the wise leader will hear it, seaking to grow as a leader and Jesus-follower.

Who are your heroes? Are they like Jesus or arrogant and power-hungry?

Let’s get on top of this. May the church nurture and hold up humble leadership.

Notes

Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman III. Bold Love. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.

The Team: Sharing, Caring, and Respect

Posted on by
1

What should be second nature to Christian organizations has, in some ways, been purloined by business leadership.

Teamwork.

In the course of studying toxic leadership, I have read numerous books on business leadership that helpfully describe a positive and productive work environment. I have also interviewed many Christian organization employees and leaders who have suffered under leaders who have no interest in teamwork.

Business gurus identify various means of creating a respectful and engaging office that gets the best out of the employees. Amy Edmondson, in her excellent work, Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, has many valuable things to say. I would like to take her extensive research and knowledge and place it in a biblical context.

Because that is where it belongs.

Command-and-Control

Edmondson notes near the beginning of her book, “Many organizations still rely on the top-down, command-and-control approaches that fueled growth and profitability in the industrial era.” [Edmondson: Kindle 267-268] Henry Ford’s “command-and-control” leadership worked at the time only because employees were treated as cogs in the machinery of industry. They repeated activities over and over and ran as fast as possible on a mindless wheel of production.

However, business leadership writers are seeking a brighter future for the workforce.

Teaming blends relating to people, listening to other points of view, coordinating actions, and making shared decisions. 

[pages 278-279]

Edmondson’s list of teaming characteristics can give hope to Christian organizations wishing to lead their organizations to a place of flourishing. In a toxic organization or one ruled by a toxic leader, these four elements of a positive work environment are often non-existent.

When the IT director and I proposed a digital solution to the problem of printer use in my Christian mission college’s computer lab, the President of the college called me into his office. His wife, the lab’s director, had already explained to me that I was to “keep my nose out of her typing lab.” The President reiterated his wife’s nastiness and proceeded to make clear I had nothing of value to be considered.

Relationships in these organizations are usually deeply fractured. The autocrat has no interest in listening to other points of view. “Coordination” means an employee is told what to do and when to do it. And, there is no discussion or attempted agreement on decisions.

Fear and Control

To be fair, some leaders just haven’t gotten the memo and have little experience in developing these leadership skills. What they have experienced, their personality traits, and what they learned from others are more Henry Ford than a team leader.

On the other hand, some leaders “believe (most of the time, erroneously) that fear increases control. Control reinforces certainty and predictability.” [Edmondson, 508-509] An autocratic, toxic leader knows exactly what he is doing and will use fear to control all things organizational. Unfortunately, “When leaders fall into a default ‘do it my way’ management style, it silences nearly everyone except the person with the loudest voice or the largest office. [Edmondson, 1217-1219] And, a toxic leader always has the loudest voice and largest office.

If you are a leader who wants the most out of her employees, the Bible and Edmondson have much to say.

Gleaning from the Image-Bearer

Edmondson says, “When leaders explicitly communicate that they respect employees, it makes it easier for employees to volunteer their knowledge.” [Edmondson, 1233-1234] Christian organizations should want the knowledge present in their employees. God has created every man (and woman) as an image-bearer. That means they represent God and take after Him in various ways.

We are fools if we do not want to glean all we can from the database of skills and knowledge stored in our employees. The Lord said as much to Moses:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.

Numbers 11:16-17 (ESV)

God provided for his image-bearing servants the Holy Spirit that they were of help to Moses. They were to judge the people. Moses was going to be worn out trying to deal with all his office, as the head-honcho prophet of Israel, was throwing at him. God said, “I will come down and supply other men to help.”

We need to trust that the Lord does that with our employees as well.

Similarly, the Apostle Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to recognize the value of every member of the church. This lesson can easily be transferred to a Christian organization.

“For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body.”

1 Corinthians 12:14-15 (ESV)

The Lord has, in His purposeful way, provided subordinates for the good of the organization. They need to be treated as gifts rather than objects of control and abjection. The various members of our team should be treated as of equal value to our ministry.

So, how do we use employees of our organization as gifts?

Psychological Safety

We create psychological safety. This kind of environment is safe for relationships to flourish. In this kind of environment employees and bosses listen to other points of view. In this kind of environment, there is a cooperative effort to reach a goal and there is a sharing of decision making.

“When a leader of a team is supportive, coaching oriented, and nondefensive in response to questions and challenges, team members are likely to feel that the team constitutes a safe environment.” 

[Edmondson, 2473-2475]

Leaders and fellow workers must respond to one another without jealousy or arrogance. They cannot act in a way that shuts down the free flow of ideas and suggestions. Trust has to be developed that ideas are welcomed and considered without harsh judgment. And, if that environment of trust is built then more challenging conversations can take place.

“Simply put, psychological safety makes it possible to give tough feedback and have difficult conversations without the need to tiptoe around the truth.” [Edmondson, 2151-2152] 

When employees are psychologically safe, they do not fear broken relationships or getting fired when they disagree or present difficult ideas. There is respect and trust between members of the team. There is no jealousy.

“This belief comes about when people both trust and respect each other, and it produces a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.” 

[Edmondson, 2153-2155]

Jealousy and Gifts

One day the Lord spoke to Moses and He put His Spirit on seventy elders of Israel. The seventy prophesied, giving evidence of the blessing God had given them. They did not prophesy long. However, two men who had not gone to the tent of meeting continued prophesying in the camp. A young man, knowing the normal response of leaders to be jealousy of the successes of their subordinates, came running to Moses. He breathlessly explained to Moses the two men were prophesying.

Joshua, overhearing this exchange, was perturbed and told Moses to stop the men. He feared for Moses’ authority.

“But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!’” 

Numbers 11:24-30 (ESV)

Moses saw the great value in the grace of God being shared with other leaders besides himself. Joshua, one of the greatest leaders of Israel, likely learned an important lesson from Moses.

Subordinates must have the freedom to share their skills and knowledge.

Not Just Allowing Gifts

It is not enough, though to simply allow others to use their abilities. It is the leader’s responsibility to help those under their care to develop their abilities. Paul commands church leaders “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” [Ephesians 4:11-12 (ESV)] Help them grow their ministry skills, not by criticism but by encouragement. Fan their gifts to a flame.

As if taking her cue from Paul, Edmondson finishes saying, “The most successful leaders in the future will be those who have the ability to develop the talents of others.” [5043-5044]

All of this could just be a lot of law-keeping for organization heads who have no love for others.

Gospel Heart

So, having said all that has been said about building a team, I must hasten to add that real teamwork will come from the heart of man. If the leader simply follows some nice guidelines, such as the ones given by Edmondson, but miss the heart of the Gospel, it will all just be a fake.

Jesus always gets to the heart. If a leader doesn’t respect his subordinates. If the employees despise the boss. It will just be a whole lot of acting as a team but not truly functioning that way. It is imperative that the team develop an inner attitude of sharing, caring, and respect. If I put on a facade of respect for my subordinates or co-workers, they will know. It must go to my heart.

Unfortunately, the inner man is desperately foul. It takes a supernatural work of God to help us see our blind spots and respect the image of God in others. So, humbly ask for it. Realize you need it and plead with God for the mercy to see your employees as a gift.

And build a team for God’s glory.

Book by Editor of P&S

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

What others say about the book:

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

References

Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. Kindle Version. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
 
ESV New Classic Reference Bible. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2011.

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

Posted on by
1

Dave Marks’ father enrolled him in boxing lessons so “real boxers had a real person to hit instead of a punching bag.”

Dr. Marks wrote a short and helpful blog several years ago on conflict management [see here]. Despite the crazy dad, Dave’s thoughts are helpful for understanding the toxic work environment…or really, any conflict.

He used the boxing analogy to explain that he loved the corner of the ring that he went to when the 90-second round was finished. It was “safe” there. It was where he got to go when done getting pummeled. But the great value of Marks’ blog is in pointing out the underlying causes of how we react in conflictual relationships.

The go-to “corners” of the ring in conflict, as explained by Marks, are “relationships” and “personal needs.” He asks which we value most? The answer will determine in which corner we seek safety when the going gets tough…and, in my analysis, will determine the toxicity of the environment.

The Corners

As applied to leadership, those who seek to meet only their own perceived needs or only relationships will be toxic or useless. They will either be abusive or so passive they do not lead.

Print copies available for pre-order — to be released in March 2027

The one who is focused on relationships to the exclusion of their personal needs (or the needs of the organization) will be run over by those he (or she) is charged with leading. It may be that the organization needs a particular project to be completed. If the leader is bending to every personal request of his subordinates, the job fails to be accomplished. Marks notes that he will likely withdraw to save the relationship from conflict.

The leader becomes ineffectual.

However, a leader who is intently focused on his own needs (or the organization’s) and could give a hoot about his relationships with his subordinates, is likely to be authoritarian, abusive, easily angered, and controlling. If his relationships mean nothing, it is his own perceived needs that need satisfying. He must control and manipulate others in order to get what he desires.

He will be toxic.

Bad News

Each of these ineffectual leadership qualities can – and usually do, according to management researchers – create chaos in the workplace.[see blog]

Marks nails it on the head in suggesting that a true balance of valuing relationships and valuing personal / organizational needs will provide a safe corner in conflict…as designated on his chart in the upper right corner (“resolve”).

The one who balances these two extremes will have a resolve to bring order out of the chaos of conflict. They will work with the person they are leading and in so doing, will make the goal of their work clear and attainable. The leader will not fear the response of the subordinate but know clearly where they need to go.

The subordinate will know they are valued and will seek to fulfill the mission of the leader (or organization).

From Dave Marks’ blog on “How to Resolve Conflict”

Both Christian and non-Christian researchers have come to variations of this conclusion. The ground-breaking work of Edwin Friedman in “A Failure of Nerve” provides a glimpse into the toxic environments developed by those who are so focused on their own emotional needs, they run roughshod over their co-workers or subordinates.

These leaders often become so self-focused they place their own goals over everthing else and will manipulate and abuse anyone who stands in the way.

On the other hand, he also takes to task those who are part of the “herd.” These are the ones who are so concerned about relationships that they create emotional dependency or allow toxic individuals (who do not care about relationships), whether leader or subordinate, to rule the roost.

As I have written before, Herrington, Creech, and Taylor have taken Friedman’s research and noted the biblical connections. They point to Jesus Christ as the ultimate “self-differentiated” one as he stays connected in relationships and yet gets the job done. He relates perfectly, knowing the needs of those he engages, and yet always knows his mission and goals.

Lessons from the Boxing Ring

It is the perfect balance we all seek in our Christian leadership.

Ronald Enroth, an authority on cults, writes,

Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation.

We need to take the warning Enroth lays before us. These cultish leaders focus on their own needs and manipulate the relationships. They do not truly care about relationships and their subordinates have allowed themselves to become dependent on their authority. I have seen it in mission organizations, churches, and politics.

We need to remain engaged in relationships and recognize our own needs and the needs of our organizations. When a leader refuses to seek that balance, the organization is headed the wrong way.

It will not go well for the mission of the organization nor for the subordinates.

To Africa On a Lark: A Visitor Brings a Sharp Razor

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

Solomon: From Riches to Rags

Posted on by
1

It all started so well. A good looking and humble guy.

The first book of Kings describes King Solomon as a godly man. He “loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father.”

And if that wasn’t clear enough, when asked by the Lord what his desire was, his response was to ask for wisdom to rule Israel. He humbly admitted that he was “but a little child.” He confessed that he was not adequate on his own to govern God’s people.

What a start.

Dependence

Leadership in God’s kingdom must fundamentally be about dependence on the Lord to gift and guide. Those who lead must be built to lead and then they must be directed. That building of leadership qualities and guidance are from Jesus Christ.

Though a leader may not be born, all that he has has been given by the Lord. His abilities. His material wealth. His opportunities. So, whether a leader becomes a leader after the hard work of study and practice or was a leader since birth, it all comes from the Lord.

It was said of Solomon:

And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.

1 Kings 10:24 (ESV)

God had put into his mind all the wisdom he had. It all came from the Lord.

Therefore, the acknowledging of God’s gifting and help are essential to a good leader. Because God expects him to acknowledge God’s gifts to him.

…giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…

Ephesians 5:20 (ESV)

And, it is by God’s guidance that the leader leads. God has given scripture (special revelation) and a world of wisdom (general revelation).

The good leader is dependent on the Lord for His guidance by His Holy Spirit enlightening the Words of scripture. He studies to know God’s Word as the kings of old were commanded:

“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.”

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 (ESV)

God’s leaders need to be immersed in God’s Word. That is a tall order and an order that Solomon seemed to understand.

And God’s leaders must also be wise to God’s “general” revelation. God has set in course rules of nature that may be studied and applied to act wisely in this life. That which is not clearly contained in His Word may yet be His means of directing a leader in wisdom.

Being a good engineer is founded upon studying God’s established physical universe. Working with the minds of men depends on understanding both the spiritual and physical complexities of his brain. So, the good leader studies God’s world to know with wisdom how to respond to the needs of his stake-holders.

Solomon astounded the people by his wisdom, in one case shocking his attendants by suggesting a baby be cut in half to determine who the correct mother was. He did not know how to do that by God’s law but by the Holy Spirit enlightening him to the events playing out before him.

All Good Things…

But the typical happened. And, it is a lesson for leaders everywhere.

Scripture says Solomon was wiser than anyone around. He was an exceptional leader and blessings of a material nature clearly followed him. Everything he touched, it seems, turned to gold.

And yet, he did what so many leaders do after starting well.

After building a beautiful temple for the worship of the Lord, at God’s direction, Solomon was turned. In his arrogance and power he married any woman he wished and used his subjects for his own ends.

The law expressly forbid marrying women not of Israel. Not out of spite or arrogance but because, as scripture explains, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” [1 Kings 11:2b]

And, he had a boatload of them. 700 wives and 300 concubines. Good grief.

Solomon also made a house…for Pharaoh’s daughter whom he had taken in marriage.
All these were made of costly stones…

And, scripture says they turned him away to other gods. After building a magnificent sanctuary for the worship of the one true God, he built places of worship [high places] for several other gods. Abomidable gods it says.

Art Thou the Man?

Are you going to be turned?

After being given opportunity to lead and being overwhelmed by the responsibility, were you humbled? Did you see it as a gift from the Lord to be given that great privilege of leading? Did you fall on your face before the Lord asking Him for wisdom to lead?

Great start.

Now, consider how far you can fall.

God was gracious to Solomon in leaving him in charge until he died (with rough spots along the way). But the Lord explained that Solomon’s legacy would be in rags. After such a great start, the Lord is said to be angry with Solomon.

Solomon’s legacy was the split of God’s people (Israel and Judah). They followed separate leaders and Israel especially followed Solomon’s example. The northern tribes (Israel) chose their own place of worship and ended up falling to conquerors (sooner than Judah).

It was a disappointing end for a thrilling start.

To Africa on a Lark by the Editor of Pearls and Swine Site

Kelly Dehnert, Editor of Pearls and Swine, has written a book about his family’s life in Africa as missionaries. The book provides helpful insights to engaging other cultures.

[To Africa On a Lark] is extremely readable, with an easy to follow flow. The stories are quite engaging…The overall theme of cross-cultural adjustment, with the “razor” image, comes through clearly. I hope that many will read, enjoy, and benefit from your engaging string of accounts.

J. Nelson Jennings, PhD – Editor, Global Missiology – English

What others say about the book: