One of the most damaging things to an organization is a leader who is a hypocrite.
The Oxford Dictionary defines hypocrisy as
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
This is particularly true for a Christian organization. This is why:
“You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Romans 2:23-24
There Goes the Neighborhood
A recent article I read from the days of yore when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for their party’s nominations for President provides some interesting perspective.1
Leaders play a crucial role in establishing their organizations’ social structures, and successful organizations need to function like a neighborhood.Neighbors look out for each other and rally to work on projects, knowing that when they need help, other members of the community will step up to assist them.
When leaders say one thing and do another, they are destroying the “social structures” that make the organization operate effectively.
The article notes that followers pay attention to the leader’s commitment to their long-term well-being. If the leader’s integrity is questioned, then the “long-term” doesn’t look so good. Who can say what the leader says he will do is what he will indeed do?
If the Christian leader speaks adamantly of God’s Word as the fundamental driving force in his life and yet secretly, or not so secretly, ignores the Word in his everyday life, he is but a clanging gong (1 Corinthians 13). He cannot be trusted.
The “Best Practice Institute” puts it this way:
As the neighborhood dissolves, the organization functions more like a collection of strangers. When strangers interact, they have to settle up their debts in the moment. You can’t go to your local supermarket and borrow a dozen eggs because the supermarket can’t be confident that you’d show up later to pay for them. You can go to your neighbor and borrow eggs, though, because you have a trusted relationship.
The integrity of the leader matters. Hypocrisy, the failure to conform to those beliefs of which the leader espouses, destroys trust, engagement, and even the integrity of followers. Followers follow their leader.
Words and Actions
A consistent part of the Biblical witness and as it turns out, the perspective presented by this article, is that actions really matter; in fact, they show what the leader has purposed in his heart.
We show whether we really believe our beliefs by our actions. And when it is the law of God as Romans says that we are proclaiming as the system of our beliefs, then the breaking of those proclamations destroy our credibility. Leaders are on display nearly everyday of their lives. This becomes incredibly important.
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, goes on to say:
[A]nd if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?
Romans 2:19-21
What it means to be taught in Scripture is that we take the words down deep and live those words in our actions. Both things. It is not about gaining a boatload of knowledge and ignoring it when putting our hands to the plow.
Education in the Hebrew sense meant to be overcome by the words towards behavior that reflected that knowledge.
What is the Impact?
Paul says to the Romans that the witness of those who ignore their beliefs—behaving hypocritically—destroys the witness they have to the watching world.
Paul uses the “Gentiles” as the intended audience to the hypocrisy because at that time, those who were not Jews were those who were mostly outside the newborn Christian religion. They were only beginning to come in faith in Jesus Christ. Paul was deeply concerned that these people who were an important focus of his ministry would not be turned away from Jesus by His followers acting hypocritically.
How do we apply this to our organizational leaders?
We must hold high standards for our leaders. Mind you, our leaders will always fail. We are sinful people, no matter how high our position is. Each will fail in various ways.
However, along with those failures, humility—a common theme for these pages—will be evident in those same leaders who blow it by espousing one belief and acting in another. These leaders will recognize their failure, confess that failure willingly, turn from those failures (repentance), and finally make restitution happily.
These humble leaders are those who truly have a belief they proclaim, but sometimes fall to the temptation of expediency—or concupiscence—and in turn need to confess and make right.
But, keep in mind, there are failures that disqualify our leaders. Depending on the kind of leadership and authority they have been given, the failure may be such that even their humility cannot prevent long-term distrust.
In these cases, the leader should willingly step down from his position and seek a new “calling” in God’s kingdom.
Leaders need the trust of followers and hypocrisy is one sure way to destroy that.
It wasn’t long after the honeymoon that Jeanie began suffering from her husband Richard’s lack of care for his family and she suffered for nearly thirteen years from sexual abuse in their bedroom.
Richard, for the full length of their nearly 20 year marriage, refused to help with either childrearing or household needs. Over the years, Jeanie said she began to only ask for help when it was something she was unable to do. Then, in time, she began asking friends and neighbors when it was too hard for her because he would rarely respond to her requests at all.
Basically, my husband’s duty around the house became little more than to go to his regular job and bring home a paycheck and if I relied on him for more than that, it was overwhelming to him and anxiety producing for me.
Jeanie
She accounted for Richard’s bedroom manner—and her response—to teaching in the church that created an unhealthy sexual relationship. She said they both believed that the husband’s “sexual satisfaction” was primary and her needs were of no real consequence.
This view is not uncommon and comes from a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians:
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
1 Corinthians 7 is often misunderstood as explaining that the wife must give the husband sexual pleasure whenever he wants it. But, that is not what it says.
If you understand it within the context of mutual love and submission that is taught throughout Scripture, choices in the bedroom—like in every area of life as a family—should be made selflessly. That includes the husband whose desires may be driven by his own selfish desires with no interest in serving his wife’s—who may or may not have the “drive” he has.
Note how Paul makes it very clear that both spouses have authority over the other’s body. It is not one-sided and the husband has just as much responsibility to respond to the wife’s desires as she to his.
After so many years of neglect and abuse, Jeanie said, “I began to struggle heavily with guilt, anxiety, insomnia, migraines and memory loss.” She had sought over the years to “win him without a word” but her “lived experience was that was completely ineffective.”
1 Peter 3:1 is helpful in some marital situations: It specifically speaks to marriage to an unbelieving husband. But it is not helpful in cases of abuse. An abusive husband does not have the humility to see the evil of their actions—he will justify and shift the blame. A wife’s humble submission simply means he has control and can do anything he wants with her.
The marriage had been so traumatizing to her, she knew she needed to get help and possibly a divorce.
Richard had refused counseling over and over and so she had gone by herself. He was not interested in making changes for the good of the marriage.
Elder Failures
Jeanie sought out the help of friends and her pastors’ wives. Their advice was consistently that she just give Richard more sex.
Jeanie had joined a support group and described hers and Richard’s sexual encounters. “The trauma counselor and other group members immediately began telling me I had been sexually abused.” She was beginning to understand that Richard’s forcing of sex was abusive and she was not willing to allow that.
She finally reached out to the Senior Pastor, Andy. The board of elders and pastors were going to discuss their “case” and she wrote to Andy explaining,
I, a woman who has been sexually traumatized, will be discussed by a room full of men, many of whom I do not or barely know, and they will consider the most intimate and hurtful events of my life, so that they can judge whether or not I have a right to be free from that. And what if they decide I don’t? Worse, what if they decide Richard is the one with grounds? Then I am being told that my needs don’t matter and that my feelings are illegitimate. I know that is not your intention, but it is sadly what my broken heart will hear, and I will feel violated all over again.
Jeanie
One elder contacted Richard—a common approach to marital difficulties but a horrible response in cases of abuse if the victim has not given permission—and was both manipulated by Richard and caused a ramping up of Richard’s abusive behavior at home.
Jeanie encouraged the elders to get training in abuse because, though they showed some compassion and kindness to start with, their handling of her years of suffering was wholly inadequate. However, they did not see the need.
Strange Response
The elders, instead of seeking to understand abuse and respond in ways that would be helpful and shepherding instead disciplined Jeanie.
After meeting, the elders told Jeanie that she should refrain from taking Communion and step down from her position on the music worship team for six months. There was nothing written down, it was not explained, and after about five months the restrictions were raised with no explanation of what had been accomplished.
As Jeanie and I talked, it became evident that the elders’ actions amounted to “disciplining” Jeanie and yet nothing was ever done to bring accountability to Richard. At some point one elder told Jeanie that they had sought to “disciple” —meet to train and encourage—Richard, but he never completed the assignments given to him.
He was not interested in caring for his family or Jeanie . . . only getting what he could in the bedroom.
But Jeanie was told she was the sinner by the elder board’s actions—she needed to refrain from the means of grace in the church (communion) and stop using her gifts for the edification of the body.
Jeanie told me, “I am probably seen as a trouble maker. They think I went off the deep end and divorced my husband. They criticized me for having a crisis of faith and I wouldn’t have if they had not done the things they did.”
Divorce
Secondly, the board of elders believed they needed to investigate and determine the legitimacy of her seeking a divorce. She was warned that if they did not approve of it, she would be unable to marry again—at least in that church.
The perspective that the elders have this kind of power is not an uncommon view in many denominations. However, there are some biblical questions in regards to this view.
In 1 Timothy 5 there are extended instructions for Timothy, a young elder in Ephesus. Here Paul gives Timothy directions for both the elders and congregation in relation to elders. At no point does he suggest that the elders are called to rule in such a way as to bind the consciences of congregant members.
There is a distinct emphasis in New Testament eldership on teaching and Gospel proclamation. It emphasizes careful teaching that does not go beyond the clarity of the Word. The elders are responsible to be good and gracious shepherds, not authoritarian, power-hungry rulers.
The congregation in Antioch sent financial aid to the Judean elders (because of a famine that was foretold) by the hands of the Apostles (Acts 11:29-30)
In Acts 15, the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem debated the issue of circumcision for new Gentile believers. They sent a letter saying, “Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28-29) This was a very careful and limited response that pulled back from legalistic proclamations.
The Apostles went from city to city to provide instructions to the congregations. (Acts 16:4)
Paul tells the Ephesian elders: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:27-28)
After giving the personal qualifications for an elder, Paul says to Titus, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9) Note “sound doctrine”, not legalistic control.
In Jeanie’s case, the elders, who refused to learn about the dynamics of the sin of abuse, overstepped their calling in Scripture by “disciplining” Jeanie and failed by omission to call Richard to living the Gospel in his marriage and family.
A Proposal
I understand the perspective that Jeanie’s elders have. I am part of a similar elder board.
However, just as an elder board should, without hesitation, provide “permission” —in the form of teaching and individual direction—for the offended spouse to divorce in the case of adultery without laying shame upon the victim in anyway for taking that step, so should they give that permission in the cases of desertion (1 Cor. 7:15).
Considering the instructions in the case law of the Old Testament (Ex. 21:10-11), the victim in an abusive marriage should be given every bit of leeway for physical and emotional provision. Our Lord despises oppressive behavior of any sort and elder boards must be found by the Lord on the side of oppressed.
In addition, it is helpful for an elder board to remember that their congregation is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and that as the elders instruct, they must rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach and convince their hearers of truth—in humility recognizing they could be wrong in their application of Scripture. The binding of a congregant’s conscience is a very serious thing. Laying undue burdens on the sheep was the practice of the Pharisees—who are roundly condemned by Jesus—and for which modern day cults are notorious (Luke 11:46).
Recommendations
After seeing cases like Jeanie’s over and over, I would make the following recommendations to elder boards and church leadership:
Get trained in responding to abuse. There are a number of organizations who can provide this training including Refuge Ministries of North America—see the organization’s website in Resources.
Receive the complaint of an abusive marriage, believing the victim.
Recognize that investigating abuse can be dangerous to the victim—the offender may become more abusive and dangerous as he is challenged.
And abusive individuals are often very manipulative and can confuse investigators and completely fool them.
Help the complainant understand the Scripture’s teaching on divorce—allowed for adultery (Matt. 5:32) and desertion (1 Cor. 7:15—in principle when a spouse neglects his family or is abusive).
Give support and permission to the reporting victim for his or her decision regarding seeking a divorce.
I do not consider these absolutes, but elder boards often are black and white in their thinking and shepherding practices whereas Scripture is not. Shepherding is difficult and takes a significant amount of wisdom.
If you are a leader in the church, please consider seeking training to be a safe place for those who are vulnerable and oppressed.
Jesus miraculously raised his friend named Lazarus from the dead.
Because of that increadible feat, many began to follow Him. And those in power, the chief priests and Pharisees, could not allow their control and authority to slip away.
Jesus had consistently challenged these religious-political leaders of his day. They were abusive leaders, using Scripture and their positions of authority to crush and oppress others rather than as good shepherds (Ezekiel 34).
Their power was slipping with each man, woman, or child who dared follow Jesus, rejecting their false teaching.
So, they had to get rid of the problem. After all they had their image to protect.
Of course, they planned and plotted to destroy Jesus . . . both physically and in carefully worded debates (Luke 20:19-20).
The Tactics
One of the more common tactics for abusive leaders is to destroy, justify, or coverup the evidence of the light that is shown on their abuse.
They sought to kill Lazarus. Destroy the evidence of Jesus’ truth and light and beauty.
“When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.”
John 12:9-11 (ESV)
Maybe it is physical evidence that makes them look bad and their victim good that needs to be destroyed? Emails, letters, recordings, or worse yet, witnesses. One missionary told me that his ministry leader rarely communicated on email. When accused of his abusive leadership, it was a “he said, she said” argument. No one had any evidence.
Maybe it is explaining away the evidence? “I didn’t really mean that. I would never have said that. It is out of context.” I watched as one mission director told his subordinate he “would never say such a thing.” The subordinate looked like the crazy one in the conversation.
Or maybe it is finding a way to discredit the evidence by shifting the focus? “He is taking it too personally. She isn’t submissive enough to authority. He has a spirit of division. She just has an attitude problem.” I have been amazed by how often a leadership team has, rather than investigate and consider carefully the reports of abusive leadership, turned on the whisteblower and resorted to name-calling. I was even complicit with a toxic leader at one time, suggesting those who were struggling with the leader were just “hard to get along with.”
Whatever tactic it may be, Lazarus must die that their image remains intact.
DARVO
Common tactics for those who abuse their authority include DARVO. These are effective means for keeping the main thing (report of abuse) NOT the main thing.
Recently, while attending an abuse conference, I was discussing with another attendee the suffering of those who are having to put on the good face for their mission supporters back home while being tormented by their missionary spouse on the field.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for mission leaders to be abusive to spouses, children, and mission subordinates.
We discussed that there are many seemingly insurmountable difficulties in getting free from an abusive spouse. But when that also involves living in a foreign country and being dependent on mission supporters for income, there seems to be another layer of the insurmountable.
Lisa’s story has a happy ending but it meant years and years of torment for her.
Lisa told me that when she was eleven years old, she knew that God was calling her to be a missionary. She had seen an old black-and-white film about African mission work and she immediately knew it was for her.
She spent the years following that childhood dream leading others to Christ and never imagined being married. She would be married to Christ on the mission field.
But then she met Byron who had aborted his university undergraduate degree in order to embark on a seven-year theological studies course. His seeming commitment to Christ and a future as a missionary “touched” her and they were married.
Addictions
What she didn’t know until much later was Byron’s developing addiction to alcohol and later drugs.
He had been working at a vineyard while doing his theological studies and had full access to the wine cellar. It likely started with “just a small sip of free wine” which Lisa imagined he would describe as “the perfect solution to cope with the stress of the high demands he was subjected to, together with his studies.”
In addition, his smoking, which she did know about, drove her crazy. Lisa explained, “He took an oath on the day we got married, he would stop smoking.”
Lisa and Byron went on the African mission field.
The smoking didn’t stop. In fact, Byron began to shame Lisa that she wasn’t doing enough to help him kick the habit. He told her that she had “failed to help him properly” . . . shifting the blame . . . in spite of his vow at their wedding. She did all she could, even attending a group with him to help him stop.
Then as they pursued the Lord’s work on the mission field he began using tranquilizers. She explained to me,
“As head of the missionary outpost he had free access to the medications of the small mission hospital. Although all missionaries could not have any alcohol whatsoever in their homes, I only years later discovered that Byron always asked visitors from afar, to ‘quietly bring me some alcohol from the village – just please, don’t let Lisa see’ and hid it somewhere.”
Byron insisted, according to Lisa, that every afternoon he needed to sleep and he used the drugs to help him forget his difficulties on the mission.
Lisa sought to convince Byron to exercise and eat healthy foods to help with his stress but he responded, “I simply swallow something – that’s much easier, faster and more effective!”
Brain Damaged Wife
Lisa had two brain aneurysms after nearly 30 years of marriage. She suffered through a 15-hour surgery that saved her life. Their congregation had prayed fervently and they considered it a miracle that she pulled through.
Byron, on the other hand, was now angry that his well-trained wife could not do all she had formerly done for him. Initially, Lisa saw everything double and could not remember things of which she always used to remind him.
Lisa said,
“Byron had no sympathy, just anger about what I left undone, and he angrily humiliated me as ‘brain damaged’ and presented himself as the poor husband of the brain damaged wife, eventually starting to beat me.”
The Physical Abuse
Lisa told me that when she said anything about addiction or dependence he would beat and even kick her. She eventually had “three orthopedic operations: a torn biceps in one arm, a torn triceps in the other arm and a torn knee ligament leading to a full knee replacement.”
“He often used his fists on me when we were alone, still presenting himself as the ‘victim of the brain damaged wife’ for his escalating anger and sarcasm.”
She said, “I was a prisoner in my own house. I did not want my children to know.”
But she held out hope that once Byron “understood the danger of the addiction he was gambling with, he would be willing to go for rehab. This, however, never happened.”
Lisa sought out help from counselors for the physical abuse but she was continually advised to just “love him more.” If a therapist said anything else to the couple, Byron would refuse to see him again, claiming they “don’t know what they are talking about.”
She was not realizing that Byron was “completely addicted and not at all interested in rehab.”
Lisa explained,
“As his beatings became more severe, twice a doctor reported physical abuse to the police, who wanted to arrest him. I refused for the sake of my children, and the officer assured me that the case always remains legal and valid and may be presented at any later sign of abuse. He said, ‘And he will be arrested immediately and sleep in the tjoekie – he must learn!'”
This finally put the physical abuse of decades to an end.
The Children
At the young age of 56 Byron was “respectfully requested” to resign from the mission due to the decline in his work because Lisa was unable to prop up his ministry anymore.
Lisa explained to me, “The children sensed the tension and anger in the house.” Byron kept on emphasizing his wife’s ‘brain damage’ as an explanation for the escalating tension in the house.
But, when the children or anyone visited, Lisa said Byron was the “friendly, good-natured father and loving husband.”
But he “immediately turned into a monster once everyone left.”
Others could see, however. Once a professional she confided in told her, “Lisa, I see nothing of Jesus in Byron! He is a total addict!”
The Narcissist
In time, Lisa was able to put a name to the abusive missionary husband. She described him as a “covert narcissist.” She studied the traits of narcissism and realized that he had all of the traits described in the literature.
And there was the physical abuse and the addictions on top of that.
What she learned was that a narcissist is a perfect actor and liar. He was quite “convincing how much he adored his beautiful wife while abusing her behind closed doors.”
“In the end I had to inform my children of the dark truth that their father is a narcissist, of his addiction and his beatings of me, leading to the orthopedic operations that always ‘had other names.’ It was a huge shock for them, and Byron immediately started doing what all narcissists do: He twisted truths and sadly even told outright lies about me to isolate me from my children . . . leaning on the fact that he is their father and they have a bond of blood with him.”
Lisa sadly said that initially he successfully alienated the children from her, isolating her from them to enable him to posess and control the family.
No More Harm
Lisa noted that what we sow, we reap.
Lisa told me,
“I often prayed to God, relying on the assurance from God that He lets ‘all things work together for our good’ (as promised in Romans 8:28). When I started praising Him for that as in Philippians 4:6, I realized that God had actually allowed and then actually used Byron’s addition and resulting illness in my favor . . . to let him reap what he has sown all his life and now helplessly and harmlessly sit on an oxygen machine and in a wheelchair! Praise Him!”
She said, “Byron’s addiction and lifestyle of 60 years finally led to two heart attacks, ending in heart failure, kidney failure, severe emphyzema, eventually requiring him to be on oxygen full time due to less than 25% lung capacity.”
He now lives in a nursing home, moving about in a wheelchair in which he is pushed outside to get a smoke, then returned “urgently to his oxygen afterwards.”
But now, Byron can no longer harm Lisa.
She takes him his medication or cigarettes every eight days or so and if he makes a “sarcastic remark” she takes her leave.
He can no longer harm Lisa.
She exclaimed, “I am free!”
“The very thing that was my cross for so many years – his addiction and his abuse – has now borne fruit for him to set me free.”
Lisa knows that she did all she could to help Byron.
“And now, after more than a year in the nursing home on oxygen, I can in fact slowly start praying for him, releasing him, for my own sanity, as God teaches me. Because, just like the cruel and sarcastic Roman soldiers mockingly nailing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to the cross, he has no idea whatsoever what he is doing.”
There is often a significant difference between the short-term and the long-term.
We see our oppressors (as the Bible calls them) winning the battle. Their violence goes unpunished. Their manipulation continues to create more supporters and greater isolation.
They arrogantly assume they have the upper hand. And in the short-term, they do.
Church leadership says, “It’s her story against his.”
Business leadership says, “He just doesn’t buy into our vision.”
The organization’s board says, “He is tough, but he gets the job done.”
None of them realize the damage that is being done. And the abuser continues to win the day.
So said Asaph in Psalm 73. The song writer gives a 3000 year old account of the sufferings of those under abuse in the home, workplace, and organization. He is frustrated by the evil he sees and the seeming hopelessness he finds to be his daily existence.
For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek. They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind. Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment. Their eyes swell out through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies. They scoff and speak with malice; loftily they threaten oppression. They set their mouths against the heavens, and their tongue struts through the earth. Therefore his people turn back to them, and find no fault in them.
Psalm 73:3-10
But Asaph, like so many survivors of abuse, came to a place when clarity swept him up into the heavenlies.
Asaph sings,
But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.
Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.
Psalm 73:17-20, 23-26, 28
Asaph entered the sanctuary. We may have that moment in a worship service, or mountain hike, or moment of quiet meditation.
It is in that moment that the long-term saves us from the short-term.
No matter what others say. No matter the attitude of a pastor, elder, or CEO. No matter the short-sighted thinking of a board president. No matter a friend’s ignorance.
The LORD is with the oppressed. He is not with the abuser. They are destroyed in a moment.
The LORD is my strength. No opinion of man. No pride of position.
The LORD is my Refuge.
Do you need some help and encouragement? Go to our Resources page.
The Bible is repleat with examples and the modern business and Christian organization world is full of them. It is a huge temptation for any organization that feels more dependent on donor funds than God.
Only in the Christian organization it is spun as “being an example for Christ.”
In other words, truth does not really matter. What really matters is if appearances are kept up for the public. Then Christ is glorified.
And it just so happens, the money flows better that way. Contributions roll in unabated.
But, Jesus never told his people to fake it until you make it. In fact, He most commonly called those who do hypocrites and that was not a positive assessment of their spiritual state (Matthew 6).
Saul and Image
King Saul reigned in Israel approximately 1021–1000 BC. He was their first king, which is a story in itself (not to be discussed here).
At one point he was told by the prophet Samuel to attack Amalek. He did as commanded by the Lord. But, though being told to destroy everyone and everything, Saul spared the king and held onto the best of the sheep and oxen.
Samuel came to Saul having been told by the Lord, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” (1 Sam. 15:10)
As Samuel confronted him, Saul immediately began shifting the blame to the people. Samuel told him the Lord was stripping him of his kingship. Saul responded,
“I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” (1 Samuel 15:30 (ESV))
“I have sinned.” Sounds like he got it right. But listen to those words following.
“Honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. . .” His image is of greatest importance here. His confession is only a ploy to please the prophet. His desire for honor far outweighs his relationship with the Lord.
Samuel seems to think so as well.
He tells Saul that he will not return with him and walks away. However, Saul won’t stand for it and grabs the prophet’s robe, tearing it. Samuel in turn uses Saul’s disrespectful action as a metaphor and tells Saul that God is tearing his kingdom away from him just as he tore Samuel’s robe.
And then Samuel returns with Saul and finishes the job Saul was supposed to do.
Outward Appearances
Saul is a good (evil) example of the image-driven pastor, organizational leader, or business CEO. The Lord does not look on outward appearances (2 Cor. 5:12) and you will never get away with being driven by an image rather than the real deal (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees through that. God knows your character through and through.
You cannot put on airs with Jesus like you do for your adoring public.
Jesus will bring it to light at some point.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and never airs its dirty laundry . . . run.
It is unhealthy and hypocritical.
If you have the opportunity to join an organization that seems to have it all together and tells you all the ways that it does ministry better than anyone else . . . run.
It is unhealthy and they are lying.
We Will Crush You
When an organization is driven by image, you can be assured it will do anything to keep that image alive.
That means the leaders will lie about wrongdoing. They will crush dissent. They will refuse criticism . . . even constructive criticism. They will put on a facade for the donors.
On a side note, this is of what NDAs are made. NDAs are often intended to keep that image alive through silencing its victims while offering cold cash for the buyout.
I worked for a mission agency like this. I watched it in action. And I drank the Koolaid for several years. I am not above being sucked in.
My wife had to confront me (in her gracious way) following a missions conference when I came away all blustery about how our mission was so much better than all those other missions.
It was less than a year later that all that image crumbled before me and we left the mission beaten and bruised by the toxic leadership.
It is insidious. Don’t take part in it . . . it will kill you.
For helpful information on “impression management” by Wade Mullen:
Emily joined the African mission work because it “sounded good. It was the way we should be helping.”
The mission hosted an orphanage and had plans to build a school and tech center for women. It was holistic in its service to the poverty-stricken community.
Emily had just graduated from college and was ready to begin her life in a foreign land, serving people as Christ would want her to serve. Emily bought her plane ticket with the intention of being a career missionary. She was excited to serve the Lord in this way.
Emily began our discussion saying that the mission was “shiny,” but when she had been with the Christian organization for a little while, that glitter began to wear off. She said, “When I saw the other side of the mission, it was like a one way mirror.”
Image
It started with small things.
The soap that they were teaching the nationals to make had a variety of ingredients. But, when it was marketed in the United States certain ingredients were left off the label.
“It was not a big deal,” she said, but she was curious why the ministry was leaving them off.
There was a constant flow of visitors. As Janice (the mission Director) would show the visitors around, Emily heard the same refrain over and over. The orphans they were serving were put on display. Emily said, mockingly, “Come and smile for these white people. Sing songs because they like that.”
Emily noted that there were so many visitors that Janice didn’t even know the children because she was so busy “showing off” the mission. Emily explained, “She didn’t know the culture, the values, important things to raising a kid. Yeah, she knew that in America, but in Africa there was a completely different value system.”
She saw a disconnect from the culture and seemingly little interest in getting to know the people on a real day-to-day level.
It was like the image presented of the organization was all that mattered, not whether it was actually serving the community or not.
Racial Boundaries
One day she was confronted by Janice. She said, “I need you to be in charge of those women in back. Yer the boss.” Emily said she felt so uncomfortable with that. “I was 23 and some of these women had grandchildren.”
Rather than allow the nationals do works of ministry, the “white girl” from America needed to be in charge. Why would Emily, who had so little experience with children, be the “boss” to a group of women who had years and years of experience?
But, there was a disturbing boundary between the Africans and Americans.
They would go to a local church together, but the Americans would be put in the front row seats and everyone stared at them. Emily explained that they would “pretend to cross the cultures periodically,” but there was no real interest in tearing down racial divides.
Laws of the Land
Janice was also breaking the country’s laws in a variety of ways in the name of “ministry.”
The ministry was saving money by purchasing rice on the black market.
They were forging birth certificates. They made up the ages for the children to encourage adoptions.
When Emily questioned Janice, she said, “This is how things work over here. I’ve been here a long time.”
But Emily, said, “As a 23 year-old you begin to think its okay to do all these morally wrong things while saying we are standing for righteousness!” She said, “There was so much truth mixed in with it that over time I began to question whether it really was the way to do it.”
Be Warmed and Be Filled
There is a passage in James that challenges our tendency to do what is expedient rather than providing real, tangible help to others in need.
If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:15-17 (ESV)
Emily shared that Janice was gone one day and a local family came asking for help. They needed food or money. Emily told me,
“We said no, we can’t help you right away. Then later that day we had the realization, ‘What did we just do?’ It was almost like we had been brainwashed. We couldn’t help unless we got something out of it.”
She said it was a sobering moment. Emily reflected, “Shouldn’t we be helping – pushing back a bit?” But she said Janice would just say, “We can’t help everyone.”
There were more stories and it seemed to Emily that what they cared about was looking good and making money but didn’t really care about taking care of the kids there.
Emily told a heart-rending story of a two year-old who was brought to the orphanage. The child had a broken leg and was malnourished. She needed traction on her leg, but Janice was too busy and wouldn’t be of any help. Emily spent much time talking to doctors, but finally the child’s mother came and took her to Doctors Without Borders.
Getting Out
When Emily decided she needed to get out, she sought to bring some accountability to Janice by going to the board of the ministry.
She said, “I had a list of all the injustices. I laid it out for the board. But they simply responded, ‘Well, she’s been there so long. We just have to trust what she’s doing.'”
Emily sadly said she was in a long line. There were at least four others who had gone to the board before her.
She moved to a house nearby before returning to the United Stated. Emily explained, “I didn’t want my name associated with the ministry.” One of the boys in the orphanage begged her, “You can’t leave us with her!” She said it deeply hurt. She felt guilt that she was abandoning the children.
Learning
When I asked her what she focused on in the midst of the fire, she said, “I kept thinking about what Jesus would be doing? What would that look like. Thinking about how faith works into this? What does it look like for an organization to follow Christ?”
She said she read the gospels. Her experience put into perspective what the Bible said about the outcasts of society.
And Emily talked to anyone she could when she came home. She wisely noted, “I knew who not to talk to because of cultural clues.” Her experience like so many was that some people just don’t want to hear about apparent failure on the mission field. Some just want you to get over it and move on. They tire of hearing your story.
Some people had the attitude, “you made a commitment.” That was not helpful, she said.
Healing
I asked Emily what has been most healing for her over the past years since returning from the mission.
She said, “Talking to other people in similar circumstances.” Emily would realize that she wasn’t crazy when hearing other stories. She had been living with that feeling of insecurity.
In addition, it has been helpful to share frequently with a friend that was with her there at the mission. She tries to remember the sweet times. She doesn’t want to throw the baby out with bathwater and forget that there was good ministry there as well.
She met her husband three weeks after getting back to the United States. Emily said,
“He loved me no matter what crazy thoughts I had. Especially in the beginning. It’s an experience that will never leave. It impacts everything about me. Having someone who isn’t judging was incredibly healing.”
When she and her husband moved to a small town in the west, she crossed paths with a woman who had had a similar experience on the mission field in Africa. They sat down at Emily’s house and she told some of her story and Emily told hers. Emily said, “That was one of the most healing times.”
Forgiveness
I asked her what her journey of forgiveness has been like. She said it was a “big question everyone asks.” She said, “I don’t care to have a relationship with Janice, but have come to where I can have grace for her knowing her brokenness. She’s a human too.”
But, she added, “I could never trust her again.”
Emily noted, “Not forgiving only hurts me. She doesn’t know I haven’t forgiven. It only creates bitterness.”
But, it has been a slow process. She doesn’t think forgiving is just a “one and done” kind of experience. “I still can find myself getting up and angry again. It is more like a spiral . . . I just keep coming back to it. It is such a complicated thing.”
Some Advice
When I asked Emily if she had some advice for others suffering under toxic organizational leadership she said,
“Get out!”
She has seen others stick it out in abusive church leadership situations and the trauma and pain it has caused has convinced her that she took the right step of getting back on the plane.
“You can tell when someone is being called to do what they do and it never looks like an abusive situation.”
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a three-part series.Part two can be found here.
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.
The Williams had an amiable relationship with Pastor Ensome. He has pastored over 20 years in the same church and is well respected by other pastors in their denomination. Kate Williams described him as “a good preacher.” She said he could be “charming and self-deprecating.”
Kate also noted that he appeals to people’s pride and sympathies. She explained to me,
“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.”
Why did they leave and are now telling their story?
Kate’s Story
It began several years ago when, as a member of the church, Kate was asked to help with a ministry at PCC. She spent some time speaking with each of the members individually and developed a committee to meet the needs that were expressed.
After three years of serving in the ministry, Kate was asked to head up another committee, a committee on which she enjoyed serving at a former church. This was where her heart truly was and so jumped at the opportunity. Kate felt free to move out of leadership of the first ministry as it was moving along smoothly.
After about a year, she was involved in reigniting a ministry of PCC. In the initial phase Kate called Pastor Ensome with her exciting news that there was real interest in the ministry. She was also calling to ask if they had the “church’s support to go ahead” with the ministry.
The pastor was affirming, but was “adamant that he did not want [a particular family] involved in leadership.” Kate didn’t ask why, but said, “This put me in an awkward position of having to either find someone else or do it myself. Pastor Ensome encouraged me to lead.”
It seemed that she could do no wrong. Pastor Ensome was appealing to her skills and she was encouraged. She wasn’t really seeking out ministry opportunities but rather being asked to lead ministries.
Then Something Happened
Kate and Michael were hosting an at-risk child and were struggling with feeling alone in their ministry to the child. She sought out a meeting with Pastor Ensome to share those struggles in hopes that he would share some wisdom, having had experience with special needs children. She knew her husband Michael, an elder, had a disagreement with Pastor Ensome the week before at an elders’ meeting but it did not occur to her that their disagreement could impact her meeting with the pastor.
From the very beginning of the meeting he seemed cold and disconnected from her.
She soon discovered why. Pastor Ensome went on the attack, accusing Kate of all sorts of things and defending himself:
He told Kate she was a judgmental person. He said, “Judgement emanates from you. You can see it in your eyes and that is why people move away from you.”
He stated, “You and Michael are so far off of how a church should be run.”
He “confided” in her that a staff pastor had told him Kate left the first ministry she served because she couldn’t get along with the women and that said something about her personality. The staff pastor confirmed later that this was not true.
He told Kate that John, the elder she worked closely with on a committee “had issues” with her. John, when asked the next day, said that no matter what she had been told, she had not offended him in the slightest. And, in fact, he considered her work inspiring.
He said, “I built this church,” and proceeded to name all the things he had done for the church.
Kate began crying and he told her “that my crying was goodbecause now he could see my heart because most of the time I just seem to be running around checking things off a list.“
She was deeply hurt by this barage, which went on for about 20 minutes, and was baffled by the hurtful comments. She felt completely blindsided.
Michael explained, “There was no love, no gentleness, no kindness expressed. Kate says that she has never been spoken to in such a mean-spirited manner in her life.”
In a later email to the elders Pastor Ensome confessed that he had dismissed Kate and Michael and added he had done that with others before. He confessed that it was offensive to the Christ’s church.
It is still unclear why Pastor Ensome went on the attack.
The Dirty Little Secret at CCC
But soon she found she was not alone.
When talking with another volunteer the next day, the woman said,
“I’m surprised that this hasn’t happened to you earlier. You have made a lot of changes here and Pastor Ensome doesn’t like change. I know of several people the Pastor has attacked through the years.”
Later, the woman found Kate and reiterated her comments, noting that her husband had been verbally attacked by the pastor multiple times.
Two days later, Kate talked with a long-time member and the member told her Pastor Ensome’s behavior was Peace Community Church’s “dirty little secret.” She explained that the pastor attacks anyone who he perceives to be threatening his control over the church.
The member shared with Kate, “There are three groups of people related to PCC: the walking wounded, the unawares, and those who had left.”
As light was shown on the darkness of Pastor Ensome’s leadership, more was revealed:
“I was told that ‘he would destroy me’ if I tried to push back and the best thing for us to do was for Michael to resign as an elder and for me to quit the committee and remove ourselves from any activity that involved Pastor Ensome so that he could not further harm us.”
Keep your head down. Remain under the radar. If you want to continue in any form of ministry. I don’t know how many times I have seen this played out by those who are suffering under toxic leadership in the church, organization, or business.
Unfortunately, the one left standing seems to always be the toxic one.
Changing the Narrative
There are numerous signs of toxic leadership. Though each experience has its unique flavor, there are many common factors.
One of the techniques used by toxic leaders is to “change the narrative.”
It didn’t take long for Pastor Ensome to begin changing the narrative. The pastor became self-righteous in his handling of the situation. He needed to bring Kate down to his level by suggesting she was just as culpable for the broken relationship.
“If both of you [Kate and Michael] feel that the offenses are only my fault or the church’s, I’m not sure anything can be done. Most reconciliation instruction used needs to include each party addressing their own sins (Mt. 7:5). When I have tried to reconcile with people who were unable to identify sins on their part it was not successful. I don’t think it wise to seek reconciliation in those situations. I would recommend you read Ken Sande’s work, ‘The Peacemaker.‘”
Later he wrote, “In my letter I was making the point that there is sin on both sides. But if you and Kate don’t think you have sinned, I don’t think we will be able to have a useful conversation about the conflict.” He added, “But in that case, we will need to discuss your roles in leadership at PCC.”
In other words, we are equal in our sin as we all sin. And if you don’t admit that, you will lose your leadership position.
Apparently, he has always occupied the high moral ground. It was those other people that could not admit their sin and he simply could not do anything with that, thus minimizing his own sin.
In addition, several months later in an “apology” letter of sorts, he told Kate and Michael that he did not have any negative thoughts towards Kate before the meeting in which he originally attacked her. However, in a letter to the elders he delineated the reasons why he needed to confront Kate.
He evidently had done some premeditation.
Pastor Ensome also said in a note that he was blindsided.
Who is the Offender?
Toxic leaders easily manipulate Scripture to their benefit.
Pastor Ensome leveled the playing field by pointing out the biblical concept that no one is free from sin. There are frequently sins committed by both parties in a conflict.
Though admitting that all are sinful, Pastor Ensome sidestepped his own culpability by suggesting they read Ken Sande’s book called The Peacemaker. It was a subtle shift from admitting his own sin to Kate’s supposed sin.
Ken Sande founded Peacemaker Ministries to help churches in managing conflicts. It is very helpful unless there is abusive leadership at work. Sande acknowledges this. He notes in his writing there are different ground rules for managing abusive situations.
In normal relationships, it may be helpful to own up to your own sins when confronting an offender, just as Kate did in one of the meetings. It may help the offending party humble himself and own up to his own sin.
But, the onus still falls on the offender and must be kept there in the confrontation (Matt. 18:15).
Pastor Ensome treated Kate horribly when she only came looking for help. It was his anger that built up towards Kate and Michael. It was not Kate’s sin and should not have been treated as such in managing the situation. There can be no backing down from this or the abuser will take advantage and there will be no resolution. . . in fact, generally there is no resolution when dealing with abusive leadership (or abusers in general).
Toxic leaders manipulate scripture so that they don’t have to come clean regarding their own sin.
Intimidating the Witness
Toxic Leaders spiritually intimidate.
After a meeting between Michael, the staff pastor, John (elder), and Pastor Ensome – that did not include Kate as she was “not emotionally strong enough to attend,” – another meeting was arranged with Kate.
There was still hope to salvage the relationship. Though Kate wanted to confront the pastor, she continued to work hard win his favor. She shared with me,
“It was an awkward meeting. . . I was in so much distress in encountering Pastor Ensome for the first time that I don’t clearly remember all that was said. I found it difficult to even speak. I had shared what I was planning to say with long time members and they told me that was the ‘stupidest thing I could do.’ They told us the only way to stay [at PCC] was to submit to the Pastor. So, at that meeting I basically said I was a sinner, I was open to rebuke, and that if I had done something offensive someone should have told me earlier. Pastor Ensome had already devastated me and I could not risk being destroyed by him.”
Pastor Ensome apparently was pleased by her humility and told her he didn’t mean to hurt her. He stated that his issues were with Michael.
He had effectively intimidated both Kate and other members into believing it was necessary to bow to his superior spirituality or suffer the consequences.
Continued
There is more. Kate’s story continues in Part Two (2).Part Two will be posted on Thursday, September 1.
NOTES
1 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.
[2]Ken Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 156.
“If you are not trusting me, you are not trusting God…”
When a collaborative church planting network chose Jennifer’s city for a new faith community, she and her husband were excited. They had enjoyed being involved in another church plant years before in another city.
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 three 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.
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.
Book by Editor of P&
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
