Marsha sought help from leaders of the many churches she and her abusive husband attended over the years.
After 20 years of marriage she told her whole, sordid story to a couple church leaders who seemed to “get it.” As they heard her story, they listened with concern for her. Their initial responses were helpful and safe.
It All Began . . .
Marsha was sexually assaulted twice as a child on the mission field, later by a relative, and then as a young adult by an assistant church pastor. It seems that each time she turned to spiritual leaders or those who should have had her wefare in mind, she was abused.
In her late-twenties Marsha was introduced to her future husband by friends and had a short courtship. Within a few months they were at the altar repeating their vows to love and cherish one another.
Then it began.
There had been no sign of abusive behavior in their short courtship. But on their honeymoon he lost it and “yelled” at her for accidentally crushing the sand dollars collected on the beach, making quite a scene. Marsha explained to me, “Time went on and his anger was very present when conflict arose.”
In each location they lived, she sought help from church leaders. They were moving about every three to four years due to her husband’s job. One pastor, when asked for counsel told her husband to “love her” and told her to “get her parents out of it.” Marsha had shared his raging moments with her parents over time including the time she said, “He was yelling at me with a dog gate held over his head.”
In obedience to the pastor, Marsha faithfully “kept [her parents] out of it” for 17 years.
Bad to Worse
When things finally completely boiled over, she sought out a church that would understand abuse and help her. She had believed, as some of the churches had told her, that she must dutifully submit to her husband and that divorce was one of the worst actions anyone could ever take.
Church leaders, tasked with shepherding her and caring for her spiritual wellbeing, had faithfully taught her to just hang in there…because God hates divorce.
When she told her story to two pastors in the new church, they wrapped their arms around her. The senior pastor advised her to legally separate. She began that process.
Then, the elders met with her husband.
It all seemed to turn on its head. She began receiving communications from the pastors and a woman who was part of a group tasked with helping other women in crisis. They shared with Marsha in emails and conversations such things as:
I don’t find grounds for you to divorce your husband.
We are hoping that you might be willing to enter into a process to possibly restore your marriage.
It seems you have a habit of leaving churches that challenge your views. Sounds like the same ol’ song.
We’ve inherited an estrangement that has gone on for 20 years and one in which several churches have not been consistently speaking into.
Relational estrangement is far removed from fixing appliances and cars…It requires two willing people. It requires repentance and forgiveness….And so we need time to make room for all these things. It demands patience from all involved.
After more than twenty years. “It demands patience” was all the pastor could come up with. We need to make room for all these things.
This is a typical problem for those in abusive situations. It does indeed take two willing people. Apparently, church leaders having not gone through the years of living in hell with an abuser think they need the survivor to slow down for them to catch up.
They hear the abuser’s manipulation and are sucked into his vortex of lies.
Suddenly, a church that knows little of the story wants the victim to “be patient” while they dot their i’s and check off the boxes they need to feel justified in allowing her to divorce (if they will allow divorce). They think they can finally fix the marital problems where others have failed…
My wife calls it ignorance and arrogance.
It is where many of us have been when we had little understanding of abuse. We can be so ignorant and then, thinking we are so knowledgeable of God’s will, arrogantly espouse platitudes about love and mercy and commitment…and forgiveness.
Abuse is not “estrangement”
It was a strange and calming term to use for the violence perpetrated by Marsha’s oppressive and manipulative husband. “Oppression” is the term that scripture uses. My guess is the pastor used the term “estrangement” (consciously or subconsciously) to bring the abuse down to a manageable level with which the leaders could deal.
As we consider why church leaders would care so poorly for targets of domestic violence, I would suggest that there is a fundamental underlying failure in our theology of divorce.
We think all divorce is bad
Some get this from Malachi as he takes God’s people to task for divorce:
“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Malachi 2:16 (ESV)
There are few who have not heard translations of this verse that say “God hates divorce” such as the American Standard Version and King James. Theologian after theologian quote these versions to battle our culture of no-fault divorce.
But notice how the English Standard Version translates it:
“The man who does not love his wife but divorces her…covers his garment with violence.”
The New International Version says,
“The man who hates and divorces his wife,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘does violence to the one he should protect,’ says the Lord Almighty.”
There are difficulties in the translation of this passage and scholars disagree. But there is significant evidence that the language used, the context of the culture in which it was written, and traditional rabbinic interpretation would suggest the ESV and NIV likely have it right.[1]
It is not divorce the Lord hates, but the reasons for the divorce; the husband does not love his wife. The husband is not treating his wife well. He has severed the covenant he made with his wife.
That can be evidenced in abusive behavior, adultery, addiction to pornography, and other ways that reject his wife, breaking his covenant to love and protect he made at the altar.
This translation makes more sense when considering God’s own actions. He is said to “divorce” Israel in its rebellion, called adultery. [Jeremiah 3:8]
God hated Israel’s adultery and found it necessary to turn away from them just as a survivor of abuse must turn away from the evil of their covenant-breaking spouse.
If divorce were evil in itself, God would never take part in it.
We hold men and women in bondage as we expect them to “hang in there” when a spouse radically breaks their covenant vows through abuse. Whether it be adultery or abuse, the innocent party has biblical grounds to take the legal steps to put a legal stamp of “divorce” on the actions of divorce. A divorce has already taken place in the marriage by the offending party.
In case of abuse, divorce is not only the safe option but the loving option. Abusers must be held accountable if there is to be lasting change. The Lord most certainly wants the abuser to change.
The church should stand beside those who are suffering abusive relationships. They should do everything in their power to give aid and safety to the survivor, including “allowing” the decision to divorce should the survivor seek it.
Not begrudgingly. Not hesitantly. But with their blessing.
NOTES
1 David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Kindle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 1075.
Daniel faced off with a toxic Senior Pastor and lost. That is usually the case.
But in Daniel’s denomination there should have been oversight that stopped the abuse. And yet, the abuse of leadership continues in his former church. It should have been Pastor Jim who packed his bags, not Daniel.
But generally, it is never that simple.
Many denominations have little recourse for those caught under abusive leadership in the church. They may be “congregational” in their church polity, meaning the congregation makes all or most of the major decisions and there is no group of individuals who have oversight outside the local church.
However, there are many denominations that do have some kind of board that practices oversight of the local church. They should provide safety to those in a congregation who are blowing the whistle on toxic leadership.
Daniel’s Story
Daniel knew Pastor Jim as a leader of his college ministry. After being fired by the college ministry, Jim planted a church in a bustling metropolis. Following seminary, Daniel was asked to join Jim as an Assistant Pastor. It seemed like a great opportunity to minister with Jim so, he packed up his young family and moved across the country.
For a year things went swimmingly. Daniel was getting all kinds of experience. Upon arrival, he immediately started an adult Sunday school, taught Sunday school for kids, led the college ministry, oversaw communication for the church, and sought nursery volunteers.
He even filled the pulpit in Jim’s absence 10 days after arriving.
Despite the long hours, he saw it as an incredible opportunity to get varied and valuable experience preparing him for future ministry.
Who is He Really?
But things fell apart quite suddenly.
Daniel lost his job, but as he noted, “The real abuse was not in being fired unjustly [which he was], but in [Pastor Jim] having to control the narrative in every situation…the manipulation, gas lighting, and his constant need to fight.”
Missy, Daniel’s wife, had not met Jim when they arrived to begin ministry. Daniel had said, “He is a big personality. People either love him or hate him.” She noted that Jim was very “charismatic.” “People were really drawn to him,” she added.
However, when things went sideways, things got very nasty for Daniel and Missy. There was such a sudden shift in Pastor Jim’s attitude, it deeply hurt the young couple. Daniel said, “In our final months there, he seemed to be driven by anger, fear of losing control, and a desire to have me painted in the worst light so that he looked like the good guy.”
Messy Accountability Model
When Missy, Daniel, and I spoke, she explained they did not know the “right questions to ask” when Daniel interviewed for the Assistant position. They were young and just out of seminary. They were excited to get going in ministry. It was a great opportunity.
As a church plant, it had “borrowed” leadership. There were several elders who were tasked to oversee Jim’s ministry, but were not local. In fact, all were out of state and two were Jim’s close friends.
As his friends, they would simply do Pastor Jim’s bidding. They really did not provide any oversight to the ministry as an elder board should according to Missy and Daniel.
But Missy noted they would not have likely listened to the answers to tough questions about Jim and the leadership structure had they even known to ask them. They were ready to jump into ministry.
The Battle Began…
One Sunday, Pastor Jim and Daniel had a disagreement when preparing for a particular element of the worship. Pastor Jim decided not to go ahead with that part of worship and seemed fairly gracious, in Daniel’s view, in explaining it to the congregation.
The next day, Monday (which happened to be Daniel’s day off), Pastor Jim called Daniel to come meet him in his office. There was a congregant there as well, one of Jim’s good friends from seminary. Pastor Jim explained how disappointed he was in Daniel bringing up his conscience “right before the service” – no matter that it was an hour and a half before and Daniel had provided a solution that had been used another time when the same problem came up and Daniel had for some reason rejected it.
Pastor Jim proceeded to “suspend” Daniel until the elders met the next week. He was not to have any contact with church members (except the elders). Pastor Jim included students returning to college that week with whom Daniel would normally meet.
Daniel summed up the situation, saying, “Our ‘face off’ on that Sunday morning was only made into that because Pastor Jim took a concern that I had and turned it into a black and white, right vs. wrong conflict, instead of listening and discussing our options and moving forward together.”
When he met with the elders over Skype the next week, the board reinstated him but “with caveats.” He was to “obey and follow” Pastor Jim.
From this point on, Daniel and Missy felt they were “walking on eggshells.”
Crazy Managing
A few weeks later, Daniel was presented with a document by Pastor Jim that included a variety of men’s names with whom he was to meet regularly. The pastor had complained to Daniel that he did not do all the things with which he had tasked him. Pastor Jim would regularly give him responsibility for piles of work.
Daniel noted that it was presented to help him grow personally in ministry, but “much of it seemed arbitrary or like busy work.” The document was not presented as, “Do these things to the letter, or you are out.” With so many other responsibilities, he had to figure out what was really important to the running of the church.
Pastor Jim struggled with articulating priorities. “Everything was a high priority in his mind,” and so, over the months, these tasks for Daniel’s personal growth became secondary to the weekly operation of the church.
Daniel said he “never received any feedback from the elders on those extensive reports, and only confirmations that they had been received from Jim.”
Following a very hectic summer of leading retreats and a camp, Daniel was once again called into the pastor’s office. Pastor Jim said, “I am very disappointed in your lack of getting things done. The priorities you set. I have been following up with the guys I had you meet with. You didn’t meet as often as I had specified. I will meet with the elders next week and determine what to do with you.”
Again, Daniel was required to refrain from any contact with anyone at the church while awaiting the meeting with the long-distance elder board.
The Resignation
The elders in the end voted to “dissolve” his calling to the church and ask for his resignation.
It was explained that if he chose to go to the hierarchy of the denomination to challenge their decision, he would give up his severance package. After getting much advice from other pastors, he chose to resign and move on from the “nasty situation” it had become. As I have shared this with others, their responses have been like mine: it sounded like blackmail.
Pastor Jim wanted him to stay on for a few months to help in the transition. Daniel graciously agreed hoping things would settle down. Unfortunately, following a congregational meeting where they were told that Daniel had resigned, he was given “strict guidelines to not meet with certain people and had to tell Pastor Jim” what was said if he did meet with someone.
Daniel noted, “If I did talk with people at all, my narrative was to be that ‘I fired myself’ by my actions…that I was the only party to have acted wrongly.”
Pastor Jim continued to retain control as Daniel explained,
“He and his close friend on the [board] constantly followed up with me after I resigned, and would call to berate me if they heard that others were dissatisfied with the way things were being handled, even when I hadn’t had any contact with those congregants. It reached a point where they actively threatened my severance, my ordination, and informed me that they would never recommend me for a position in ministry.”
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pastor Jim is driven, a “fighter,” “opinionated,” and “rough around the edges.” But, of course, very talented. He has attracted many to the church.
But this kind of leadership comes with a high price tag. The fallout may largely be in the inner circle of leadership – losing assistant leaders and elders which has happened – but it is very destructive to the whole body nonetheless. I have yet to see a church continue to flourish under such leadership.
It is a cancer.
There is always a reckoning.
Abusive leadership leads to destruction.
It is imperative that an abuser of God-given authority, like Pastor Jim, be brought to account. That accountability in itself can bring him to repentance…but if it does not, at least God’s people will no longer be oppressed.
Daniel said, “The real hurt came from working closely with him in ministry for three years and then having all bridges of our relationship burned so quickly, and then to watch his efforts to burn the bridges between us and the congregation.”
Daniel finished with a hint of hope.
“We trust that God will use our story to bring light to abusive leadership, give comfort to those who are experiencing similar situations, and be a catalyst for the peace and purity of the church.”
NOTES:
Crippen, Jeff. Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church (p. 48). Justice Keepers Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Ethan began his pastoral ministry as an Assistant. After the Senior Pastor left the church of approximately 200, the search was on for a new leader. When Pastor Fredrick was hired, he made a strong first impression.
Ethan noted, “Fredrickresonated strongly with some of my focus.”[1] He said that Fredrick focused on Christ and grace and he added that his “emphases were interesting and helpful.”
Amelia said, “Fredrick gave vocabulary to how I was thinking. He commanded a room.”
Pastor Fredrick told the search committee and his new congregation that he was the “victim” of the elders of the church he had served prior to coming. Amelia said she “felt bad for the guy.“
On the other hand, he was very complimentary of Ethan. He said to Amelia that he told the search committee “the only reason he was coming was because of Ethan.”
In hindsight, Ethan said, “He was already grooming me to be his ally.”
Those Dirty Red Flags
Ethan said there were red flags he should have seen, and to this day, several years later, clearly lives with a certain guilt that he failed himself and his congregation.
Pastor Fredrick was not actually about “grace.” Certainly “manipulation,” but not grace.
Early on Pastor Fredrick told them a strange story. A visitor to the church went to lunch with Fred and there was a huge thunder storm. Apparently, Fredrick and the visitor had a disagreement and the visitor dropped him off in the rain. The pastor appeared at the church completely soaked.
The story made no sense, but they figured, “Why would someone make up something like that?“
When Fredrick moved into his office, he immediately put black paper over the small window in his office door. Though they considered it weird, they figured he just wanted his privacy. Later some pornographic videos showed up from Netflix in the church office. He explained to the secretary it was just “some enemy of church” sending them.
One member walked into his office one day and there was male pornography on his screen.
Pastor Fredrick said his office was robbed at one point. But he said the only thing taken was disposable water bottles. Ethan noted, “All his expensive computer equipment? No.”
These stories didn’t make sense to Ethan and Amelia.
Oh, But He Preaches!
“Meanwhile, everyone loved his preaching.” He said, “The church grew considerably.” After three or four years there was around 300 to 400 in average attendance.
He added, “There was a ton of success. Finances were good.”
But Pastor Fredrick “created an environment that the goal was to keep the church successful at all costs.” Amelia noted the church had a lot of pride in itself for its success under Fredrick.
However, about a year and a half after the arrival of Pastor Fredrick, Ethan began to notice things that he had heard Fredrick say, write, and preach that he had seen in other sources. It looked like plagiarism to him.
He then found out that Fredrick was under investigation by the regional church court for plagiarism. Ethan went to Fredrick two times to talk with him about his discoveries.
Amelia told the story of Fredrick teaching a women’s Bible study and providing a handout that was presented as “his own.” She went home and googled the text and found it was someone else’s writing. When Ethan confronted him on it, Fredrick explained the other church, that had it online, had stolen from him.
Just Want to Believe
Ethan explained, “I wanted to believe and support my senior pastor.” He said, “I was confused. I wanted to be the loyal, supportive, associate pastor.“
To add to the confusion, “[Pastor Fredrick] was preaching that love gives the benefit of the doubt.” Ethan added, “He talked about how his assistant in his old church had been hacking him.” He just could not bring himself to be cynical like Amelia was. She explained she was no longer charmed by Pastor Fredrick after about nine months.
As Ethan struggled to make sense of the evils perpetrated by Pastor Fredrick, he did not have a category to recognize what was going on.
Ethan said, “There was a lot of deceit from him in every corner of the church. He seemed to be a sociopath. You could see he was looking for drama.“
He could not believe a pastor would be so deceptive.
Ethan said the pastor was “pitting one person against another.” But few knew what was going on. “People not [in leadership] had a such a hard time understanding how he could preach such good sermons and be so bad.”
It wasn’t until later that church leaders began to connect the dots…only after Pastor Fredrick had resigned. Then the stories came pouring in like an “avalanche.”
Ethan described Pastor Fredrick as having the “seared conscience” that Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 4:2 describes.
He “came to see this as descriptive of the pastor. There’s no conscience. It was burned over.“
Defrocked
The pastor, while under investigation, encouraged his elders and congregation to leave their denomination. The congregation voted to split the sheets, but both Ethan and Amelia struggled with the decision, with Amelia ultimately voting against her pastor.
The denomination, acting on its bylaws, continued the plagiarism trial despite the church vote, keeping Pastor Fredrick from moving out of the denomination and accountability to the denomination.
In the end, he was found guilty and “defrocked” from the pastorate.
Pastor Fredrick was put under the care of another church and not allowed to minister. However, he soon left that church and started his own, independent church.
The Learning Curve
There were a number of things Amelia and Ethan learned in their trial of being under toxic leadership in the church. They told their story that others may be comforted with the comfort they received from the Father of mercies as 2 Corinthians 1:3-5 says.
Emelia has found that she is “always leery of someone who plays the victim card” in the wake of this trial. She feels his victimhood should have been a red flag when he criticized his former church.
Ethan said he is “skeptical of crazy stories that don’t make sense.” Prior to this experience he had operated with the underlying belief that a pastor could never be so deceptive. However, this incident has formed his understanding of the biblical concept of the seared conscience.
Amelia and Ethan ask, “How do you keep your soft heart and at same time maintain a healthy discernment?” Having been burned by Pastor Fredrick and having believed his manipulative assurances, it is now easy to be hardened and see manipulation behind every rock.
When speaking of muddling in the mess of the brokenness created by Pastor Fredrick, Ethan said, “There is a natural tendency is to run away. You don’t want to deal with the mess. Just want to get to a healthier place.” But Ethan believes that the “hard work of being with the people was very healing.” It was important to them to work through what had happened with others who went through it with them before moving on to another ministry.
Pastor Fredrick always portrayed himself as the “chief of sinners,” as Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:16. But Ethan noted he would not confess specific sin. “There was a shield of humility that was about protecting his postion.”
This particular point was striking to me. In my research [see blog] and hearing story after story, a common denominator in abusive leadership is a lack of humility in the leader. However, I find there is often a veneer of humility that hides an aversion to admitting any particular sin.
Just as one person told me: “I was fine with Jesus dying for the world’s sins, but not so keen on Him dying for my sin.”
Advice to Other Survivors of Toxic Leadership
When asked how they would advise others going through the mess of toxic leadership, Ethan and Amelia gave some helpful comments.
“Try to give categories for them to process what is going on.” It was helpful for Ethan to start understanding the abusive leadership in categories like “sociopath” or “seared conscience.”
“Maybe talk about Psalm 55 and people whose consciences are seared.” Ethan said, “People can actually be this way. Try to give them some context for what they are experiencing.“
“Depending on the situation, some may need to get out. Someone has got to go…it may not be the problem pastor that goes!“
In the end, Ethan expressed his sorrow over not seeing the signs of abusive leadership early on. He explained it cut to the core of his understanding of his calling. He asked himself if the pastorate really was his calling if he was so easily manipulated this way.
He noted that the shepherd of the sheep is called to “protect the sheep” and yet he feels that he was unable to do that.
However, experience teaches us that these trials instruct God’s people and it is rare that people get it right the first time around…or even the second or third time around.[James 1:2-4] God calls us to give the benefit of the doubt to our brothers and to forgive freely.[Matthew 18:23-35]
If grace is our default position, there are bound to be some failures in reading the signs of abusive leadership.
NOTES:
Ethan, Amelia, and Pastor Fredrick are not their real names.
How often do you hear a leader of a Christian organization being called a shepherd?
Yet, all Christian leadership should look like shepherding.
I mean every Christian who is acting in a leadership role. He could be a CEO, low-level or mid-level manager, church deacon or elder, committee member, or head of the home.
Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader. Here is what he had to say about his leadership:
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:10-12
Do Nothing Selfishly
Underlying all leadership should be the understanding that I am looking out for someone else’s interests. In Philippians, the Apostle Paul seems to be amplifying Jesus’ words.
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Philippians 2:3-4 (ESV)
There is always self-care: look not only to our own interests. We need to consider our own needs for emotional and physical safety. But Paul emphasizes looking outward probably because we are naturallyinward-looking. We most naturally look out for ourselves…it takes work and a disposition molded by the Holy Spirit to consider the needs of others.
Who Are the Needy?
Who are the needy? They are the stakeholders of our ministry.
As a leader I am responsible for the needs of my subordinates in the organization and the recipients of my ministry. In addition, I am accountable to ministry donors. Unfortunately, in the broken world of service, there are sometimes competing interests at work between all of these stakeholders.
Toxic organizational leaders do what is necessary toget from these stakeholders. They consider their own needs as more significant than other’s.
As a result, all manner of manipulation and control of their employees, ministry recipients, and donors takes place by the leadership to achieve their goal of getting from them.
The leadership might hide behind such lofty goals as, “We are here to serve the empoverished [i.e. recipients of the ministry].” Or maybe, “We are accountable to those who give generously to our ministry.“
Image, Image, Image
But for the toxic leader, that is only a smokescreen for serving themselves as leaders. He cares little about the stakeholders God has given him.
The organization’s stakeholders are only cogs in his wheel of ego production. And he may care little but for the image of the organization to build his own ego or pocketbook.
The leadership of one mission organization for which I worked focused mostly on image-building in what appeared to be an attempt to keep the contributions rolling in and for their own sense of greatness.
When a donor agency sent a team to evaluate the educational ministry of the organization, the CEO instructed the science teachers to prominently display science equipment that was rarely used and never at that point in the students’ studies. The teachers were to have the students working with the equipment when the donors arrived. The equipment was immediately put away following the visit.
One student remarked, “I wish this was the normal, but obviously [the leaders] just want to make an impression.”
The deception was quite apparent to the students and the Principal of the school, who told me of it later. He was embarrassed by the duplicity.
In another sham, the ministry produced a promotional brochure to raise donors that featured two students on the cover. The brochure explained that the students were “orphans.” When it was discovered that they were not orphans, and were quite offended by the deception, the ministry leader shrugged it off and explained that the students had signed off on having their picture on brochures when they registered for the school.
We just scratched our heads.
Image, image, image.
The wiseman had something to say about this:
Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor.
Proverbs 18:12 (ESV)
Putting Our Foot Out
There is certainly nothing wrong with putting our best foot forward. We espouse our strengths in a job interview and we bring attention to our services as an organization to those with whom we seek to partner financially.
But “marketing” for the Christian is really about humblymaking known the gifts God has given us so that we may have opportunity to minister to others with those gifts.
It is not about manipulating others for financial gain or ego gratifying image-mongering. When God has gifted individuals or a ministry with the ability to serve others, it is right to make that known that there be those who may receive the ministry the organization provides.
Paul, in essence says this to the Corinthians:
But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)
Paul will boast in “regard to the area of influence God assigned.” He will “glory” in the abilities God has given him that he might serve others.
But as we put our best foot forward, it is important to make sure it is our foot (the “foot” God has given us) we are putting forward, not someone else’s as Paul goes on to say. We must act in integrity and consider all our “stakeholders,” whether they be our employees, donors, or ministry recipients.
Integrity, integrity, integrity.
Leadership is a work of shepherding. It is about feeding the sheep – all the stakeholders.
It means loving others. Considering others as more important than your own comfort or ego or image.
2600 years ago, God spoke through the prophet and priest, Ezekiel. [Jesus was likely referring to this bit of Old Testament prophecy as he spoke of his ministry as the true Shepherd of Israel – John 10]. God said,
“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.”
This is part 2 of a series of articles describing the experiences of Christian organization employees working under abusive bosses. These articles are the fruit of interviews with employees who sought diligently to respond to their foul bosses in biblical and thoughtful ways. This article describes their application of Matthew 18 – the confrontation of a sinning brother – to their unpleasant circumstances. For an analysis of Matthew 18 in the context of employment, please see my earlier blog.
In Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus outlines the process for confronting a brother who has sinned against you.[1] The passage goes through three steps of confrontation: 1) Go to the brother one-on-one. If he does not respond in repentance, 2) take one or two other witnesses along to confront him. Again, if he does not respond to the grace of confrontation, 3) take it to the church. If after these steps he does not respond in repentance, the church is to treat him as an unbeliever – he is clearly not interested in what Jesus calls him to be.
As I research toxic leadership in Christian organizations, this passage can create much unnecessary angst as missionaries and employees misapply it to their situations.
In a couple of cases I researched, my interviewees did not believe Matthew 18 was applicable to their situation. Several of my interviewees observed others who approached (one-on-one) the leadership of their ministry and experienced difficulty. They said they did not think one-on-one confrontations would be of any value or was dangerous.
Adam said he “had seen a pattern of other people attempting to bring concerns directly to leadership and they were excused or dismissed.” He noted he was conscious of the Matthew 18 passage, but “was too cynical about the success of it to even try to go through that.”
Going One On One and Upping the Ante
Below are five stories of applying Matthew 18. These five interviewees’ approaches took different forms. They sought to keep the problems as contained as possible, but each sought help from the board of directors, considering that an application of bringing “one or two others” or “the church,” as Jesus suggests in Matthew 18 when the one-on-one did not work.
Frances
Though not considering Matthew 18 necessarily applicable, Frances said a pastor friend exhorted her to “not neglect…the noble role of a whistleblower,” referring to Ephesians where it says, “don’t walk in the deeds of the darkness, even expose them.”[2] She was encouraged to confront the chairman of her organization one-on-one as Matthew 18 teaches.
Frances, the CEO of a mission training organization, sought to communicate privately with her toxic board chairman several times, but the chairman “just would not respond.” She explained that communications the chairman had with others in the organization had been “critical” of her and she “had been left . . . out of important processes in which the CEO always, in the organization’s history, had been involved.”
Though Frances did not consider the Matthew 18 principle to be necessarily applicable to a non-church setting, Frances did try to communicate directly with the chair. However, she said, “I tried to knock on that door several times and that door was slammed shut.” At others’ advice, she “sought to lay out to the entire board in great detail interactions with this person over the preceding months.”
Unfortunately, the chairman “was able to manipulate the board somehow in ways I was never privy to,” she said.
She did not survive the experience, being fired from the organization.
Harris
Harris, a CEO of a large and well-known Christian organization, considered it a matter of integrity that he speak directly to the Board Chairman, his toxic boss. He believed, “this all could have been solved in one face to face conversation,” a step the Board Chairman never took with him.
While separated by several states and recovering from a serious surgery, Harris wrote several emails to the board chairman. He added, “I didn’t go complain to someone else.” Harris wanted to confront the chairman privately. In addition, he noted that he “wasn’t insulting” or “making accusations” as he wanted to be gracious in his handling of the conflict.
After exchanging three letters, the chairman began his third saying, “I appreciate your note, particularly the spirit of it.” However, when the board voted to fire him, one of the members “stood up and pled with them and said, ‘We cannot do this . . . We have a biblical principle; we must talk to [Harris].’” However, the board chairman and board members would not speak with Harris prior to his termination.
Several months after his firing, the new board chairman, new president, and the former (toxic) board chairman came to speak with him. He said it “was a pitiful meeting.” The plan of the new chairman and new president was for the former chairman to seek forgiveness from Harris for his failure to respond to Harris’ confrontation.
However, when the meeting had concluded, the former chairman had not asked for forgiveness.
Eugene
Eugene, a middle-manager of a global mission organization, who considered the CEO a friend, would discuss issues privately with the CEO. He had several discussions with him regarding the amount of work the CEO was expecting him to accomplish.
When Eugene wrote the 25-page document to the CEO with suggestions for improving the use of both the CEO’s gifts and his own in the organizational structure, he explained he had no intention of going to anyone else with his recommendations. He said, “I am not going to share this with anybody . . . If someone is going to take the brunt of repercussions, it is going to have to be me.”
Rather than humbly and respectfully hearing the recommendations and discussing them with Eugene, the CEO asked Eugene to resign. Immediately following his forced resignation, Eugene asked for a meeting with the board chairman seeking to bring accountability to the CEO, but he “wouldn’t talk to me.”
He remembered being surprised that the board chairman would not respond to him. Eugene said, “I’m a senior vice president. If that level person is resigning, or fired, it seems like you would want to talk to them! Hear his side of the story. But, no. That was it!” Eugene “stayed around, waiting for the next board meeting” hoping they would call him in, but they did not.
Approximately, three years later, Eugene received a message from the board chairman asking to talk. The board had fired the CEO and the chairman asked forgiveness from Eugene. The chairman said he “kept sustaining [the CEO] despite all the negative feedback he was getting about the financial state and from the staff.” He told Eugene, “You were right. I should have listened to you.”
The board chairman resigned from the board, disappointed in his failures to protect the employees from the CEO.
Graham
Graham, the Director of a global mercy ministry, said he sought to follow the biblical principle of “going to someone privately, one on one, and if necessary bring in a couple of the church elders, and if necessary” go further. However, he said his small group of Christian leaders that confronted the founder and CEO of the organization for sexual harassment and abuse, were “trying to avoid going further.”
He considered the “three of us as going to him as the ‘private one,’ [described in Matthew 18] and then, later with the full board of going with the ‘elders.’” In seeking the help of the board as his “church elders” Graham was very disappointed. The board ended up supporting the founder due to pressure from a long-time, big money donor’s pressure.
Graham and forty others were fired. After ten more years of complaints of sexual misconduct, the board finally fired the founder.
Graham said, “It [will be] a long time before I [will] join another Christian board. As far as I am concerned, I am swearing off Christian boards.”
Another Approach
Ben had a very different approach to the application of the passage. He explained, “I just felt like the Matthew 18 principle was something that I needed to own in where I had leadership.” Like Adam, he had also seen a “hurting group of people who had really been shot down in their attempts to try to apply that to fix breaks however small, however gradual.”
Ben said there was a group of missionaries he called the “Matthew 18 group . . . that were constantly butting heads, constantly trying to bring about change.” He said, woefully, “Many of them were in my office a great deal for counsel, encouragement – for prayer – because they were getting really worn out through that process.”
Ben did meet with his toxic CEO to present his resignation, but expected no resolution. Ben and Casandra signed a letter to the board that included “the major concerns we [had] with the organization.” The letter expressed the missionaries’ belief “it could be an amazing organization” if the board would hear the missionaries’ stories.
However, the board never spoke with the missionaries.
Concluding Thoughts
Isaac, a missionary in a developing country, did not go to his board. He said,
I think they are completely disconnected with what [the founder] would be doing. They’re his board…probably just a few pastors somewhere in [the United States] and they know [the founder] and they all go way back and so I would be nothing more than some guy that was upset because he was asked to leave.
It is apparent that toxic leaders are difficult and often dangerous to approach one-on-one. There is no apparent consideration of this given in Matthew 18, and as explained in my other blog on the subject, Matthew 18 seems to take for granted the brothers involved in the dispute are on equal footing. The possibility of retaliation is not mentioned.
In addition, the board of each of my interviewees’ organization took little or no responsibility for oversight of the toxic leader under their charge. None of them took responsibility to bring accountability to the leader until the damage of abuse and firing was already done.
Boards rarely listen. This is proven out in survey after survey of both Christian and non-Christian organizations.
As one individual told me in our organization,
“I am tired of seeing missionaries sent home in body bags.”
The following is a study of personality disorders and other behavioral problems toxic leaders commonly have. A full diagnosis of an individual should be made by a trained professional, but these descriptions can help those unfortunate enough to be a subordinate to a toxic leader.
Alpha Males & Queen Bees
Alpha males are described as leaders “who aren’t happy unless they’re the top dogs.” Ludeman and Erlandson, who study and consult with “alpha males” in business management, argue that “70 percent of all top executives” can be classified as alpha.[1] Chamorro-Premuzic suggests one reason for both the large numbers of leaders with these personality traits and the frequent support they receive is the traits may appear positive such as “extraversion, openness to new experience, curiosity, and self-esteem.” Ludeman says, these leaders are “highly intelligent, confident, and successful.” But, the authors say they are “typically stubborn and resistant to feedback.”
According to Peggy Drexler, the term “queen bee” was coined forty years ago in a University of Michigan study of promotion rates among women in the workplace. These women leaders were “obsessed with maintaining their authority.”[2]
Drexler’s article, discussing the queen bee, argues they create unique dysfunctions in the workplace.
“What makes these queen bees so effective and aggravating is that they are able to exploit female vulnerabilities that men may not see, using tactics that their male counterparts might never even notice.”[3]
She says queen bees do not seek the development of their subordinates’ talents, but rather undermine “their professional standing.”[4]
Authoritarianism
Bonam, author of Leading from the Second Chair, says, “If you have the misfortune of working for a first chair who is a true autocrat, then you may find that any disagreement is seen as insubordination.”[3] Jean Lipman-Blumen says authoritarianism is “a hallmark of toxic leaders.”[4] The prevalence of authoritarian leaders within the Christian ministry is extensive according to Ronald Enroth.[5]
The literature suggests authoritarian leaders are unwilling to receive criticism from their followers. Allender notes that the arrogance of the autocrat “creates a mood of ‘follow me or get lost.’”[6] De Vries and Miller, describing the paranoid organization, explain the leader has a “tendency to centralize power,” and leaders “who feel threatened generally like to have a good deal of control over their subordinates.”[7]
Greenfield and Faulkner agree, saying, “An authoritarian pastor perceives himself as boss of the staff and gives orders that are never to be questioned.” Where there are disagreements, “there is no room for any input from staff members.”[8] Herrington, et. al., say authoritarian leaders are emotionally dependent on others. As a result, “Others are there to serve the leader’s purpose.”[9]
Why do authoritarian leaders lack willingness to hear other ideas? Lipman-Blumen argues, “Some leaders fall into the trap of believing in their own wisdom” as their followers become more and more dependent on them.[4] Within the Christian church setting, some suggest followers “can’t criticize leaders without being critical of God.”[10] Therefore, Enroth adds, an authoritarian “leader is beyond confrontation.”[5]
A leader may have “exclusionary proclivities,” according to Lipman-Blumen and “they are unlikely to take counsel or correction from those outside the charmed circle,” the secondary leadership of the organization.[4]
Autocrats have an unwillingness to hear counsel from subordinates and they seek to control followers. Edmondson argues authoritarian leaders use fear to control. And she says, “Control reinforces certainty and predictability.”[11] This form of management style was common in the past according to Frank Barrett who explains, “We have grown up with a variety of models of organizations, most of which have relied to some degree on a mechanistic view of top-down approaches to change.” This “top-down” approach emphasizes “routines and rules” for organizational control.[12]
However, Rob Hay suggests that the “authoritarian command and control approach of the old style business has given way to self-managing teams . . . and general autonomy.”[13] The authors of “Resilient Ministry” suggest authority, developed through relationships, is more important than the formal authority practiced by autocrats.
“While we don’t disregard the importance of formal authority and the role it plays in accomplishing God’s purposes, we suggest that relational authority trumps formal authority much of the time,” according to Burns, et. al.[14]
Narcissism
“The authoritarian religious leader is predominantly narcissistic,” according to Oates.[15] Langberg explains the name, “Narcissist” comes from the Greek mythological story of a young, handsome youth who had a “heart that was inaccessible to love.”[16]
One of Narcissist’s “rejected lovers” prayed that he be punished for his “lack of empathy.” Nemesis, the god of retribution to whom she prayed, “caused Narcissist to see his reflection in the water and fall completely in love with himself.” As he was unable to access his reflection, he “died of unrequited love.”
It is common for narcissists to occupy leadership positions. According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “An impressive 15-year longitudinal study found that individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic characteristics gravitated towards the top of the organizational hierarchy.”[17] Chandler and Fields explain, “Narcissistic leaders may pass selection screening because they possess strengths such as the ability to present a vision in a charismatic fashion, inspire others with rhetoric, and thereby persuade others to follow.”[18]
There have been many studies on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to George Simon, author of the article, “Narcissism: Pathological Self-Love,” despite the American Psychiatric Association removing the disorder from the DSM-5.[19]
He says, “Too many folks who know all too well how painful it is to live or deal with a narcissist” are seeking information on narcissism. He goes on to say, “Because ours is the age of permissiveness and especially ‘entitlement,’ narcissism has flourished, and just about everyone has a story to tell about dealing with a narcissist.”
Narcissistic individuals are described as “conceited, boastful or pretentious,” according to the Mayo Clinic.[20] Chamorro-Premuzic says narcissists have “unrealistic feelings of grandiosity, an inflated – though often unstable and insecure – sense of self-worth, and a selfish sense of entitlement coupled with little consideration for others.[17]
Oates defines empathy as “putting oneself in another person’s place and experiencing that person’s needs as primary,” and lacking this other-centeredness is a common characteristic of narcissism.[15] Narcissists often “belittle or look down on people” they “perceive as inferior.”[20] “As a result…they naturally conclude they should come first: their needs (often lavish), their image, their success,” argue Chapman, White, and Myra.[21]
According to Chandler and Fields, “Narcissistic leaders…blame others for their failures.”[18] They “usually have no interest in self-insight or change.”[22] Oates agrees, saying, “The capacity for self-evaluation and self-criticism is absent.”[15] Subordinates are simply “expected to provide blind support.”[18]
If employees do not act in support of the narcissist, they become “increasingly expendable,” according to Oates.
Abuse and Bullying
Literature covering a broad range of relational abuse or bullying from domestic to workplace is extensive. However, most work done in this area of study is secular according to Jeff Crippen. He argues, “The secular world has more wisdom by far about abuse than does the Christian church.”[23] He explains, in A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church! that his own journey of understanding abuse was through books by secular social scientists.
According to a study of workplace bullying by the Ventura County California Grand Jury, bullying is defined as “an abuse or misuse of power that manifests itself in ‘behavior that intimidates, degrades, offends, or humiliates a worker.’”[24]
The authors of “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying” define bullying as “having unequal power and about being exposed to negative acts over and over again without being able to defend oneself in the actual situation.”[25] A Workplace Bullying Institute publication describes a variety of behaviors that are classified as bullying such as “being shouted at or sworn at, being excessively monitored, being isolated or excluded from activities, being threatened, [or] being physically intimidated.”
WBI says a large percentage (38%) of co-workers do nothing to help the target of bullying in the workplace, effectively isolating the victim.[26] Other bullying behaviors noted in “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach” were “forcing to work overtime,” “overruling decisions, removing responsibility,” attacking their “professional status,” giving “persistent criticism,” using “manipulation,” and “undermining, and false accusations.”[27]
Lundy Bancroft, a former codirector of the United State’s first program for abusive men, contrasts abuse with love saying,
“Genuine love means respecting the humanity of the other person, wanting what is best for him or her…this kind of love is incompatible with abuse and coercion.”[28]
Bancroft lists a variety of characteristic behaviors and thinking patterns of the abuser, saying they are “controlling,” “entitled,” “possessive,” and “manipulative;” abusers twist the truth, think of themselves as “superior,” confuse “love and abuse,” seek to present a “good public image,” feel “justified” in their thoughts and action, and commonly “deny and minimize” their behavior. He suggests, much the same as Namie, that abusers isolate their victim to retain control.
According to Einarsen, et. al., abuse is identified as “behaviors such as intimidating followers, belittling, or humiliating them in public.”[18] Robert Sutton agrees, noting the victims of abusers in the workplace “feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled.”[29] He also suggests the abuser normally aims “his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful.”
Many of these characteristics are found in descriptions of personality disorders. According to Clive Boddy, author of the article, “Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the Workplace,” there is significant “cross-over” between psychopaths and bullies in the workplace. He says, “The traits of narcissism, lack of self-regulation, lack of remorse, and lack of conscience have been identified as those displayed by bullies. These traits are shared with psychopathy.”[30]
Robert Hare, author of This Charming Psychopath, says psychopaths have a “remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior.”[31] He also notes they are “deceitful and manipulative.” In addition, Narcissists are described as having a sense of “entitlement” and “superiority,” characteristics of an abuser or bully.[32]
However, Bancroft argues, though abusive individuals may have personality disorders, an abuser’s “value system is unhealthy, not their psychology.”[28] He notes recent research shows mental illness occurrence even in “violent abusers is not high.” Bancroft concludes, “Mental illness doesn’t cause abusiveness any more than alcohol does.” Though he provides a chapter in Why Does He Do That called the “Process of Change,” discussing counseling techniques and encouragement for treating abusers, he also notes, “It is more common for abusers to stay the same or get worse.”
Psychopathic Personality Disorder
A recent study in Australia “found that about one in five corporate executives are psychopaths – roughly the same rate as among prisoners.”[33] Some estimate there are “three times” the number of corporate board members in these categories than among the general population.
Unfortunately, it is estimated the cost of psychopathy to American taxpayers is approximately “$460 billion a year.”[34]
Psychopathy is “characterized by high levels of aggression in response to frustration,” according to Zeigler-Hill and Vonk in their article, “Dark Personality Features and Emotion Dysregulation.”[35] Ross, Benning, and Adams described those with the disorder as “callous, calculating, manipulative, and deceitful.”[36] Robert Hare suggests, “Psychopaths seem proud of their ability to lie.”[31] Hare also says,
Their lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior, to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause family, friends, and others to reel with shock and disappointment. They usually have handy excuses for their behavior, and in some cases, deny that it happened at all.
In addition, Psychopaths have a lack of compassion for others and are unable to show concerns for the needs of others, according to Jonason, Kaufman, Webster, and Geher.[37] Boddy agrees, saying they “have no conscience, few emotions, and an inability to have any feelings or empathy for other people.”[38] Simon adds, “Most researchers and theorists…view psychopaths as individuals devoid of conscience.”[19]
Machiavellianism
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “Machiavellian individuals are politically savvy and good at networking and managing upwards,” making them, like those with narcissistic and psychopathic traits, often part of upper management of organizations. He suggests they have “superficial charm.” [17]
However, “Individuals who scored high on the Machiavellian scale were found to manipulate more, win more, were persuaded less, and persuaded others more in face-to-face interactions,” according to Jacob Siegel, author of “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects.”[39]
Chamorro-Premuzic agrees, stating they are deceitful and “ruthless.”[17] Siegler and Vonk argue Machiavellianistic individuals have little consideration for the emotional impact of their decisions, saying they “do whatever is necessary to achieve one’s goals without a great deal of concern for the emotional consequences of their behaviors.”[39] According to these researchers, this does not mean they are unable to identify the emotional states of others, but “they do not experience emotional discomfort when exposed to the suffering of others,” making them lacking in empathy.
REFERENCES
[1] Ludeman, Kate, and Eddie Erlandson. Alpha Male Syndrome. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2006. 58.
[2] Drexler, Peggy. “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” The Wall Street Journal. March 2, 2013, United States edition, sec. C1.
[3] Bonem, Mike, and Roger Patterson. Leading from the Second Chair: Serving Your Church, Fulfilling Your Role, and Realizing Your Dreams. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[4] Lipman-Blumen, Jean. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians–and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford University Press, 2004.
[5] Enroth, Ronald M. Churches That Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.
[6] Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman III. Bold Love. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014.
[7] Kets de Vries, Manfred, and Danny Miller. The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
[8] Greenfield, Guy, and Brooks Faulkner. The Wounded Minister: Healing from and Preventing Personal Attacks. Baker Books, 2001.
[9] Herrington, Jim. The Leader’s Journey: Accepting the Call to Personal and Congregational Transformation. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
[10] Chrnalogar, Mary Alice. Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free from Churches That Abuse. Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
[11] Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012.
[12] Barrett, Frank J. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.
[13] Hay, Rob. “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?” Encounters Mission Ezine, no. 2 (October 2004): 8.
[14] Burns, Bob, Tasha D. Chapman, and Donald C. Guthrie. Resilient Ministry: What Pastors Told Us About Surviving and Thriving. IVP Books, 2013.
[15] Oates, Wayne E. Behind the Masks: Personality Disorders in Religious Behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987.
[18] Schyns, Birgit, and Tiffany Hansbrough, eds. When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2010.
[21] Gary Chapman, Paul E. White, and Harold Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace: Taking Care of Yourself in an Unhealthy Environment (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2014).
[25] Astrauskaite, Milda, Roy M. Kern, and Guy Notelaers. “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying.” The Journal of Individual Psychology 70, no. 3 (Fall 2014): 220–44.
[26] Namie, Gary. “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.” Workplace Bullying Institute. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.workplacebullying.org.
[27] Ciby, Mariam, and R.P. Raya. “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach.” Vikalpa: The Journal of Decision Makers 39, no. 2 (June 2014): 69–81.
[28] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002.
[29] Sutton, Robert I. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. 1st ed. New York: Business Plus, 2007.
[36] Scott R. Ross, Stephen D. Benning, and Zachary Adams, “Symptoms of Executive Dysfunction Are Endemic to Secondary Psychopathy: An Examination in Criminal Offenders and Noninstitutionalized Young Adults,” Journal of Personality Disorders 21, no. 4 (August 2007).
[37] Peter K. Jonason, Scott Barry Kaufman, Gergory D. Webster, and Glenn Geher. “What Lies Beneath the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: Varied Relations with the Big Five.” Individual Differences Research 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 81–90.
[39] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 404–11.
As my wife and I began to experience a particularly toxic boss, we had little understanding of how someone could be incredibly malicious in one moment and act like our best friend soon after. One moment Betty was yelling at my wife and that evening she was all charm and sweetness. The interplay of kindness and cruelty is a common experience of those who face off with toxic leaders.
These confusing behaviors make it difficult at times to identify abusive individuals. Are they toxic or my best friend? The American Psychiatric Association publication, DSM-IV-TR describes various personality disorders, one of the possible problems a toxic boss may have. The Association maintains that a personality disorder is “an enduring pattern of inner experience that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.”[1] The literature I have read agrees that a personality disorder is a consistent attitude, not simply a one-time failure to act nicely.[2]
Heartless Evil
Most writers would not use the term, “evil” to describe these people, but Christian psychologist, Dan Allender does. He says, “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.”[3] He goes on to say,
“One awful, abusive event does not make a person evil, but when it represents a repetitive pattern of excessive disregard for others (mockery) and wanton, vicious refusal to look at the damage done (arrogance), then one can ascertain a significant inclination to evil.”[4]
Guy Greenfield and Brooks Faulkner further define evil people, saying, “The central defect of evil persons is not their sin but their refusal to acknowledge it.”[5] The research is clear that these dysfunctional people are deeply unbalanced. As Christians we know the world is fallen. Every person is sinful and will say or do mean things at times. But, Allender and others make it clear those who truly have personality disorders are consistently “driven” by their self-interest.
Whether the toxic leader has a personality disorder, or is better diagnosed as an “abuser,” which is not the same thing according to some psychologists, they are exceptional manipulators and refuse to humbly admit their failures [see this blog].[6]
Though the bosses of each of my study participants had their own characteristic weaknesses and most did not all readily describe their supervisor as “evil,” none of the leaders acknowledged their sins that were destroying relationships with their subordinates. None were described as “self-evaluating” or “humble.” It was a rarity that the leader changed his behavior for any extended length of time after being confronted.
A Layman’s Diagnosis
Psychologists assure us that diagnosing psychological dysfunction is not for the layperson. Alan Goldman warned, true diagnosis usually can only be made by a sufficiently trained individual.[7] However, multiple texts provide useful descriptions of the characteristics found in various toxic personalities. This makes it evident that the layman can at least try to understand the toxic personality of his boss and then be better prepared to interact or disengage with the boss.
Alpha males, queen bees, abusers, bullies, autocrats, narcissists, psychopaths, and Machiavellians are among the many descriptives of toxic leaders found in leadership positions. Some of these are considered “disorders” by the AMA and some are not. However, each creates havoc in the Christian organization. Each is incredibly destructive.
For a more extensive discussion on personality disorders and other such rot, click on this link.
Much of the research agrees; these leaders can be very charming and gregarious. They can be friendly and driven. Machiavellian individuals can sell their vision and convince others quite readily.[8] It is no wonder that they are often leaders of organizations. They can be very impressive individuals.
When I began to interview Eugene, a manager in an international mission organization, I was surprised to hear him describe the CEO as friendly, easy to get along with, visionary, and gregarious. I asked him how a toxic leader could be described this way.
Over the course of the interview, it became apparent Eugene received affable treatment for most of his ten years in relationship with the leader much as we had in our organization. However, other employees did not. In the end, Eugene had the unfortunate experience of tasting of the bitterness others had experienced all along.
It is common that toxic leaders are very specific in their abusive strategies, just as psychologists describe abusers.[9] Were they continually rude, abusive, manipulative, divisive, deceptive, and isolating, it would be rare that they would retain their positions of power.
However, the leaders of my interviewees wielded extraordinary emotional control over their subjects by showing charm and concern for their subordinates, continually creating a fog of confusion, called by some psychologists “gaslighting.”[10] And usually, boards were dazzled by their skills and unwilling to bring help to those under their destructive leadership.
Responsible?
Some interpret the diagnosis of personality disorder as meaning the individual has no responsibility for his actions. He is just wired that way. He can’t help it. However, biblically these badly broken people have just as much responsibility for how they interact with others as anyone else. Though they may be broken by the sin at the fall of man in the garden, or by parental abuse been turned into monsters, they are still broken by the sin for which all men are responsible. They are in need of faith and repentance just as all of us are in need. And, organizations have a responsibility before God to stop them in their destruction.
Notes
[1] American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR, 689.
[8] Siegel, Jacob P. “Machiavellianism, MBA’s and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effect.” Academy of Management Journal 16, no. 3 (1973): 405.
[9] Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. Berkley Books, 2002. 68–69.
In my own experience with toxic leaders, it was common to hear 1 Peter 2:18 quoted or paraphrased by those who wished to protect the authority of leaders. I quoted it to myself at various times while suffering under leadership abuse. It is often interpreted as a theological barrier to the accountability of Christian leaders.
Does 1 Peter 2 mean that we blindly submit to church and parachurch leaders though they be described as liars, mean, narcissistic, and other nasty characteristics by their followers?
The apostle Peter begins this section on “submission” to various authorities at the beginning of the chapter. Starting in verse 18, Peter instructs,
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” [1 Peter 2:18]
Upon initial reading, this verse appears to require absolute submission to abusive leaders. I asked participants in my study if and how they applied this passage to their interactions with their toxic supervisor.
Adam, a former employee of a mission school, said, “I used it against myself just to guilt myself into submitting to [the CEO’s] rule.” Adam said he related it to the Matthew 7 passage [“Judge not, that you be not judged”], telling himself “[the CEO] is very human. He is our director” and therefore, Adam should not judge or rebel against him.
Because Adam was in mid-level management, mediating between the CEO and faculty and staff, he would recall this passage as he struggled in his own relationship with the CEO and when he spoke with those with whom he worked. He would say to himself and others, “The Lord puts you under even unjust authorities. And the way you reach those authorities is to be godly and submissive and humble.”
He noted there were major consequences when employees would challenge the CEO. Rather than confronting the boss and facing those consequences, he kept his head down. He said,
“You have to go home and go to bed and get up the next day. And the only way to survive the next day is to rally your head to think, ‘You know this is just the way Christians live or this is just the way life is and you have to accept it.’”
Adam was in a position to counsel other workers who were suffering under the abuse as well. He felt he had an “obligation to mediate and so I would use things like that [1 Peter 2] on them and it was amazing how it worked!” He said others would respond, “Oh, you’re right. He’s just human.” The status quo was a achieved.
Ben, a director of a Christian education program, suggested that there were two “camps” of people at his organization. There were those who “camped out” in the 1 Peter passage, saying, “We’re just here to take it. It doesn’t matter what happens, it’s not our responsibility. We’ll take it. We’ll suffer. He is our master; therefore, we will be subservient to him.” The others were in the Matthew 18 camp, “constantly butting heads. Constantly trying to bring about change.” [for more on Matthew 18, click here]
Under Whose Authority?
So, how did those who “camped out” in 1 Peter 2 seek to submit to authority?
Ben suggested that he and his wife’s “accountability” was “to those who put us there.” The churches and individuals who supported them financially were their “bosses.” Rather than consider the CEO of the mission their “master” (vis-à-vis 1 Peter 2), Ben believed those who paid their salary (donors) were their boss.
For example, Ben recounted a sermon given by the founder that was a “tirade against the students” and spiritually “manipulative.” He sent the recording to several supporters, who were his mentors, for their advice. Ben said they all responded, “Something’s wrong. It’s not you…something’s broken.”
He believed it was to these supporters he was “subservient to in his position.” He finished by saying, “It is a very unique relationship to have. Because, yes, he is my boss. Yes, I answer to him. But my livelihood in no way depended on him.”
Slave or Employee?
I have found significant disagreement among commentators regarding the application of 1 Peter 2:18-25 to these situations. Peter instructs “household servants” to voluntarily submit in action and attitude to their master.[1] But, Alan Stibbs and Matthew Henry disagree on the identification of household servants. Where Henry argues broadly for any modern-day employee fitting the description of a household servant,[2] Stibbs suggests the Greek terminology means a slave, one who is under “absolute ownership and uncontrolled power.”[3]
This distinction is very important to employees of Christian organizations. It can mean the difference between continuing to work for a toxic boss in silence or confronting and possibly leaving the organization, in effect, rejecting their authority. If the passage is speaking broadly to any employee, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the employee is responsible to keep his mouth shut and submit to his each and every command (as long as it isn’t against the Word of God).
Because the passage is speaking in the context of slavery, however it is important to be careful in the application of it to our free-market economy. A slave, by definition, had little choice about their employment. They were not free to come and go as they pleased. Should they stand up to the master, especially a “harsh” one, they could expect a harsh response.
Rather, is it possible the passage is speaking very practically, giving the slave both hope and permission? “Hope” that, by submitting to the boss, the leader will see the slave’s good works, repent, and glorify God in heaven (verse 12 of the same chapter)? And “permission” to protect themselves by keeping their head down, knowing any response on their part is likely to bring harsh consequences from the master?
This is very different from the circumstances of a non-slave employee in a Christian organization. They have the options of confronting a professing Christian leader/brother in their leadership and to leave the organization at will. Bosses of Christian organizations are no more above the accountability of their brothers than the elders in the Ephesian church where Paul suggests they should be confronted “in the presence of all.” [1 Timothy 5:20]
As R.C. Sproul argues, Peter and the apostles refused to obey the dictates of the “senate of the people of Israel” in Acts 5:27-32 when told not to “teach in [Jesus’] name,” so the authority of any man is not absolute over God’s people.[5]
If man’s authority is not absolute [Acts 5:27-32] and Peter was speaking specifically to slaves, it may make more interpretive sense that leaders of free men should be held accountable. Submission to man’s authority is most certainly a biblical ethic, but not absolute, nor intended by God for the oppression of His people as they serve Him in the marketplace.
NOTES
[1]Stibbs, Alan M. The First Epistle General of Peter: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. Page 110.
[2]Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. V. 6 vols. Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
[3] Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 114.
