Tag Archives: middle-management

Daniel in the Lion’s Den: A Leadership Quagmire

Posted on by
1
painting by Jerry Antolik

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:

  1. Crippen, Jeff. Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church (p. 48). Justice Keepers Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

Sure Signs of Toxic Leadership

Posted on by
1
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kelly-dehnert/episodes/Sure-Signs-of-Toxic-Leadership-e27dqg9

One of the occupational hazards of someone who studies and writes about abuse is an ever-present vigilance – often overdeveloped. I am very attentive to leadership failure. I can find it under every rock.

But I guess that is my job so others can think about other things maybe more productive.

Let me share some of those rocks under which I have found toxic leaders in my various interviews and experience. There are a number of indicators of abusive leadership and it is important to be able to diagnose toxic leadership and root it out from your organization.

Because it is nearly guaranteed toxic leaders will kill your organization if left unchecked.

The List

This is meant as a simple list and it is not conclusive. But it can give you something to consider if you are wondering if you serve a toxic leader:

1. Lack of Humility

Recently, a blogger listed the various evangelical leaders who have fallen by the way-side. He noted that each one lacked humility. “He cannot be wrong.” This is my warning to survivors of domestic violence or leadership abuse: run from those who do not have the humility to admit they are wrong. They are wrong at times no matter how often they tell you someone else is wrong.

2. Focus on Control

From micro-managing to mind-control, leaders who abuse God-given authority want to control everything. In Christian organizations control is often hidden behind the “Christianese” of despising gossip. As one ministry under-shepherd said, “He had to control the narrative.” One Christian business leader (of whom I have heard testimonies) makes it his biggest priority to root out gossip from the organization.

Sounds good.

The Lord speaks against gossip. But his hatred of gossip is in one direction. He is entitled to be free from being challenged for wrongdoing. If someone goes to him directly they are either torn apart (Matthew 7) or their complaint is ignored. Where do you go from there?

Wherever you go, it is then considered gossip by these authoritarians.

3. He is the Center

Closely related to number one is the leader who always takes the credit. Rarely is the leader really the reason something got done. Maybe he directed as a good leader should. Maybe it was his idea.

But it is usually the minions who are doing the hard lifting. The abusive leader makes it very clear he is the center of all that is good in the organization. We all want praise but these leaders are seemingly driven by little else.

And, watch out if they do not get it.

4. Blame-Shifter

Closely related to the first and second is the leader who deflects criticism by sending you in another direction. Someone else must be wrong if the leader is always right. Right? Often they create the environment that there has to be a fall-guy. There must be someone else to blame.

Often blame-shifting comes out when the leader talks about the large percentage of resignations from the organization. “They just weren’t supportive of our mission…They just couldn’t handle the hard work…They just couldn’t handle Africa…”

You might want to actually talk to some of those people to get the real story.

5. No Team is a Good Team

As a musician friend of mine noted not long ago, the conductor’s job is to help the orchestra (or choir or band) use their talents to the best of their ability to serve the audience. It is not his job to create a cult of self. The focus should never be on the conductor.

Good leaders build teams that help each other multiply their effectiveness by enjoying and using one another’s giftedness. Toxic leaders are (back to number 2) the center of their universe. And they want to be the center of yours as well.

6. Image, Image, Image

In our day of marketing genius, this may be a bit harder to get. We want to get our ministries out there so we let people know what we do well; that can include some pretty professional marketing. But those who have been part of a mission organization that practiced this will understand.

One Christian psychologist put it this way:

I often think of a narcissistic pastor who served in a rural setting in a very small church, who by all accounts was diligent and godly but who constantly compared his church to other churches with an attitude of judgment, lauding his church’s orthodoxy while quietly condemning other local pastors. 1

There are many mission groups or organizations out there that are doing God-glorifying work. When a leader is constantly comparing his ministry to others and touting that his organization is the very best, there is a problem going back to number 1.

In fact, maybe he believes his organization is the only one doing the work of God. It is ego-gratifying and it will eat you alive. And it fails to recognize the big team of God that is out there seeking to do His work.

7. Sweetness & Hurt

Not all toxic leaders practice this bizarre behavior but it is extremely confusing to those who do not recognize abuse. One moment the leader will go off on a subordinate, tearing him to pieces . . . the next they are sweetness and light. And usually with no acknowledgement that anything happened at all.

This is an indicator of “borderline” personality disorder. It is manipulative and destructive.

8. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

It is really hard for most employees or church members to believe: There are “Christian” leaders out there that lie through their teeth.

It took several years for us to finally realize that our mission leader was intentionally lying to us. We gave all sorts of justifications for his failure to “remember” what he had told us before. We even calmed others with justifications when they pointed out his lies to them. But it finally came down to him covering his own entitled self with lies.

This is not normal behavior!

Run or Confront?

So, those are some indicators of toxic leadership. If your boss is practicing these, have another vocation waiting in the wings and send out that memo. You can run or confront.

If you want to see repentance, your leader will need to be seriously challenged. They do not change through soft-pedling their wrongs. If you care for the organization and the work it is doing, help the organization root out the toxic leader.

NOTES:

1. Vrbicek, Interview by Benjamin. “The Many Faces of Narcissism in the Church.” ChristianityToday.com. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/march/chuck-degroat-narcissism-comes-church.html.

Amelia and Ethan: Reading the Signs

Posted on by
Reply

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, “Fredrick resonated 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.

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.

Margo’s Story: Playing Second Fiddle to a Wolf

Posted on by
1

Timothy Witmer said, “The exercise of authority is designed to serve the well-being of those under its care.”[1] It is unfortunate when those in authority fail to consider that little detail.

The pastor of the local church has been given the authority and responsibility to care for his congregation made up of people often referred to as “sheep” in scripture.[2] The analogy of sheep is apt as they are particularly vulnerable to predators and have an extraordinary propensity for self-harm.

A sheep rancher in Wyoming responded to a school child who asked if sheep sleep at night, saying, “No, they lay awake thinking up new ways to die!”

On the other hand, the picture painted of the pastor in scripture is that of a “shepherd” who protects the sheep. As a shepherd of these sheep, the pastor is charged with being “motivated by love for the Lord,” says Richard Rardin, author of The Servant’s Guide to Leadership: Beyond First Principles.[3]

Rardin adds that the “servant of God must die to self before he or she can be of much use to the Father.”[4]

This means the pastor is at heart willing to set aside his own comforts for the care of the congregation, putting the interests of the congregation above his own.

Scripture instructs the sheep to consider the shepherds “worthy of double honor.”[5] Witmer argues that God has called congregant members to live in submission to church authorities, specifically those called as “teaching” pastors. He goes on to say that the arrangement of a leader who dies to self and a congregation giving a “willing response of obedience” is an “advantage to all” involved.[6]

That is in the perfect world.

But church members are very vulnerable to those leaders who would take advantage of their weakness as those under authority. The prophet Ezekiel warned the leaders in Israel in the seventh century B.C.,

“You have not taken care of the weak. You have not tended the sick or bound up the injured. You have not gone looking for those who have wandered away and are lost. Instead, you have ruled them with harshness and cruelty. So my sheep have been scattered without a shepherd, and they are easy prey for any wild animal.”[7]

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The people of God are “easy prey” for wolves in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus refers to false prophets. They may look like sheep, meek and mild, but behind the façade of harmless sheep they are “ravenous wolves”.[8] As the sheep, the nation of Israel, was scattered by the “harshness and cruelty” of the leaders, so church members are at times scattered by autocratic pastors and elders in local congregations.

To add to the complexities of such circumstances there may exist “mid-level management” in the form of pastor’s assistants who must navigate between submission to a senior pastor’s authority (giving honor to those who teach) and shepherding the congregation (having been called to a pastoral care position).

The assistant who seeks to lead from the “second chair,” [drawing on the terminology of the position of those in an orchestra who perform under the “first chair” player] must walk a fine line between having authority and being under authority.

This becomes treacherous when the senior pastor is acting like a wolf rather than shepherd. I have been fortunate to serve under a humble and empowering pastor, something not all assistants enjoy.

Margo’s Story

“Margo” served as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members and has a Masters of Divinity. She served in a pastoral role under the supervision of the Senior Pastor of the congregation who, by her description, was the primary authority in the church.

Margo was employed to oversee the development of teams that led all aspects of worship through videos, music, and PowerPoint. Her background in business management provided organizational skills that were invaluable for these administrative tasks. In addition, her love for mentoring was utilized as she discipled individuals and lead teams in spiritual development.

Margo resigned from her position in large part due to the autocratic leadership of Pastor Pete.

The Mission Trip

Margo told me of a time that she was approached by Pastor “Pete” to organize a missions committee at the church and arrange for short-term mission trips to a southern African nation. Pastor Pete wished to begin building relationships with a group of African churches through short-term trips.

Pastor Pete gave Margo much authority to build a team and communicate with the African churches and a missions organization in Colorado, through which they would operate.

As they prepared to sign up members of the congregation for the summer mission, one member reneged on his verbal commitment. He had particular gifts of importance to the team. He explained that he had been asked by Pastor Pete to accompany him on a mission trip to Eastern Africa, a trip neither Margo, nor her committee, had heard about.

When she and a fellow leader (an elder in the church) were told this, the elder was “infuriated” and set up a meeting with Pastor Pete. In the meeting, Pastor Pete simply “laughed” at the elder and said that the elder had gotten his “feelings hurt.”

After the elder challenged the pastor for his lack of consideration, the pastor continued to laugh at him.

Making Matters Worse

Following the trip the team presented an “African worship service” for the congregation and the church gave thousands of dollars and many material items for the southern African churches in which they ministered.

However, at the close of the service, Pastor Pete gave an announcement that all the funds and materials would be sent to the churches he had visited two weeks earlier. It was a complete surprise to the missions committee and team that had been directed to raise the funds and materials for the southern African churches by Pastor Pete.

The Real Power

Margo’s church had an elder board that had the authority to hire or fire the senior pastor. However, the perceived or real power of the pastor overcame that authority and the board adopted a “herding mentality” – “an appeasement strategy toward” the pastor that allowed an environment of pastoral control and poor decision-making.[9]

The practice of leadership by a pastor who considers his vision of primary importance to the congregation creates an environment where there is no psychological safety for the purpose of building a team ministry.

Because strong, authoritative leaders can be perceived as God’s “anointed,” gathering around them disciples attracted to their power, it becomes difficult for a leadership team to reject the autocrat.

Autocratic pastors may provide skills and gifts in many areas, but the overwhelming effect of their leadership is destructive to important relationships and the witness of the body of Christ.

Coping

As Margo pressed on towards her goal of ministering to the congregation, her convictions regarding the Matthew 18 principles presented both difficulty in confronting the problem pastor and in coping with her emotional responses to the senior pastor’s leadership.

She was concerned that sharing her struggles with others in the congregation would be gossiping and missing the point of Matthew 18 where much of the focus is on one-on-one confrontation and reconciliation.

So, Margo focused on sharing her difficulties with family members outside the church. This common strategy in “workplace bullying” environments is helpful for those who are bullied to receive encouragement and, possibly, biblical advice from those removed from the situation.[10]

However, the real problem – the pastor – is left unchecked. The assistant is left alone and isolated because those who truly understand and know what the assistant is facing, the church members, are not consulted and the processing of the assistant’s emotions is limited.

The Matthew 18 principles, taught by Jesus in verses 15 through 18, are given in the context of brothers in the faith with the oversight of a plurality of elders. In Margo’s context, the “brother” had authority to fire her and was under no real authority of elders. And Margo was convinced she had nowhere to turn in her church family to express and process her emotions for fear that it would be gossip.

Two to Tango

Of great concern for those who minister under the authority of autocratic leaders is the view that it “takes two to tango.” Like in the experience of many who have faced domestic violence, a well-meaning brother may suggest that since both individuals involved are sinful, they are both responsible for the broken relationship. This perspective is evident in the writings of Friedman, Herrington, Creech and Taylor.

This simplistic view does not take into consideration either the power structure inherent in the senior-assistant relationship, nor the dynamics of relating to the “ravenous wolves” that Jesus describes in Matthew 7:15-25. Friedman focuses on changing self, however there are times when it is evident that the primary problem lies in the other person.

Having said that, the emotional response of those caught in less than optimal ministry environments must be understood and moderated by principles of self-differentiation. It was clear in my interview with Margo that Pastor Pete could not be expected to change nor be confronted with any expectation of success.

Responding to the Situation

Therefore, how an assistant copes with the daily interactions with this type of pastor is of the greatest importance, particularly if the assistant feels trapped in the job with little recourse financially or vocationally.

Margo took submissive postures with her supervising pastor, limiting her criticism and always recognizing that his word was the “final word.”

It also provided helpful lessons to Margo to work under Pastor Peter.

She was forced to hold firmly to her own convictions, minister to others as God gave opportunity, and recognize that ultimately God was sovereign over the future of her ministry. This was true to Margo whether she remained in that particular church, under that particular pastor, or went somewhere else.

NOTES:

“Margo” is not her real name.

[1] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 89.

[2] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Psalm 119:176, Isaiah 53:6, Jeremiah 50:6.

[3] Rardin, The Servant’s Guide to Leadership, 36.

[4] Ibid., 102–103.

[5] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. 1 Timothy 5:17.

[6] Witmer, Shepherd Leader, 92.

[7] ESV New Classic Reference Bible, v. Ezekiel 34:4–5.

[8] Ibid., v. Matthew 7:15.

[9] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, 1285–1287, 1306-1308.

[10] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 76.