Often the focus of Bible teaching—when it comes to leadership and followership—is on the follower.
In particular, the focus is on being submissive more often than not.
I understand that. There are several Scripture passages that call on subordinates in various contexts to submit to the authority under which God has place us (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13f).
However, Scripture also speaks to those in authority. In fact, because of the power differential, I would suggest the greater responsibility is on the authority to use that authority in a God-glorifying and respectful way. The frequency with which the Lord speaks to those who oppress—actions that crush those who have less power—is striking (Exodus 3:9; Isaiah 58:6).
Job of an Older Man
The Apostle Paul makes an interesting statement that has some bearing on this in his letter to Timothy.
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.
1 Timothy 5:1-2 (ESV)
Timothy was a young man by all accounts and given the job of an older man. He was leading a new church in a time when elders—those who are older in age—were expected to be leaders, particularly wise religious leaders.
Paul found it necessary to instruct Timothy in how to handle his position as a spiritual leader to those who were younger and of older age. It is in his instruction to Timothy in what his attitude should be towards younger folks in his congregation that I am most interested in.
It is in this instruction to younger people that Paul uses, what I would consider, a unique and surprising terminology. He says, don’t rebuke them, but rather treat them as “brothers” and “sisters.”
Timothy is older (even though young). Timothy is probably more knowledgeable. He was “appointed” by an apostle for his position. He was a “big man.”
Yet, Paul says treat those younger like equals. That is what a brother or sister is. He/she is of equal stature. And this is the attitude Timothy needs to have.
We would not expect that.
And many leaders in the church wouldn’t expect that and probably would be put out by Paul’s instruction if they took the time to consider the words Paul is using. Rather, we see often those who lead in the church treat others as if they are children. I have heard that over and over from those with toxic leaders.
It is how I was treated by a mission leader; not as a colleague, but as a child.
Encourage or Rebuke?
Notice also that Timothy is called to take a clearly softer stance with those he leads and instructs. Paul says, “encourage” them rather than “rebuke” them.
To “rebuke” is defined as “to chastise with words, to chide, upbraid.”1 On the other hand, “encourage” means in Greek “to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.”2
Timothy had the authority of an elder in the church, yet he should not use that authority to “lord it over” those under that authority, but rather “encourage” them in their walk with Christ.
One interviewee of mine in the northeast was treated as if she was of lesser intelligence by her pastor, though she had been an integral part of the church ministry for years. A friend of mine had developed an exceptional ministry to women who were in abusive marriages and she had a doctorate in theology and yet was simply ignored. Another interviewee developed much the same kind of ministry in the southwest and was ignored, treated with disrespect, and finally run out of the church.
These are not the attitudes and actions of the kind of pastor Paul was calling Timothy to be.
Despite the difference in age, in a culture that held to the authority of others older than oneself, Paul was counter-culture in suggesting Timothy treat the younger as equals—those who had less authority than himself.
Calling all leaders: This takes humility, patience, and a self-awareness. We have to dig deep into our hidden motives and attitudes and seek the Holy Spirit’s help in transforming likely arrogant and defensive and domineering attitudes.
Treat your subordinates as brothers and sisters, not as children.
Notes:
Strong, James (2010), The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Expanded edition, n.p.). ↩︎
Strong, James (2010), The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Expanded edition, n.p.). ↩︎
Narcissism is found on a continuum. That means that there are those with extensive narcissism and those with little self-interest. Everyone else is found between those extremes. Most of us live in that neighborhood . . . not classified as narcissistic but having a self-interest that is rotten and hurtful.
That self-interest provides many opportunities, maybe even daily, to covet the skills and gifting others have. For the leader who considers his authority questioned whenever another human being in his orbit receives accolades for his or her skills, the temptation to not only covet but attempt control over that gifted one is a problem.
In the Bible book of Numbers there is a story that is a good example of leadership and a bad one as well.
Israel has broken free from Egypt where they were enslaved. Moses, whom God chose to lead the nation out of Egypt, is challenged to squash the gifts of others.
So Moses went out and told the people what the LORD had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied —but did not do so again.
Numbers 11:24-30 (NIV)
This in itself could have been a temptation for Moses. Seeing the LORD bless others with gifting, in essence giving them attention like Moses had received as a leader.
In my world of constant leadership failures, my first thought is I can’t believe Moses would actually shared “the power of the Spirit that was on him” with these other men. That is shocking enough, but the passage goes on:
However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”
So, what would you do in this situation?
Joshua, whose name you may recognize, showed support and dedication to his leader, Moses. Joshua would go on to lead Israel in the future conquest of the promised land. He was a great leader of Israel.
However, at this point in his discipleship as a leader, he is a toxic follower. And Moses knows it. Joshua, rather than encouraging godly leadership that refuses to bend its knee to the gods of pride and entitlement, seeks to show Moses how devoted he is to Moses as the “big man.”
Moses refuses to follow the temptation of the big man.
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.
He recognizes that His LORD is the true giver. And when He gives to his people, we should rejoice in the gifts He gives. Even if it means we are not seen as such a big man anymore.
It is a hard lesson for leaders . . . and every person who seeks to follow Christ in their leadership. It takes heart change. Jealousy of God’s blessing on others is much more common in our hearts than we want to admit—I certainly don’t want to, but it is there.
But that is a deep dive each of us needs to take if we are to be the leaders—and even just people—God wants us to be.
We will continue to fall, but our sanctification is a calling we are given. And leaders owe it to their subordinates.
It wasn’t long after the honeymoon that Jeanie began suffering from her husband Richard’s lack of care for his family and she suffered for nearly thirteen years from sexual abuse in their bedroom.
Richard, for the full length of their nearly 20 year marriage, refused to help with either childrearing or household needs. Over the years, Jeanie said she began to only ask for help when it was something she was unable to do. Then, in time, she began asking friends and neighbors when it was too hard for her because he would rarely respond to her requests at all.
Basically, my husband’s duty around the house became little more than to go to his regular job and bring home a paycheck and if I relied on him for more than that, it was overwhelming to him and anxiety producing for me.
Jeanie
She accounted for Richard’s bedroom manner—and her response—to teaching in the church that created an unhealthy sexual relationship. She said they both believed that the husband’s “sexual satisfaction” was primary and her needs were of no real consequence.
This view is not uncommon and comes from a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians:
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
1 Corinthians 7 is often misunderstood as explaining that the wife must give the husband sexual pleasure whenever he wants it. But, that is not what it says.
If you understand it within the context of mutual love and submission that is taught throughout Scripture, choices in the bedroom—like in every area of life as a family—should be made selflessly. That includes the husband whose desires may be driven by his own selfish desires with no interest in serving his wife’s—who may or may not have the “drive” he has.
Note how Paul makes it very clear that both spouses have authority over the other’s body. It is not one-sided and the husband has just as much responsibility to respond to the wife’s desires as she to his.
After so many years of neglect and abuse, Jeanie said, “I began to struggle heavily with guilt, anxiety, insomnia, migraines and memory loss.” She had sought over the years to “win him without a word” but her “lived experience was that was completely ineffective.”
1 Peter 3:1 is helpful in some marital situations: It specifically speaks to marriage to an unbelieving husband. But it is not helpful in cases of abuse. An abusive husband does not have the humility to see the evil of their actions—he will justify and shift the blame. A wife’s humble submission simply means he has control and can do anything he wants with her.
The marriage had been so traumatizing to her, she knew she needed to get help and possibly a divorce.
Richard had refused counseling over and over and so she had gone by herself. He was not interested in making changes for the good of the marriage.
Elder Failures
Jeanie sought out the help of friends and her pastors’ wives. Their advice was consistently that she just give Richard more sex.
Jeanie had joined a support group and described hers and Richard’s sexual encounters. “The trauma counselor and other group members immediately began telling me I had been sexually abused.” She was beginning to understand that Richard’s forcing of sex was abusive and she was not willing to allow that.
She finally reached out to the Senior Pastor, Andy. The board of elders and pastors were going to discuss their “case” and she wrote to Andy explaining,
I, a woman who has been sexually traumatized, will be discussed by a room full of men, many of whom I do not or barely know, and they will consider the most intimate and hurtful events of my life, so that they can judge whether or not I have a right to be free from that. And what if they decide I don’t? Worse, what if they decide Richard is the one with grounds? Then I am being told that my needs don’t matter and that my feelings are illegitimate. I know that is not your intention, but it is sadly what my broken heart will hear, and I will feel violated all over again.
Jeanie
One elder contacted Richard—a common approach to marital difficulties but a horrible response in cases of abuse if the victim has not given permission—and was both manipulated by Richard and caused a ramping up of Richard’s abusive behavior at home.
Jeanie encouraged the elders to get training in abuse because, though they showed some compassion and kindness to start with, their handling of her years of suffering was wholly inadequate. However, they did not see the need.
Strange Response
The elders, instead of seeking to understand abuse and respond in ways that would be helpful and shepherding instead disciplined Jeanie.
After meeting, the elders told Jeanie that she should refrain from taking Communion and step down from her position on the music worship team for six months. There was nothing written down, it was not explained, and after about five months the restrictions were raised with no explanation of what had been accomplished.
As Jeanie and I talked, it became evident that the elders’ actions amounted to “disciplining” Jeanie and yet nothing was ever done to bring accountability to Richard. At some point one elder told Jeanie that they had sought to “disciple” —meet to train and encourage—Richard, but he never completed the assignments given to him.
He was not interested in caring for his family or Jeanie . . . only getting what he could in the bedroom.
But Jeanie was told she was the sinner by the elder board’s actions—she needed to refrain from the means of grace in the church (communion) and stop using her gifts for the edification of the body.
Jeanie told me, “I am probably seen as a trouble maker. They think I went off the deep end and divorced my husband. They criticized me for having a crisis of faith and I wouldn’t have if they had not done the things they did.”
Divorce
Secondly, the board of elders believed they needed to investigate and determine the legitimacy of her seeking a divorce. She was warned that if they did not approve of it, she would be unable to marry again—at least in that church.
The perspective that the elders have this kind of power is not an uncommon view in many denominations. However, there are some biblical questions in regards to this view.
In 1 Timothy 5 there are extended instructions for Timothy, a young elder in Ephesus. Here Paul gives Timothy directions for both the elders and congregation in relation to elders. At no point does he suggest that the elders are called to rule in such a way as to bind the consciences of congregant members.
There is a distinct emphasis in New Testament eldership on teaching and Gospel proclamation. It emphasizes careful teaching that does not go beyond the clarity of the Word. The elders are responsible to be good and gracious shepherds, not authoritarian, power-hungry rulers.
The congregation in Antioch sent financial aid to the Judean elders (because of a famine that was foretold) by the hands of the Apostles (Acts 11:29-30)
In Acts 15, the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem debated the issue of circumcision for new Gentile believers. They sent a letter saying, “Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28-29) This was a very careful and limited response that pulled back from legalistic proclamations.
The Apostles went from city to city to provide instructions to the congregations. (Acts 16:4)
Paul tells the Ephesian elders: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:27-28)
After giving the personal qualifications for an elder, Paul says to Titus, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9) Note “sound doctrine”, not legalistic control.
In Jeanie’s case, the elders, who refused to learn about the dynamics of the sin of abuse, overstepped their calling in Scripture by “disciplining” Jeanie and failed by omission to call Richard to living the Gospel in his marriage and family.
A Proposal
I understand the perspective that Jeanie’s elders have. I am part of a similar elder board.
However, just as an elder board should, without hesitation, provide “permission” —in the form of teaching and individual direction—for the offended spouse to divorce in the case of adultery without laying shame upon the victim in anyway for taking that step, so should they give that permission in the cases of desertion (1 Cor. 7:15).
Considering the instructions in the case law of the Old Testament (Ex. 21:10-11), the victim in an abusive marriage should be given every bit of leeway for physical and emotional provision. Our Lord despises oppressive behavior of any sort and elder boards must be found by the Lord on the side of oppressed.
In addition, it is helpful for an elder board to remember that their congregation is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and that as the elders instruct, they must rely upon the Holy Spirit to teach and convince their hearers of truth—in humility recognizing they could be wrong in their application of Scripture. The binding of a congregant’s conscience is a very serious thing. Laying undue burdens on the sheep was the practice of the Pharisees—who are roundly condemned by Jesus—and for which modern day cults are notorious (Luke 11:46).
Recommendations
After seeing cases like Jeanie’s over and over, I would make the following recommendations to elder boards and church leadership:
Get trained in responding to abuse. There are a number of organizations who can provide this training including Refuge Ministries of North America—see the organization’s website in Resources.
Receive the complaint of an abusive marriage, believing the victim.
Recognize that investigating abuse can be dangerous to the victim—the offender may become more abusive and dangerous as he is challenged.
And abusive individuals are often very manipulative and can confuse investigators and completely fool them.
Help the complainant understand the Scripture’s teaching on divorce—allowed for adultery (Matt. 5:32) and desertion (1 Cor. 7:15—in principle when a spouse neglects his family or is abusive).
Give support and permission to the reporting victim for his or her decision regarding seeking a divorce.
I do not consider these absolutes, but elder boards often are black and white in their thinking and shepherding practices whereas Scripture is not. Shepherding is difficult and takes a significant amount of wisdom.
If you are a leader in the church, please consider seeking training to be a safe place for those who are vulnerable and oppressed.
For many the book of Job in the Bible is a pandora’s box of interpretive difficulty.
If you are a black-and-white thinker, it is difficult to read, I imagine.
But Job is a very good place to go to understand more clearly how the counseling of victims of abuse in the home, workplace, or church has gone seriously wrong.
It is helpful to know the beginning and the end before wading into the middle.
In the story of Job—who was horribly tried by Satan at the approval of the LORD—moans in the agony of having lost all his children, his means of income, and is suffering terrible physical ailments.
In the end, his friends are called to account for their poor—sinful—counsel of Job.
So, now we wade into the middle. Because of Job’s suffering, his spiritual counselors are laying one guilt trip after another on him.
In their black-and-white thinking, they believe God blesses those who live righteously and curses those who break His laws. Because Job—who had been richly blessed prior to Satan’s destruction—is suffering horribly, his counselors think he must be cursed by God and therefore he must be living in sin.
Trial = Sin
This is not unfounded in Scripture and why some in their black-and-white beliefs grab and go with it in their thinking and counseling.
In Deuteronomy 28, Moses lays before God’s people the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.
For those who obey the LORD:
Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 6 Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out . . . etc. Deuteronomy 28:3-6 (ESV)
For those who disobey:
Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl . . . etc. Deuteronomy 28:16-17 (ESV)
It Isn’t So Clear
I use the terms “black-and-white” in a negative way, because when it comes to blessings and curses, Scripture is not as clear on this topic as Deuteronomy 28 would lead you to believe.
It is indeed true that those who reject the LORD in unbelief and arrogance are cursed. But that curse may largely be seen in the judgment they face at the end of life for their rejection of their Creator, not in the middle. This idea is apparent in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19f) and in multiple places in the Proverbs.
Jesus tells a parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus:
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”
Luke 16:19-23 (ESV)
Notice that the rich man, who rejected his God, lived a life of sumptuous feasting every day. On the other hand, Lazarus was a poor man. Yet, the rich man ends up in Hell and Lazarus in Heaven.
We see in Proverbs:
Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways. Proverbs 28:6 (ESV)
Deuteronomy would lead us to believe—if we don’t look anywhere else—that the “poor” —therefore the suffering—is walking in sin rather than “integrity,” yet Proverbs 28 suggests that it is the “rich man” who is “crooked” —living in sin. How did he get “blessed” if he was disobedient?
But that is the flow of Scripture. There are proverbial statements that in this life are generally true, but the end of the story is where it all leads. The wicked, unbelieving rich man will end up in torment when his life is ended, but torment will possibly only be when that end of life judgment comes.
And conversely, the poor—unblessed in the world’s eyes—will face many trials in this life but in his faithfulness to the LORD be blessed abundently in the judgment. His poverty is not necessarily because of disobedience as we consider the whole of Scripture.
This brings me to Job’s counselors.
Worm Theology
At one point, Bildad, one of Job’s “friends” who was counseling him when he in torment, explained to Job that in his sin, man is a “maggot” or a “worm.”
4 How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? 5 Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; 6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!” Job 25:4-6
In the sense that we are deeply depraved as sinful human beings, wandering about in rebellion and foolishness, Bildad was right. Some complain about “worm theology” but there is biblical truth in it when considering our deep brokenness. Romans 3:9-13 confirms this understanding of man’s depravity.
However, Job’s counselors—not just Bildad—came at Job from a Deuteronomy 28 theology, not a full-on-biblical theology of suffering. This is how many counselors of abuse victims approach those victims. They look for the “fault” in the victim that brought the horrible treatment. They seek to “help” the victim see their own sin and turn from it. They can’t believe a Christian leader could be so sinful as to lie, manipulate, and intentionally crush those under their care.
Abuse is Never the Fault of the Abused
However, these judgments are beyond the purview of biblical counseling.
First of all, abuse victims are never at fault. If the counselor understands the roots of abuse, they will understand that victims never bring it on, but rather the abuser will simply abuse because it is in his heart.
In addition, there are professing Christians who are very depraved and cause incredible destruction.
They will coerce and control in order to fulfill their entitlement in this life. Often they get away with it like the rich man who got his wealth through evil. It seems like they can’t lose, especially to the victim as she sits helplessly by watching the abusive leader convince the board, friends, and stakeholders that he is the good guy in this scenario.
When you receive reports of abuse from a friend, co-worker, or congregant member listen carefully. Stay clear of Christian platitudes like, “You need to give grace. We are all worms and he needs grace just like you do.”
Abuse is not normal relational conflict between husband and wife, boss and subordinate, pastor and deacon, or teacher and student. The conflict is in the heart of the abuser. And never because of the victim’s sin.
When Rachel Black was struggling to make sense of her abusive pastor, there was no Christianity Today Mars Hill podcasts and seemingly no books on how an employee in a church is to respond to such disregard.
All she knew was the “hairs on her arms stood up” as she sought to understand her boss.
Rachel was the Administrative Manager of the church, acting as a “Chief Operating Officer” in the secular world’s terminology. Her duties included nearly everything that made ministry possible for the nearly 500 member church. She supervised eight staff members and oversaw facilities, technology, purchasing, and human resources.
It began with a simple lack of acknowledgement that struck her as “off”. The slight seemed unusual for a pastor and a boss. Rachel dismissed her concern and told herself, “Who did I think I was needing recognition?”
But it ended up just being a “signal” of what was to come.
The newly hired pastor seemed to make it a point to ignore her in staff meetings, never asking her input, though the men on staff were given great consideration. It took nearly 30 weeks (staff meetings happening every week) before Rachel was acknowledged by the new pastor.
Yet, Rachel was expected to be on call seemingly 24/7, often being asked to respond to fabricated emergencies during inopportune times like the dinner hour. On the other hand male leaders such as the Associate Pastor were explicitly given agency to ignore work matters if desired and not to expect work communications while they were off the clock.
Happy Place
Prior to Pastor Jack’s hiring as Senior Pastor, the former pastor and Rachel joked about the church being run by Team Raul and Team Black. No longer. Rachel said it became Pyramid Jack, noting the ministry was “him at top . . . everyone else in positions under his thumb.”
Prior to the Pastor Jack’s tenure, Rachal considered her church her “happy place.”
“I was there six days a week . . . then I wondered why it wasn’t my happy place anymore.”
Then news of Ravi Zacharias’ toxic leadership came out. As Rachel read the reports she was struck by the similarities to her experiences under Pastor Jack.
She explained, “I did more research. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.” She began asking, “What is bullying?” all the while seeing “the patterns of power on which it turned.”
Are Women a Problem?
Rachel told me of an experience of going to bat for a woman volunteer who had been writing the bible studies for a paid Youth Leader.
The Youth Leader had been using the studies and making public claims that they were his own work.
Knowing that the matter hadn’t been dealt with by the Associate Pastor, she met privately with Pastor Jack to tell him what was going on. The dismissiveness gave Rachel the sense that if you “advocate for a woman, you were in trouble.”
No Complaints
There had been no complaints about Rachel’s work, yet after about 30 days, tasks for which she had normally been responsible for were being “siphoned off” by Pastor Jack.
One particular project suddenly was halted and so Rachel went to talk to one of the elders in the church who had experience in HR. She was confused and stressed out and wanted to understand what was happening in her relationship to Pastor Jack.
The elder listened to Rachel but ultimately she said,
“He pushed back in ways that if I was more savvy I would have realized that he was not going to support me, but run interference with his beloved pastor.”
The elder went straight to Pastor Jack.
Another elder did much the same thing. Rachel trusted these men to whom the pastor should have been accountable for his horrific treatment of an employee. Rachel was concerned about “gossiping.” She said, “I told [these two elders] first before anyone else . . . I know gossip is not a good thing.”
She explained she told the “bare number” of people, only seeking out those who may have had the ability to help bring reconciliation.
Last Legs
The elders met with the pastor a few days afterwards and shared her concerns. Coming out of that meeting the elders suddenly changed their position, feeling that she should have brought her issues to the pastor directly because they believed it was important to model Matthew 18.
Two days later, she received a morning email from Pastor Jack ordering Rachel to come to his office for a private meeting at 9:15 AM.
Rachel’s meeting with Pastor Jack was “45 minutes of him railing” on her. “I have never seen such an emotional person in distress . . . he was seething. Not yelling. He spoke slowly . . . could barely form words.”
According to Rachel, Pastor Jack said, “Do you know what damage you have done? How it makes me look to the elders. I can’t believe a staff member of mine could do this.”
Rachel said when she told Pastor Jack that she was intimidated by things he did, he said, “‘No you weren’t.’ He was remaking my reality.”
Rachel described the conversation as going “round and round.” Finally the pastor said, “Have you told anyone else about this?” She recalled, “There was no correct answer. No, I don’t believe gossip is helpful to reconciliation.”
But she then realized with trepidation he knew that the Rachel problem “could just go away since no one else knew.”
Rachel recalls how deeply traumatic the experience was in both what he said and how he said it.
Ending in Isolation
Two days later, while taking her kids to school, she was once again summoned to his office. Her employment had been ended and an elder was there to tell her the next steps. She was presented with a severance agreement that included a statement on confidentiality, an NDA, and waiver of legal claims.
She said to the elder, “I need to bring it home.” He said, “Yes, you should have your husband read it over.”
Having packed up all her personal things, the elder led her out the front door and walked Rachel to her car. It was just a taste of the coming isolation Rachel would feel.
Dr. Judith Harmon says,
“The response of the community has a powerful influence on the ultimate resolution of the trauma. Restoration of the breach between the traumatized person and the community depends, first, upon public acknowledgment of the traumatic event and, second, upon some form of community action. Once it is publicly recognized that a person has been harmed, the community must take action to assign responsibility for the harm and to repair the injury.“
Judith Herman MD – Trauma and Recovery (p. 104)
In Rachel’s case, the forces of the workplace were mustered against her. Pastor Jack told the staff and elders not to speak to Rachel following her firing.
Rachel sorrowfully said, “There are people who won’t look me in the eye. I haven’t done anything to them. How did they get so brain washed?”
Rachel told me, “I want a lobotomy so I can start over with people in the church.” She loves the people, but following her firing, only a couple reached out to her. The “response of the community” indeed has a powerful influence and she has been deeply hurt by their apparent complicity in the attacks by Pastor Jack.
Some Encouragement
There have been very small pockets of encouragement. She explained that one elder was supportive. One other elder gave Pastor Jack pushback saying it was crazy that an elder couldn’t talk to her.
The elder ended up being booted from the church elder board. According to Rachel, what this elder experienced was even worse than what she had experienced. The treatment of this elder was quite public and he had been at the church for many years.
Another staff member reached out to her saying, “I feel like I’m disobeying Pastor Jack but need to hear your voice.” Again, Rachel explained that this woman and another who texted her were “iced out” by the pastor following their apparent disobedience of him.
The Abuse Ramps Up
Rachel said it “seemed so wrong that they let him get away with the retaliatory actions.” She explained, “I don’t need my job back, but somebody needs to fix this guy.”
So, she called the Clerk of the Elder board, but he wouldn’t call back.
Being apparently “iced out,” Rachel’s next step was to seek accountability at both the church and state levels. It was clear to her the pastor had both broken labor laws and biblical church leadership principles. Her attempts to involve the local denominational leadership resulted in further betrayal as they probed her for details related to the case and secretly shared the information with the pastor so he could control the emerging narrative. What she found was that the regional board protects its own.
Each member with whom she spoke went immediately to Pastor Jack and the board ended up siding with the pastor. She said, “They were way more willing to betray her trust than hurt Pastor Jack.”
After hiring a lawyer, church records including emails and her personnel file were attained. She was deeply grieved that Pastor Jack had all along been “trashing her work or her subordinates.” Emails that were sent back and forth between Pastor Jack and an elder were “very negative and critical.”
She had never heard a thing.
It also became apparent to Rachel that Pastor Jack had never suggested to the elders that she be fired until she had made her complaints about his behavior. The Personnel Committee testified they had never been informed by the pastor that he wanted to take steps to fire her until after she complained.
Rachel sent formal “charges” to the regional board that included 40 witnesses. The board interviewed several “witnesses,” none of whom were on Rachel’s list.
The charges made their way to the denomination’s “supreme court” where a verdict by a three-man sub-committee determined the case “is a human resources matter, and as such, according to the [denomination’s] Constitution, belongs in the civil courts.”
In their ruling conspicuously absent are the mentions of either the pastor’s name or God’s.
Reading it, I had to scratch my head. I even asked a couple individuals if they thought it appropriate for church boards to consider a pastor’s immoral treatment of a staff member a “civil” matter.
Of course, everyone I asked was astounded.
The Fallout
It isn’t over with but civil authorities have found evidence of labor impropriety. The church boards on the other hand have refused to recognize their apparent corruption.
The Clerk of the church board has left the church.
All of the worship team has left.
The people in Rachel’s old Bible Study group have left the church.
One of her sons has switched denominations in disappointment and anger.
Rachel continues to suffer from nightmares. She fears seeing the pastor on the street or in the store. She has been isolated from her community, a community she grew up in and has served for years.
Yet, Rachel has seen “God’s hand from beginning to end.”
She hopes that her pursuing justice tenaciously will provide flags for others in the future. Pastor Jack may not be held accountable now, but she hopes that as leaders look back and see the litter of broken relationships behind the pastor, there will be accountability in the future.
When church leadership fails to act with integrity and justice, there will always be fallout that harms the Name of Christ. Over and over we see God’s people and their children leaving the church.
Depression. Anger. Bitterness.
This is not the way it is supposed to be. And it need not be.
Editor's Note: This was largely written by a friend who has taken a keen interest in toxic leadership having been under it and suffered the consequences of being a whistleblower.
Today we live in a time when even Christians seem quite oblivious to folly.
Sometimes things follow the path of the second half of Romans, where, “folly continues until it become obvious to all.” God brings this about.
We look for strong leaders using the world’s standards of leadership . . . not God’s.
Elders in Christ’s church are called to serve; this is how they are to lead. Jesus served. And He came to die. And His last act before the cross was washing His disciples feet, as an example for them to see and follow, themselves.
Is He Successful?
But rather than look at a life of service, we ask, “Is the man successful?”
He has to “have a good reputation” in the world. So many today strive for glory – vain glory, their own glory, that comes from self-serving ambition in order to have a reputation as a leader, in turn building a large following.
I remember sitting at lunch at a regional denominational meeting as several pastors were discussing what they did in “their churches.” One after another said “In my church, we do this”as they discusses the things that they had initiated in their church. They said, “In my church, this is how we do it . . . under my leadership.
They didn’t talk in the sense that “this is my church” in the way I speak of the church I joined in my area.
I use “my” to speak of the church I belong to, not the churchI own. Often pastors, like these, talk about “my” church as though it is theirs, not God’s.
The Shepherd
The word “pastor,” which is a latin word, has an entirely different meaning than the word in the Greek translated into English. “Shepherd,” the word used in Scripture, doesn’t mean much in American life; we don’t see shepherds and don’t understand the position the shepherd held in biblical times.
The Strongs Dictionary says,
“The tasks of a Near Eastern shepherd were: 1. to watch for enemies trying to attack the sheep, 2. to defend the sheep from attackers, 3. to heal the wounded and sick sheep, 4. to find and save lost or trapped sheep, and 5. to love them, sharing their lives and so earning their trust.”
Strongs Enhanced Dictionary
We don’t really understand shepherd well, having rarely if ever seen actual shepherds in our churches.
Many who seek fame, rather than service, have their reward in this life. This is the intent of Jesus’ repetition of “Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” that is found in His “Sermon on the Mount.” If you are seeking the attention of man, you may get that attention.
A large church. Important book contract. Seminar bookings.
But, those rewards will end with this life and Jesus says you will not receive true heavenly rewards.
Paul spoke of those who work for selfish gain. Many will find themselves in the position Paul describes in I Corinthians 3:
Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
1 Corinthians 3:12-13
Responsibility, Not Authority
Maybe we could begin to shift our focus by concentrating on the “responsibility” of shepherding people rather than having “authority” when considering the position of Pastor in the local church.
A true shepherd, as Jesus describes, does not run from danger, but seeks to protect the flock under his charge (John 10). The sheep love their shepherd because he cares for them. He does not crush or take advantage.
He is all those wonderful qualities described in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-16.
The sheep do not fear him.
You may be surprised that Jesus never suggests that church leaders grab authority or exercise it. He continually challenges leaders to be humble. To wash feet. To love others.
Not take authority.
Pride has the tendency to supplant humility and it takes humility to serve others in love, the calling of all followers of Jesus.
And this is especially the responsibility of the shepherds of God’s people.
Amber, a young adult, was committed to church. She loved the fellowship and teaching.
Then something happened.
Her friend, Kayla, noticed it in her church attire at first. One Sunday she wore a prom dress. The next, Amber wore jeans to church. Kayla said it was strange.
“I knew something was wrong.”
Kayla’s Story
Kayla was hired by the church when an old friend became the pastor. It was a rough start when she sought to engage a small group of women led by an older, very wealthy matriarch.
Kayla was not welcome. They misinterpreted her reaction to them when they had tried to hide their alcoholic drinks from her, telling others Kayla was judging them (she wasn’t).
When the matriarch was “slandering” her, Kayla asked permission to attend their small group get together to clear the air. She was rebuffed.
So, she went to her pastor and boss, Brandon. Despite having stuck up for the music minister facing a similar situation, the pastor told Kayla to just get over it. “It’s just part of ministry,” he explained. “It’s time to put on your big girl pants.”
The New Elder
Kevin was in training to become a new elder at the church. They were nearing the time that the church would “ordain” him in the new leadership position. But Kayla had heard stories about Kevin that were concerning.
Kayla attempted to warn Pastor Brandon that Kevin had a reputation as possibly an adulterer; she had heard that he had a sexual relationship with a woman, not his wife. The pastor brushed it off and said, “I know Kevin. Of course, he wouldn’t do such a thing.”
The ordination went forward.
Reporting the Abuse
Meanwhile, Kayla sought out Amber, asking her if something was wrong. At first, Amber said nothing was wrong, but a few months later, when Kayla again approached her, Amber poured out her heart.
Amber had been sexually assaulted by Elder Kevin.
Thus began a long road of incredible hurt for Amber, Kayla, and her husband, Zachary. And failure on the part of church leadership.
Kayla convinced Amber to speak with her husband, Kayla’s husband Zachary (a professional Christian counselor), and Pastor Brandon. The first meeting with Zachary and Amber’s husband went well. The men were understanding, attentive, and supportive.
However, if Kayla had it to do over again, she said she would not have pushed Amber to talk to the pastor. Kayla assured Amber the pastor would “hold Elder Kevin accountable” for the assault.
That evening they went to the pastor’s house and Amber bravely shared her story. The first thing Pastor Brandon asked her was, “Were you drunk?”
From that point on it was a battle. Was Pastor Brandon blinded by Kevin’s wealth? Or some kind of loyalty? After all, Kevin had chaired the pulpit committee that had hired Pastor Brandon. Or was it something else?
Standing For Oppression
As Kayla sought to bring accountability to Kevin before the other elders, she faced one roadblock after another.
The elders didn’t believe Amber. She had been drinking so somehow it was her fault. Amber had denied ever being drunk, but they didn’t believe that either.
Amber’s story has been slowly coming out just as those who are traumatized slowly piece things together according to experts. But Pastor Brandon has maintained that she must be lying because her story had changed. However, according to Kayla, Amber has been simply adding to the story as she has processed it over time, as can be expected.
Brandon said when he met with Kevin, “He sobbed like a baby.” Brandon said he had never seen a man so broken.
Shortly after reporting the assault to the church leader, Kevin contacted Amber asking her if he had “penetrated” her. (According to state law, there must be penetration to be classified as rape). In so doing, he admitted the assault, but obviously wanted to stay out of jail.
The elders in the end asked Kevin to leave the church but did not explain to the congregation what was happening and have never taken care of Amber aside from offering to pay for counseling.
There has been no real public accounting for the credible accusations against Kevin.
Kicking a Dead Horse
As Kayla and Zachary pressed on, their livelihoods, spiritual, and emotional health have been profoundly damaged.
In seeking the accountability of these leaders, it has felt like kicking a dead horse. Except, this dead horse kicks back.
In a meeting with Pastor Brandon, he asked Kayla, “What if I said Amber has changed her story?” Kayla explained that it is a known fact that memories change in those who have been traumatized.
Kayla then tried to explain to Pastor Brandon the power differential between Amber and Kevin because of Kevin’s spiritual authority as an elder. In response, Pastor Brandon said “That’s CRT” (Critical Race Theory). Kayla, knowing that the leadership view those who hold any CRT views as “heretics” said, “I’m not a heretic.”
She described to me,
“He moved to the door with his arms folded. I couldn’t leave. Then he moved on to another case I was working on – a case of domestic abuse. He said disbelievingly about the accusation of abuse, ‘There are two sides to every story.’ So, I said, ‘But she works for me.’ He retorted that he had talked to husband for six hours, but I said, ‘I work with her for 20 hours a week!’
Brandon left the office but then came back to her. He said, “I want you to know you have a voice in this. Get it out and at some point we are done talking about this.” Kayla asked, “When?” She said he got angry and threatened, “I will do a nationwide search and replace you.”
He went on, “Though I disagree with 99 percent of Mark Driscoll, I would say he got one thing right: get on the bus or get run over.”
Wow.
How We Always Talk
Kayla’s husband, Zachary was there for this heated exchange.
He was shocked by the outburst and when Brandon left, Zachary asked Kayla if he normally talked to her that way. He explained that Brandon was yelling at her. He described it as a “narcissistic kind of rage,” especially Brandon’s tirade, “I will not be accused here! I will not be put on trial!” in response to Kayla calmly reminding Brandon of something he said which he adamantly denied saying.
In response to Zachary, Kayla said, “That is the only way we talk.” Zachary went on, “He was obsessed with never being corrected.” Mimicking Brandon, he said, “This is how you have to talk to me.”
Kayla said Brandon’s solution to their conflict “was that we would meet once a week where he could correct me if I ‘misinterpreted’ anything he said.” Brandon basically demanded the right to reinterpret Kayla’s experience as it suited his agenda of control.
This was not the only form of gaslighting Kayla experienced. At her first and only performance evaluation, Brandon provided positive feedback but zeroed in on one carefully chosen criticism: “Overly bearing the burdens of those under your ministry has the possibility of clouding your judgment.” This was said with clear reference to her relationship to Amber, and the message was subtle but clear: Brandon saw things clearly, but Kayla’s judgment could not be trusted.
Kayla, burned out and depressed, finally asked for a leave of absence for a couple months. Pastor Brandon encouraged her to resign instead. She pushed back and made clear that her request was for a paid leave, not a resignation.
Kayla explained, “A couple, who met with Pastor Brandon, said he told them that I came to him on Tuesday and resigned and then came in Wednesday and changed my mind.” Kayla thinks it likely that is the same story the pastor told the elders.
At no point did she suggest that she was resigning.
The elders in the end approved Kayla’s leave.
Pastor Brandon then announced to the church staff that she was going to resign. She had to again push back and say loud and clear that she never resigned, she just asked for extended leave.
The NDA
However, during her leave the elders asked her to resign and sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.”
They would provide a severance package if she wouldsignit and resign. It would effectively silence her. She would be legally bound to keep her mouth shut about the failures of the church leadership . . . in particular, Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
However, Kayla and Zachary would not be bought off, as they described it. Despite Kayla’s salary being their family’s primary source of funds, they were agreed that in good conscience they could not take a vow of silence.
Kayla refused the NDA.
The church leadership must have realized they were in trouble as they went ahead with a severance package (but only gave a portion of severance offered with NDA), and at the end of Kayla’s leave, fired her without any explanation or justification.
The Peace and Purity of the Church
After months of silence following the sexual assault, the elders called a congregational meeting to address the firing of Kayla as well as Kevin’s sexual assault.
The pastor began with a statement regarding Kayla’s termination. He explained,
“Let us be clear that there is no sin or character issue that has led us to this decision. Kayla is a remarkably gifted woman of God who has contributed greatly to our church and her ministries.”
The reason she was fired was that she continued to challenge the pastor and elders for their failure to take the kind of action that responding to a sexual predator in the church requires. Pastor Brandon in his statement denied this and did not express remorse for the horrible damage done by the sexual abuse of an elder, of whom they had been warned prior to installing in a leadership position.
Despite being encouraged by a respected abuse specialist in their denomination to seek a third-party investigation, they did not.
They did not make it public to provide a safe place for reports of other victims of Kevin’s abuse (though there were others reported to Kayla). During the congregational meeting questions were asked about the church’s investigation and the elders refused to answer them.
They had not brought in experts, neither law enforcement nor abuse consultants, to investigate.
Pastor Brandon confessed in the meeting that they should have come to the congregation with the information sooner, yet did not and have not asked Kayla’s or the survivor’s forgiveness for failing in this way to support them as they should.
In fact, the pastor noted defensively it was in their “rights” to not report to others there was a sexual offender among them.
When a question-and-answer time was coming to a close, one church member spoke passionately in Kayla’s defense:
“This is an extremely serious issue where, by all appearances, a wonderful person, who had impacted many of our lives very positively, was unfairly fired because she advocated for a victim and because she wouldn’t stop advocating for a victim.”
Bringing the meeting to a close, Pastor Brandon, in exasperation made a last-ditch effort to force submission to the church leadership and silence whistleblowers:
“If you still have issues, come to the elders, talk to them. But go directly to the parties that are offending you, and please, for the sake of the peace of the church, be careful how you talk to one another, or talk to other people, go directly to the source, and get these questions answered.”
Pastor Brandon went on:
And when we have disagreements, take them the session, and, you know, express your concerns and your grievances. But if it is a matter of a judgment call, God has ordained them, and you have elected them, to make those decisions on your behalf. And for the peace of the church, we need to leave it there. And then walk away and love each other.
His plea was to keep their failure to do what was right and failure to confess and seek forgiveness for their failures from destroying the church. Where admitting the wrong and seeking restitution would have healed many wounds that continue to this day, instead he recommended keeping things as private as possible.
As if that would serve “the peace and purity of the church.”
Accountability
Following the meeting, a church family wrote to the elders,
“Abusers need to know that their predation will be met with consequences. Victims need to know that they have a place to turn where someone will listen. And the world needs to see that the church is serious about protecting the vulnerable.”
They went on,
“By your own words you make the case that Kayla’s firing was a retaliatory measure, designed to silence her from bringing Kevin’s sin into the light.”
But rather than seek real accountability for Kevin, the elders sent him to another church to continue his abuse.
Submission to [Bad] Authority
In a recent sermon, Pastor Brandon was speaking on submission to authority. As is common to church leadership abuse, it is not unusual for a pastor to double down on the submission topic when he is being challenged. He said in the sermon, “Never ever confuse authority and biblical leadership with arrogance or a power grab.”
Brandon proclaimed the innocence of the elders’ motives in their decisions. One of the elders argued that their decisions to keep Kevin’s felonies private were simply “judgment calls.” He said, “But when the decision is made, unless it’s something so sinful, you know, or so greatly unbiblical, then, we are called to submit for the peace of the church.”
Sounds very biblical and wise.
But, regarding such horrible treatment of victims and those who advocate for them as simply judgment calls is anathema to the Lord.
As one individual who has experienced leadership abuse said, “It seems that where there is leadership abuse in the church, you will always find spiritual abuse.”
It is when submission is taught from pulpits and in responses to questions about the ways authority is exercised in the church that the Scripture is used to control and manipulate. References in Scripture like Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13f are taken out of context and absolutized to suggest that no matter what the authority does, the subordinate is required to obey and submit.
It is poor exegesis and deeply damaging to God’s people. [see here]
Turned Upside Down
Kayla, Zachary, and Amber’s lives have been turned upside down by the leadership of their church. Rather than responding in silence, deception, justification, and anger, their leaders should have heard their cries. They should have taken decisive action to hold the abuser accountable. They should have sought the healing of those who suffered under Kevin’s sexual assaults.
And they should have seen how this crisis revealed Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership.
If they haven’t, they should pack their bags. They do not belong in leadership.
NOTE: I recommend the below website. It provides excellent resources for survivors of clergy sexual abuse. God’s shepherds must be held accountable for oppressive behavior as the Lord held His shepherds accountable during the prophet Ezekiel’s time – Ezekiel 34.
Clergy Sexual Misconduct – We provide info & resources to those affected by clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) & ministries desiring to be a safe place.
One of the hardest things for someone to hear when going through a particularly difficult trial is, “Consider it joy! It will make you stronger.”
Yes, the Bible tells me so. But it so often seems so callous for someone to remind me of it. There might even be a smile that goes with it that makes me angry.
Those who are acting as counselors and advocates for abuse survivors have likely struggled with this issue. We want to encourage our clients and friends to rightful thinking which we know will lead to greater peace. We want them to see the good that can come from the trial that they may have a sense of peace in it.
And as we share these thoughts with them, we find that they shrink into a shell or become angry or walk away, never to return.
It just isn’t that simple to slather a verse on a victim’s pain. Have you noticed that taking one verse from the Bible is simple until you practice good exegesis and consider all those other verses that complicate things?
The Goal
First, I want to do some of that work on James 1:2-5 where the Lord tells us that the “testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” That is the reason why James says one verse before, “Count it all joy . . . when you meet trials of various kinds.”
There is a goal to suffering – that we be “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” That’s a pretty good trade off. That is what trials are intended to produce in us. And that is why James tells us to “count it all joy.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible helpfully says, “Not that these afflictions were joyous in themselves, but in their circumstances, effects, and consequences.”
The goal is joyous.
It is not the trial that is joyous. The trial is not intended to make us happy. In fact, to be a trial it needs to do quite the opposite. It creates hurt, disappointment, maybe confusion, and frustration. That is why it is called a trial. It challenges how we view our lives.
It causes us to take stock of our beliefs and desires and expectations.
I face trials when my boss or spouse is manipulating, demeaning, shaming, or blaming me. When my manager takes credit for the work I do. When my spouse tells me I am stupid, or my pastor preaches shamefully from the pulpit referring to something I said to him earlier in the week supposedly in confidence.
I am not expected to take joy from the trial. And so, we must be careful to distinguish between expecting someone to be joyful about the trial, rather than taking joy in the knowledge of the outcome.
Who among us knows what is God’s specific purpose for another man’s trial? Who can with confidence give that kind of judgment.
God does not always show His hand immediately or within the trial itself. At times it is mysterious. Consider Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9. Paul has some knowledge – it is there to keep him from being “conceited” – but why doesn’t God take it away? Paul begged that the Lord would do so, but He did not remove it by the time of Paul’s writing.
It is not my place to tell a victim why they are suffering. And then tell them, “Count it all joy!”
They will likely, though not necessarily, learn what the Lord is specifically teaching them. Give the Lord His room.
Weep
So, what do we do? What is the godly response?
We must be careful in our expectations for those who are suffering horribly from the abuse of a wicked individual – whether a boss, boyfriend, neighbor, or husband. In the midst of that suffering, jumping for joy neither makes sense nor generally happens.
This is a broken world, and a giddiness about that brokenness is never suggested in Scripture. Don’t expect your friend or counselee to be rejoicing in the way you think of rejoicing in the midst of their abuse. It is unreasonable and unlikely.
So, the first step in hearing of abuse of any kind is “weep with those who weep.”
The full verse in Romans says:
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
Romans 12:15-16 (ESV)
Humility. No conceit. No arrogance.
If you are counseling or advocating for a victim of leadership abuse (in the home or workplace), you need to humbly respond to their suffering. As they pass through the fire of trial, they need to be shown respect and their trial needs to be honored.
Weep with them. It is not a time of rejoicing when they face various trials.
But when the goal of that trial – their perfection and completion – is accomplished, it will be a time of rejoicing.
In the trial, it is a time of weeping and seeking the wisdom only God can give as James goes on to say:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
James 1:5
Weep with them as they face the struggle. And seek wisdom as to how to respond to that trial with them.
Empathy
In essence, we are talking about being empathetic. No matter what foolish theologians say about empathy, Romans 12 is about empathy. God desires you to be empathetic . . . to appreciate and understand another man’s travail. And you are to weep with them when they weep.
In time, hopefully you can rejoice when they rejoice.
However, as you empathize with your friend, you may encourage them on a path to the point of considering it joy. As the “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” says,
You are not to consider it as a punishment, a curse, or a calamity, but as a fit subject of felicitation.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
When facing abuse, many victims feel that they are cursed. They may think they are being punished by the Lord much like many of the Psalmists.
But abuse is never the result of the victim’s actions. It is because the abuser has an unrepentant heart. He is sick in sin. It is HIS fault, not the victim’s.
So, encouraging the victim to rest in Jesus’s loving arms, not condemnation of any kind, is the godly response to their despair.
Advocates can list story after story of the survivors of abuse testifying to the shame that have been heaped upon them. They have been trained by their abusers, particularly if their abuser was a Christian leader, to think of themselves as unworthy of Jesus’s love and affection.
You do not criticize them for feeling cursed or angry at God. You share with them the love that God has for them . . . telling them over and over they are a child of the Heavenly Father, the Ruler of Heaven and Earth.
Those are two very different things. One is heaping more shame on them for feeling the way they do: How dare you feel that way. One is sharing the reason they need have no shame.
Consider it Joy! Yes, the Bible tells me so. But there is a time for weeping for and mourning what is lost. There is time for the Lord to make Himself known and felt by victims of abusive leadership.
Having spent nearly a decade working for a mission college in Africa, I have a keen interest in African leadership. It is evident that leadership problems abound in every part of the world. There is no culture that is free from the effects of sinful leadership.
Each culture has horrible leaders. And, each culture gives them a free pass for various and often different reasons.
Bad leaders may not be held accountable for their sin because of their popularity and gifting in certain places (i.e. United States). And, bad leaders may continue unabated because they “must be respected” in other cultures (African or Asian). I am not an expert on cultures, so these are only my opinions after cursory evaluations.
Praise’s Story
When I spoke with Praise (not his real name), he shared his own experience with leadership abuse in the African nation in which he grew up. Praise was a young man when he traveled to a distant village to assist a pastor while going to school. The pastor took him into his house, but did not pay him anything.
Praise enjoyed the work, walking over four miles to the church each day. His living arrangements at the pastor’s home was the “sitting room” where the TV was and had arise early to be out of the way and go to bed late often as the family watched TV.
The real trouble started when he began “dating” a woman and wanted to marry her. The pastor and leadership of the church however, wanted him to marry someone else. Their choice of a wife lived in a neighboring country.
Physical and Spiritual Wounds
While escorting the woman to her home at 6 pm one evening, he was attacked by several men. They took pangas (machetes) to Praise. He was badly hurt. The savage attack was likely tribal according to Praise. To his disappointment, despite using a little room behind the church, no one from the church were of any help to him.
Rather than seek help for and encourage Praise, the pastor accusingly told him, “See, I told you not to marry this lady.”
When Praise was giving testimony to the church about the attack, he expressed his frustration at the lack of help that he received from church members as he recovered from his wounds. But, the pastor told the church, “I don’t know this man. I don’t know who brought you to this church.”
The pastor then proceeded to ask him to write a resignation letter, though his position was only voluntary.
Praise taught a Sunday morning Bible study each week at the church. During the church worship “announcements” following Praise’s Bible study, the pastor publicly railed against Praise, telling the members of the church “not to have anything to do with him.” According to Praise, the pastor told the church he was “excommunicating Praise that day.”
Adding insult to injury, he proclaimed authoritaringly that Praise would “never succeed.”
Praise left and went to another church.
Rampant Authoritarianism
Praise told me, in churches that have “less structure” like mission churches, the “members give a lot of respect to pastors.” He said, “Even when members are being abused by pastors, it is hard to identify.”
He explained, they would “rather be oppressed quietly for the sake of getting something small for the family.” Men of low economic class suffer the most. They see God as speaking more to the pastor. “The Pastor is a mediator between me and God.”
Praise noted that it is difficult for congregant members to know whether the pastor is speaking revelation from the Lord or their own words.
In addition, Praise said, “The calling of individual pastors is defined by how they act socially, economically and how they are connected politically.” If they have money then God has blessed them and therefore, they must be specially called.
“Even if a pastor is a molester, but has money, followers do not speak up.”
Praise said, “It’s very frustrating. They take advantage of widows and orphans . . . even sleep with them, but give them money. Because they are poor they feel threatened by pastors.”
Continued Leadership Struggles
Hurt and confused, Praise left the church and planted another church. It grew significantly. They even brought on an Assistant Pastor to help Praise in his work.
His Assistant invited several friends as preachers to an evening vigil they had planned. It is common for African churches to have long nighttime meetings with much singing and praying with additional guests speaking to the congregation.
However, Praise said, “One of the visiting preachers accused me of not respecting my assistant pastor whom they expected I should work under. He used a traditional saying ‘when the cat is out the rat takes the reins of power.’ In this context, I was the rat and my Assistant Pastor was the cat.”
Another job opportunity was presented to Praise after he had finished his Masters degree. The international church organization seemed to be a good fit for Praise. He made the “shortlist” from those applying but after interviewing he was not picked for the position. Apparently, having come from a “small church” was the reason according to one of the panelists.
Again, another organization had an opening for which Praise applied. However, he was required to attain a recommendation letter from “a local church organization.” When he requested the letter, an American women who was married to a Kenyan told him that they would not provide a recommendation letter. She did not give him a reason, but later he found out that she had asked the church organization to write a recommendation letter for her husband who was also applying for the position.
Most recently, Praise has been teaching for a local university, “but because of tribalism” he was never paid. In the space of three years of serving the university he has received $35.
But, as he continues to somehow provide for his family, he has not given up the struggle.
Healing
When I asked Praise what has provided the most healing for him while going through these many difficult leadership difficulties, he said, “Speaking to a friend to take solace. Just speaking with him – speaking into his life.”
In addition, he explained, “My wife has stood beside me. I almost threw off my doctoral work.” One of his graduate professors encouraged Praise. He helped him know that God would help him in what he was going through if he remain focused.
At times, like Job, Praise asked, “Why did God do this? Why have you taken my life to be an object of test? You are breaking me. You are stretching me too much.”
He said he began asking if he was not praying well? “Sometimes I get too ‘traditional’ . . . some believe that if a person is going through a lot of suffering he has been ‘bewitched.'” But he said in his frustration, “I am born again! Why can’t you, Lord deal with it?”
It was a very hard time, but he neither gave up on Christ nor ministry.
Praise is currently part of an international “think tank” that is seeking ways to help the global church respond to abuse and create safe churches for those who are suffering or have suffered abuse of various kinds.
Praise knows he has experienced trauma, but the Lord is His Good Shepherd and he knows that God provides for the oppressed.
Those who are honored to hear an abuse survivor’s story need to hear Job’s story.
They need to hear his words . . . and they need to hear his friends’ words. They are likely to identify with Job’s friends more than with Job. They are likely shocked by Job.
But then they may wonder why God takes his friends to task in the end of the story rather than Job.
Listen to Job’s heart:
“I loathe my life; I will give free utterance to my complaint; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God, Do not condemn me; let me know why you contend against me. Does it seem good to you to oppress, to despise the work of your hands and favor the designs of the wicked? Have you eyes of flesh? Do you see as man sees? Are your days as the days of man, or your years as a man’s years, that you seek out my iniquity and search for my sin, although you know that I am not guilty, and there is none to deliver out of your hand? Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit. Yet these things you hid in your heart; I know that this was your purpose. If I sin, you watch me and do not acquit me of my iniquity. If I am guilty, woe to me! If I am in the right, I cannot lift up my head, for I am filled with disgrace and look on my affliction. And were my head lifted up, you would hunt me like a lion and again work wonders against me. You renew your witnesses against me and increase your vexation toward me; you bring fresh troops against me.
Job 10:1-17 (ESV)
You could read just a couple sentences and be disturbed by Job’s attitude towards the Lord. But he sounds like many abuse victims with whom I have spoken.
Victims are angry. They are frustrated. They don’t get how God could put them through what they have gone through.
It reminds me of Mia’s story. As Mia continued to hold fast to the Lord, the added pain of suffering at the hands of God’s servants (leaders in the church), only exacerbated the misery. Or Kani’s story of questioning what God was doing . . . or if he needed to be a better Christian.
Job did not reject God. He questioned the Lord and was angry at the Lord. But he did not reject Him.
Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face.
Job 13:15 (ESV)
But I want you to see that Job’s friends responded to these and other complaints by Job much like most of us want to respond when sitting in a victim’s story. As we hear their hurt, complaints, suffering, and what we would deem bad theology, we want to fix them. We have a unquenchable urge to straighten them out. Get them on the road to healing ASAP.
I have heard this over and over. The theologically astute want so badly to clean up the attitudes and comments of victims. Listeners feel they must clear the air and defend the Lord. They must get the victim on the path to righteousness. . . to just get over it.
And, by no means, criticize the Lord!
But Learn from Job
Listen to the Lord. Hear the end of the story:
After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them, and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.
Job 42:7-9 (ESV)
You would think, like Eliphaz did, that the Lord would come down on Job. Job’s words had been biting. They had been directed at the Lord of the universe. The One who created all things and does only good and right.
But Job says, “Does it seem good to you to oppress, to despise the work of your hands and favor the designs of the wicked?”
Any mature Christian would want to say, “Are you kidding me? How dare you talk of the Lord this way?”
His friends defended the Lord. They responded with many correct theological statements. How dare Job talk to God this way.
Zophar said in response to Job’s complaint:
“Should a multitude of words go unanswered, and a man full of talk be judged right? Should your babble silence men, and when you mock, shall no one shame you? For you say, ‘My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in God’s eyes.’
Job 11:2-4 (ESV)
Zophar is righteously indignant. Sounds great. Accurate. Scriptural.
But, the Lord instead tells him and his other friends, “My anger burns against you.” Their words were wrong . . . and Job’s were right!
Wow.
So, next time you sit down and listen to a survivor, consider keeping your mouth shut.
Oh that you would keep silent, and it would be your wisdom!
Job 13:5 (ESV)
Consider Job. Consider Eliphaz.
Consider that the Lord of the universe is on the victim’s side. And He is hearing His servant Job. You would do well to do the same.
