Sample Chapters

Introduction

David Rowe was one of my first interviewees when I began researching toxic leadership in Christian organizations. He served on the board and then became Director of Habitat for Humanity, a renowned Christian non-profit organization, more than thirty years ago.

David shared that he served in the organization for over ten years on staff and in senior leadership. After a warmup to learn a little of his work, I asked how he would describe the Habitat founder and CEO, Millard Fuller. David described Fuller as “visionary, charismatic, compassionate, spiritual . . . bombastic, demanding, abusive, micro-managing . . . [and] a risk taker.”

At first, I was taken aback that such a high-profile Christian leader could be all Rowe described. But he continued with his story.

While Director, David was informed that the founder “had been sexually harassing and abusing a number of female staff over a number of years.” David and two men, including well-known Christian author and speaker, Anthony Campolo, confronted Fuller. It was clearly a confrontation of love. According to David, they approached with what they “thought was . . . a biblical plan of healing and reconciliation that would allow [Fuller] over a period of time to stay with the organization—that wouldn’t go public.”

“We all felt we were dealing among Christians, that when the facts were laid out, he would be humble and open to both healing and reconciliation and in the end of the afternoon, we would hug and get it done,” David said, with a laugh.Those of you who have been in David’s shoes may be shaking your heads as you read. If you have experienced a leader like Fuller, you already know the end of the story . . . even if you haven’t seen it in the news.

Rowe and Campolo’s plan was “rejected out of hand” by Fuller, and the scandal went very public. The confrontation with Fuller led to Rowe’s initial firing by the board of trustees due to pressure from former President Jimmy Carter, who was a major supporter of the organization and friend of Fuller’s. According to a Washington Post article at the time, “Board members said they came close to firing Fuller. But they said that after Carter warned in a confidential letter that a ‘national scandal’ could ensue, the directors allowed Fuller to work for a year from an outside office and then restored his duties as chief executive.”[1]

When he was restored, according to Rowe, Fuller terminated 45 of Rowe’s staff. Fuller apparently felt threatened by them.

For ten years he continued to abuse his leadership, and the failure of the board to bring accountability led to more and more victims who would suffer the trauma of toxic leadership. According to Rowe, after ten years the CEO was once again accused of sexual harassment and was fired by the board. Rowe said Fuller later moved down the street and started another non-profit organization.

Fuller made my top ten list of toxic leaders and provides a compelling snapshot of what it looks like to be abusive in leadership.

The Underbelly of the Church

Since beginning my research, I have spent a significant amount of my time in the underbelly of the church. Following my doctoral dissertation on toxic leadership of Christian organizations, I continued my research, adding nearly 100 interviewees and writing over 200 blog articles and contributing a chapter in the Oxford University Press “Handbook on Bad Leadership”.

This book is the product of the insights of many business management, psychology, and theology experts and the many people who came forward to be interviewed through the Pearls and Swine Site[2] and my work with the Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault for the Presbyterian Church in America.[3]

It is in these stories and research that I have found healing from my own experiences with this egregious form of leadership. My family and I suffered under abusive leadership on the mission field, and, at that time, I knew little about the extent of toxic leadership. There were few books written on the topic, and most were written in the field of business management with little to say to the Christian trying to understand abusive leadership from a biblical perspective.

What can be learned from countless discussions, consultations, and interviews since is that David Rowe’s story is not unusual—in fact, it’s very typical of our society’s failure to bring aid to victims of abusive leadership. The Washington Post article, quoted above, provides example after example of just how isolating and frustrating it can be for ministry subordinates to find support and validation when battling with toxic leaders. Victims of any kind of abuse find few people who will hear their stories without judgment and with empathy. It is common to hear, “Maybe you misread him,” or “everyone’s a sinner, have some grace.” Even those who are counselors, advocates, or simply friends of these silent sufferers face disinterest or worse, disdain from our culture.

Dr. Judith Herman, who wrote a helpful book to historically and practically understand trauma treatment for victims of abuse, writes,

 

It is not only the patients but also the investigators of post-traumatic conditions whose credibility is repeatedly challenged. Clinicians who listen too long and too carefully to traumatized patients often become suspect among their colleagues, as though contaminated by contact. Investigators who pursue the field too far beyond the bounds of conventional belief are often subjected to a kind of professional isolation.[4]

 

People in the church who step forward to bring light to this subject of leadership abuse and the effects on people created in God’s image, also get pushback. Those who seek justice for the abused are ridiculed or bullied by those with cultural blinders that keep them from a clear reading of Scripture. As an example, Kayla went to her church leadership to report the sexual assault against her friend Amber by an elder in the church. The other elders of the church didn’t believe Amber. The offending elder had a significant amount of relational power in the church due likely to his great wealth. As a result, Kayla lost her job in the women’s ministry and the elder’s abuse was kept quiet.

In addition, advocates and victims alike suffer due to the church’s distrust of God’s “general revelation” in areas of science that shed light on trauma and abuse. Where Scripture does not speak, God’s image bearers, through creativity and giftedness, help us understand through the various sciences.

The Goals of This Book

One goal in this writing is to provide guidance to leaders. There are those who humbly wish to serve their employees and volunteers over whom they have authority. I will look at what biblical leadership looks like so that you may have a positive image of leadership.

In addition, I aim to give voice to the voiceless. Diane Langberg, an internationally recognized Christian psychologist specializing in trauma, writes that it is important to voice the hurts caused by abuse to begin the healing process.[5] We must talk about our toxic leaders if we are to move forward individually and as a church. Our stories must be told so that our brokenness can be healed—so that we can gain hope for our futures.

Finally, I intend this book to help God’s people in the church, organization, and workplace identify toxic leaders that we can hold them accountable and stop them. If we desire to honor Christ and bring hope to their subordinates, stop them we must. To care for God’s created order, they must be held accountable, and their destruction mitigated.

The Questions We Ask—And Hope to Answer

Brenda was an instructor for a small Christian mission college. Charlotte, a fellow faculty member and wife of the school’s director, told Brenda that her students were misusing Charlotte’s computer lab. She proceeded to threaten to charge Brenda a fee for her students to use it. Brenda said she was mystified by Charlotte’s anger and arrogance and complete misrepresentation of the situation. She thought, surely this was a simple misunderstanding. Afterall, Brenda had assigned the students to use the lab just as Brenda’s predecessor had for years prior.

Despite the confusion and injustice, Brenda sought to develop a solution. Because of Charlotte’s significant informal authority (as the director’s wife) Brenda consulted with her husband Mark, who began working with the school’s IT director to develop a solution to calm the situation. When Charlotte was presented with the proposal, she sent a threatening email, saying, “If I want your input, I will certainly ask . . . I suggest you keep out of my lab.”

Mark was stunned by the response. Soon after, Charlotte’s husband (the director) summoned Mark to his office and warned Mark to keep out of his wife’s lab. Mark and Brenda thought, as colleagues and Christians, they should have been able to work through issues like this one with Christian charity and grace. It was even more confusing when, following the heated exchange with Charlotte, she treated Brenda like her closest friend at a dinner later that night.

Brenda and Mark thought they might be going crazy.

 

Ignorance and Arrogance

Leadership abuse is perpetuated by ignorance and arrogance. For the average Christian employee, toxic leadership is neither expected, nor is it simple to identify. Subordinates are often ignorant of the identifying characteristics of abusive leadership or misunderstand the dynamics of the psychology of abuse. In their ignorance, they give bad advice to others who seek counsel in the middle of it.

They disregard the clear signs of abuse in leaders and in families. After being educated through both experience and study, they come to realize, “We were ignorant and arrogant.” They had no idea how little they understood the psychology of abuse or what the Bible said about it. Rather than seek to allay their ignorance through study, they chose to be arrogant about their knowledge. All of us who have been there deeply hurt others in the process.

It might be a church, cross-cultural mission agency, food aid program, or education ministry; employees usually join an organization or business, whether Christian or not, believing in the mission and vision of the organization. Unfortunately, many later find that it is rife with toxicity created by a leader who could be described as abusive, authoritarian, or just down-right mean. The disillusionment can be faith-killing and psychologically scaring.

Unfortunately, this is not unusual. As Rob Hay, says in “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?” it is likely an employee, “at some point during the span of a thirty or forty-year career, will work in an organization dominated by a toxic leader.”[6]

There are many questions we asked while facing off with our toxic leaders. In interviews, many of those same questions are voiced. These are the questions this book seeks to answer.

1. What does good leadership look like?

Some suggest that the best way to understand darkness is to know the light. So, we will begin our study looking at what good leadership looks like in the light of Special and General Revelation including God’s written Word, psychology, and business management.[7]

This is not a business leadership book. This is not a psychology manual. However, I hope to provide clear and helpful direction for leading in a way that produces peace in the home, church, business, or Christian organization.

 

What does Scripture say about our work in a broken world?
What are the primary Scriptural principles that should form our leadership actions and attitudes?
What are the ways a leader is responsible to his followers?
2. How do leaders go wrong?

As baffled as we are when we suffer under toxic leaders in Christian settings, authorities in psychology, theology, and business leadership can help describe both the motivations and general behaviors of these toxic leaders.

 

As we face off with a leader who has made our work—or volunteer—lives miserable, how do we categorize and understand what makes them tick?
How prevalent is toxic leadership in our culture and Christian organizations?
Does the Bible say anything about toxic leadership?
3. What are the behaviors and attitudes that identify toxic leaders?

Gaining an understanding of toxic leadership can tremendously aid the church in several ways. A victim can gain healing through knowing he or she is not the reason for the dysfunction of his or her relationship with the boss. Toxic leaders can be rooted out of organizations if identified effectively.

 

What makes it so hard to identify them?
What behaviors and attitudes are typical of abusive leadership?
Can an organization itself be toxic?
4. What do personality disorders have to do with toxic leaders and what are toxic systems?

 

Personality disorders as defined by psychologists and counselors may play important roles in the toxicity of leaders. Whether the leader suffers from sociopathy or machevellianism, they can create workplaces filled with misery.

 

What are personality disorders and how are they identified?
What is “gaslighting?”
What does it mean to suffer in a toxic “system?”
5. What kind of damage can a toxic leader do?

There is much misinformation about the impact of abuse in our world. There are naysayers who suggest those who face psychological or spiritual abuse just need thicker skin.

However, abuse of all kinds creates incredible havoc in the lives of targets. Those who suffer under toxic leadership in any setting testify to what medical researchers call “trauma.” God’s General Revelation can help us understand the damage.

 

How are the lives of those who serve under toxic leadership affected?
What is trauma and its affects?
6. What does Scripture teach us about toxic leadership?

There are several Bible passages that are used both for and against those who suffer from toxic leadership. The toxic leader, or those who counsel the stricken employee, may be using them to bludgeon the employee rather than bring help and healing.

As a member of the body of Christ we must consider these scriptural admonishments and answer the following questions:

 

Do Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15–18 describe a three-step process that an employee must complete when relating to a toxic supervisor? And how does it relate to the power relationships of boss to employee?
Does 1 Peter 2:18–20 give direction to the employee of a Christian organization or business that is under the oppressive behavior of an “unjust,” “unreasonable,” or “harsh” leader?[8] If so, how is it to be applied?
Should the suffering employee pray for the demise of their leader as Psalm 55 might indicate?
Should the Christian employee simply overlook the moral failures of the supervisor out of respect for the office of “master?”
Should a “founder” be given greater moral leeway because it is his or her ministry?
From where does the concept “believe her” in the #metoo movement come?
7. How should we respond to toxic leadership?

Among the many sufferers of toxic leadership, there are generally three responses I have seen: 1) they keep their head up and confront the leader, 2) put their head down and suffer in silence, or finally 3) head out of town, looking for a new church or employment. People have an “innate” justice scale.

In seeking to respond to a. toxic leader, should the victim . . .

 

Keep his head up? Confront the boss? Raise up a revolt? Go out kicking and screaming? Use social media to spread the news?
Keep his head down? Just get his job done with as little confrontation as possible.
Get out as soon as possible? Should he resign, giving up on affecting change in the organization? Does resigning from a toxic ministry speak of failure on the part of the employee?
8. How can we heal?

When all is said and done, it is important that those who have faced the trauma of workplace dysfunction have a place of healing. How does an employee who serves under a toxic leader gain peace in his or her life?

 

What principles might be helpful in finding healing of mind and spirit?
What can General Revelation teach us about healing?
How does the receiving of a target’s story affect their healing?
What does it mean to forgive?
What part does validation and vindication play in healing?

These are the questions, among others, this book will address. The goal of this book is that the employee in a toxic organization—or leaving the organization—will find help and healing both from God’s Word and current research into God’s General Revelation. Before we identify toxic leadership, let’s begin by looking at good leadership.

[1] Alan Cooperman, “Harassment Claims Roil Habitat for Humanity (Washingtonpost.Com),” washingtonpost.com, March 9, 2005, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18460-2005Mar8.html.

[2] www.PearlsAndSwineSite.com provides information on both good leadership and toxic leadership from a Christian perspective. The goal is to bring hope and healing to those who suffer under the debilitating impact of abusive leadership.

[3] Information on the Ad Interim Study Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault may be found at www.DASACommittee.org.

[4] Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence–From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2015), 16.

[5] Diane Langberg, Suffering and the Heart of God: How Trauma Destroys and Christ Restores, First edition (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2015), 93-94.

[6] Rob Hay, “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?,” Encounters Mission Ezine, no. 2 (October 2004), 1,https://encountersmissionjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/toxic_mission5_02.pdf.

[7] “Special Revelation” is defined as God’s Word to us found in the Bible. “General Revelation” is defined as God’s revelation of Himself and power through His creation (humanity and the world).

[8] In 1 Peter 2:18–20, the Greek word “skolios” means “crooked, curved,” according to Thayer’s Greek Dictionary. The word is variously translated as “unjust” (ESV), “unreasonable” (NASB), and “harsh” (NKJ).

PART 3: The Heart of Toxic Leadership

A tip in recognizing toxicity is that there may be (and likely are) different perspectives about the toxic person; there may even be some people who do not experience the person’s toxicity at all. This is especially true for those who are in a position of power or control with access to powerful others, perks, or any number of resources the toxic individual wants.[1]

 

If toxic leaders were easy to identify they would not be so prevalent. Leaders often rise to their positions of prominence because they have skills that are in demand. If everyone understood abusive leadership and could identify it readily, these individuals would not be given authority, or it would be taken away as soon as they were recognized.

As we begin this discussion and seek to clearly identify specific characteristics of toxic leadership, a story might be helpful.

Ethan and Pastor Fredrick

Ethan began his pastoral ministry as an Assistant Pastor. 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.” He said that Fredrick focused on Christ and grace and he added that his “emphases were interesting and helpful.” Amelia, Ethan’s wife said, “Fredrick gave vocabulary to how I was thinking. He commanded a room.” His teaching focused on grace, and deeply resonated with Ethan and Amelia.

Fredrick had left his last pastorate under a cloud. But he told the search committee at Ethan’s church 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, Fredrick was very complimentary of Ethan. Fredrick told the search committee “the only reason he was coming was because of Ethan.” It was very ego-gratifying to Ethan. In hindsight, Ethan said, “He was already grooming me to be his ally.”

Ethan said there were red flags he should have seen, and now, several years later, he lives with guilt that he failed himself and his congregation in identifying and rooting out the toxic leader.

When Fredrick moved into his office, he immediately put black paper over the small window in his office door. Though office staff considered it weird, they figured he just wanted his privacy. However, later some pornographic videos showed up in the mail from Netflix in the church office. Fredrick explained to the secretary it was just “some enemy of the church” sending them. But one member walked into his office another time and there was male pornography on Fredrick’s computer screen.

“Everyone loved his preaching.” Ethan said, “The church grew considerably.” After three or four years there were around 300 to 400 in average attendance. He added, “There was a ton of success. Finances were good.” Amelia noted the church had a lot of pride for its success under the pastor. However, Pastor Fredrick was creating “an environment that the goal was to keep the church successful at all costs.”

About a year and a half after the arrival of Pastor Fredrick, Ethan noticed things that he had heard Fredrick say, write, and preach that he had seen in other sources. It looked like plagiarism to him. Amelia said Fredrick was teaching a women’s Bible study and provided a handout he presented as his own. She went home and Googled the text and found it was someone else’s writing. Ethan confronted him on it, but Fredrick explained it away. He said the other church, which had it online, had stolen from him.

As it turned out, unbeknownst to Ethan, Fredrick was under investigation by the denomination’s regional board for plagiarism.

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.” Ethan didn’t want to be labeled like Pastor Fredrick’s old assistant. However, Amelia said she was no longer charmed by Pastor Fredrick after about nine months. This in turn created some conflict within their marriage.

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 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 describe. “There’s no conscience. It was burned over.”

Considering Ethan’s Story

Ethan and Amelia’s story uncovers several reasons why we fall for toxic leaders and fail to hold them accountable.

 

Toxic leaders provide something of value. Often the toxic leader will have a particular skill or talent that is in demand.
Toxic church leaders will brainwashtheir followers with teaching that shames those who would seek his accountability, heading off any negative responses to his leadership.
Their background stories often include blaming former employers or followers, and veiled warning to the new employer or follower to not make the same mistakes.
A toxic leaders will groom his followers by building up their egos, getting them on his side from the start.
Followers believe it is ungracious to think less of a leader who makes mistakes.
It is very hard to believe a Christian leader would be intentionally deceptive.

Theo Veldsman says,

 

The word ‘toxic’ comes from the Greek ‘toxikon’ which means ‘arrow poison.’ In a literal sense, the term in its original form thus means to kill (poison) in a targeted way (arrow). Toxic organisations and leaders therefore are those who deliberately destroy the fabric of the institution.[2]

 

Toxic leaders “kill in a targeted way.” And yet, followers of these leaders question their own sanity. They ask questions like: “Can a Christian leader be such a liar?”; “Did I misunderstand her?” Or they talk themselves down from the cliff with self-talk like: “It is their ministry after all, they can do what they want with it”; “Maybe I am expecting too much?”; or, “We are all sinners.”

It often takes years for them to begin asking the right questions.

Toxic leaders are often the high-achievers—driven, type-A, visionary, and charming. And they feed on their subordinates, as the prophet Ezekiel recorded God’s own protests about these kinds of toxic leaders nearly 600 years before Christ (Ezek. 34:1–3). The religious leaders during his day were oppressing God’s people to feed their own hunger for power. Michael Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary and author of Bully Pulpit, says, “It’s not just that they failed to care for the sheep; rather, their domineering authoritarian leadership style proactively wounded them.”[3]

God’s image-bearers have a sense of how a boss or organizational leader should behave whether they trust in Jesus Christ or not. This is evident by the volumes written by business leadership gurus outside the church. People envision a workplace that is joyful, productive, and personally fulfilling. Jeremiah, in the Old Testament Scriptures records God’s promise of a good and godly leader to come: “I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD. Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jer. 23:4-5).

God’s creation longs for a place of shalom.

It is because of this inner sense of the way things ought to be—a sort of remembrance of what the Garden of Eden was like—that experiencing a toxic workplace can be such a shock.

Behaviors and Attitudes

There are several behaviors, attitudes, and personality disorders common to toxic leaders. Each toxic leader has a cocktail mix of these traits. We will first define the specific categories that may be identified in truly abusive leadership.

Below are basic definitions that will help identify toxic leaders.

 

Bullying: An abuse or misuse of power that manifests itself in “behavior that intimidates, degrades, offends, or humiliates a worker.”[4]
Autocratic/ Authoritarian: Demands submission and metes out discipline publicly. Authoritarian leaders often isolate their subordinates from outside influences. They view others as there to serve their purposes only.
Abusive:
Emotional Abuse: Also categorized as mental, verbal, or psychological abuse. Emotional abuse “is a pattern of behavior that promotes a destructive sense of fear, obligation, shame, or guilt in a victim. Emotionally oppressive people seek to dominate [others], and they do so by employing a variety of tactics. They may neglect, frighten, isolate, belittle, exploit, play mind games with, lie to, blame, shame, or threaten [their victim].”[5]
Spiritual Abuse: “Occurs when an oppressor establishes control and domination by using Scripture, doctrine, or his ‘leadership role’ as weapons.”[6] They “routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members . . . leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority.”[7]
Sexual Abuse: “Sexual abuse includes harassment, assault, and/or rape. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It consists of inappropriate verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s sense of well-being by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment from the viewpoint of the affected individual. Sexual assault is any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained. It is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority. Adult rape is, “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”[8]
Financial Abuse: “The illegal or improper use of a vulnerable adult or his/her financial resources for another’s profit or advantage. Some examples of financial abuse may include the taking of money or property; forging a signature; getting a senior to sign a deed, will or power of attorney through deception; coercion or undue influence; or illegally or improperly adding names to bank accounts or safety deposit boxes.”[9]
Narcissistic: Narcissists continually seek “recognition from others to reinforce their own self-worth.”[10]Narcissistic leaders “present an unusual degree of self-reference in their interactions with other people, a great need to be loved and admired by others, and a curious contradiction between a very inflated concept of themselves and an inordinate need for tribute from others.”[11]
Psychopathic: A personality disorder. “Generally, more dishonest, egocentric, reckless, and cruel than the population average.”[12] “Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavioral controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior.”[13]
Sociopathic: Sociopaths give no regard for right and wrong. They are unempathetic and “purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference.” They do not feel badly that they have broken rules and will lie with impunity.[14]
Machiavellian: “Somewhat more related to superficial charm, interpersonal manipulation, deceit, ruthlessness, and impulsivity. People who score highly on this trait are morally feeble and likely to endorse the idea that ‘the end justifies the means’ or agree that ‘it is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.’”[15]

As noted earlier, though leaders may appear to suffer from one or more of these at times, a toxic leader commonlybehaves in these ways such that clear patterns can be identified. Under the authority of a toxic leader, an employee “is persistently exposed to negative and aggressive behaviors primarily of a psychological nature, with the effect of humiliating, intimidating, frightening, or punishing the target.”[16]

These defining characteristics may be helpful to those who want to understand more specifically under which category their toxic leader falls.

DARVO

In addition, no matter their brand of evil, toxic leaders often practice what has become known as DARVO.

Jennifer Freyd identified DARVO tactics in the late 1990s and found these tactics to be commonly used by those who suffer from the “dark triad” of personality disorders: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism noted above.[17] DARVO is used broadly by all kinds of abusive leaders. Some who suffer under abusive leadership say this acronym was helpful to them in identifying toxic behavior.

The acronym stands for:

 

deny,
attack,
reverse victim
and offender.

The toxic leader will refuse to acknowledge the narrative presented by his victims, may shift the blame to others, or outright deny events described ever took place. Or he may suggest the interpretation of the events was completely skewed by the victim, often presenting his perspective with either great indignation or calm reasonableness, which makes him more believable.

In addition, he may turn the tables and begin to attack the victim. He may use character assassination; he may even use truthful, carefully chosen, stories in the victim’s past to back up his claim that they are crazy, incompetent, or have a vendetta.

Finally, the toxic leader may reverse the victim and offender, resorting to claiming victimhood; he may do all he can to make the victim of his abusive leadership out to be the offender. Some toxic leaders have even studied abuse methodology and use the right labels for their victims.

This tactic creates confusion for those who are seeking to advocate for survivors of leadership abuse. Who do you believe? Who is the victim and who is the abuser?

Humility, Humility, Humility

“Humility, humility, humility. Are we willing to hear how others experience us? Are we willing to self-evaluate?”[18]

In a 2021 article, Dr. Mark Dalbey, the President of Covenant Theological Seminary, told a story about when he received an honor from the National Association of Intercollegiate Activities as a college-age basketball player. As he became “puffed up” after receiving the honor he was surprised to receive a letter from a pastor friend. The pastor congratulated the young Dalbey but ended with a comment that made no sense to him. It said, “Remember, Mark to always walk under the chairs.” Dalbey recounts that it took some time to understand the statement, but in time he realized, “The only way to walk under a chair is to get yourself down low enough to squeeze yourself under it . . . It was a call to humility, a call I desperately needed.”[19]

Self-reflection is largely deficient in the toxic leader and this lack of humble self-reflection is commonly used as a diagnostic tool by authorities on abusive leadership. Individuals who create a workplace hell for subordinates or workmates nearly always lack humility. Author Shahida Arabi says, “One sure sign of toxicity is when a person is chronically unwilling to see his or her own shortcomings and uses everything in their power to avoid being held accountable for them.”[20] Toxic leaders are ignorant of shortcomings, avoid accountability, and have no humility.

Greenfield notes that all people sin, failing to relate to others in loving ways at times. But, in distinguishing between being sinful and being evil, he says, “The central defect of evil persons is not their sin but their refusal to acknowledge it.”[21] Abusive people refuse to confess wrongdoing; they have no humility.

Moses said to Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, “Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me (Ex. 10:3).’” The Pharaoh refused to listen even to the God of the Universe after evidence of His power and presence was laid before him. Toxic leaders are self-focused, and many feel it necessary to build themselves up while tearing others down. Like the Pharoah of Egypt, they think only of their own perceived needs. They lack the humility necessary to be self-aware, engage in relationships, empathize with others, and they rarely confess their sins and failures.

The arrogance that motivates leaders to do evil makes it nearly impossible for the leader to confess failure. Where a leader has broken relationships, those relationships could be healed by contrition and restitution. Advocates and victims shake their heads and repeat, “If they would only just admit their failure, ask forgiveness, and seek to make restitution to their victims . . . it would all go better for them.”

But they can’t seem to understand that and refuse to humble themselves. Toxic leaders believe they must be right . . . always. It takes humility to accept criticism, to cede power and responsibility to subordinates, and acknowledge personal or ministry needs.

Hallmarks of the [Non]Humble

Big Talker: Desko says, “They talk far more than they deliver.”[22] They will promise a lot and come through with little.
Opinionated: “Alphas . . . have opinions about everything, and they rarely admit that those opinions might be wrong or incomplete.”[23]
Exaggerator: “. . . infamous for over-inflating their accomplishments.”[24]
All Powerful: He will not give his subordinate responsibilities per chance when the employee succeeds it might reflect on the leader’s own incompetence. On the other hand, some leaders are hands off until a subordinate fails in some way, and it brings a perception of dishonor to the leader’s image. Then the hammer comes down.
All the Answers: “They think they have all the answers. Here’s the image of executive competence that we’ve been taught to admire for decades: a dynamic leader making a dozen decisions a minute, dealing with many crises simultaneously, and taking only seconds to size up situations that have stumped everyone else for days. The problem with this picture is that it’s a fraud. Leaders who are invariably crisp and decisive tend to settle issues so quickly they have no opportunity to grasp the ramifications. Worse, because these leaders need to feel they have all the answers, they aren’t open to learning new ones.”[25]
Big Man: They think of everyone around them as inferior.
No Fault: Mark Lipton says these leaders have a “hypersensitivity to negative feedback. Even constructive feedback is perceived as humiliating criticism.”[26]
No Blame: It’s not their failure, therefore, it must be someone else’s fault.
Self-Confident: “The very same self-confidence that enables founders [of churches, organizations, or businesses] to move forward at the start may doom them in the end.”[27] They are incapable of learning if they have absolute confidence in their own abilities.
No Need: According to Gibbs and Kloha, “‘to humble oneself’ in the New Testament more often means ‘to acknowledge one’s need and lowly dependence,’ as at Luke 14:11; 18:14; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Philippians 4:12; James 4:10 and 1 Peter 5:6.”[28] But these leaders believe they have no need for help and will express no dependence.
Ministry Dominationand Self-Importance: Rather than understanding his ministry is one of many God is using for His glory, the arrogant leader sees his as the top of the heap.
Image Protection: Self-importance naturally leads to protectionism; because the toxic leader sees his organization as the best and brightest, he must keep it that way in everyone’s eyes. It is image at all costs.
Keeping an Image

As can be observed, there is significant operational overlap of abusive leadership traits. We started this discussion with humility. As we have considered various character flaws of these leaders, a lack of humility is a common thread. As we consider image, once again humility plays a major role. Ego and image tend to go hand in hand.

Kate Shellnut, of Christianity Today, reported in 2019 that the Harvest Bible Chapel, then pastored by James MacDonald, had spent years trying a “variety of different strategies to address external criticism” of the ministry leadership. It took years for whistleblowers and investigative journalists—like Julie Roys—to finally bring MacDonald to accountability.

Patricia Evans states, “[The abuser’s] ideal image denies the reality of his motivations, his compulsions, and his actions. For example, an extremely tense, angry, and explosive abuser may describe himself as easygoing and relaxed.”[29] The abusive leader just doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Therefore, he must be continually propping up the image he has of himself being that others do not have the same one of him.

Wade Mullen did extensive research on the development and upkeep of leaders’ self-image. Mullen explains that image management in the broad sense is the “process of creating, influencing, or manipulating an image held by an audience.”[30] Relating this definition to toxic leadership, Mullen writes that recently many well-known evangelical organizations have had to “manage their public image in the wake of an organizational crisis.”[31] The gaining and retaining of a positive public image are found in many stories. Often a leader turns on a loyal follower when that subordinate begins to question their leadership . . . particularly when those questions become public and the leader’s image is called into question.

Often the leader will find his identity—image—in the organization. So, when the organization is questioned, so too the leader believes his image is questioned. Or visa-versa. When a member of the organization is called to account for some failing, the leader will lie or cover up the knowledge they had of the failing. As Mullen asserts,

 

The need to manage an organization’s impression [image] is heightened when the organization faces a crisis that tests its approval, status, or public image. When a crisis happens, organizations and their leaders are faced with two choices when it comes time to give an account to its stakeholders: (1) adopt truth-telling and transparency, regardless of the impact on one’s approval, status, or image; or (2) apply both organizational-level and individual-level impression management tactics that present an impression intended to portray approval, status, or a positive image.[32]

 

The toxic leader in crisis often responds immediately with a coverup. The “crisis” may be an insignificant event in the overall life of the organization, and it may be relatively localized. Maybe there has been a little pushback from a subordinate about the vision of the leader, or a donor has posted criticism on social media. The amount of “impression management” that takes place may be bearable, with a rolling of eyes, by observers. The immediate image control that takes place by a leader may just be chalked up to “marketing strategy.” In addition, “organizations, like individuals, are concerned with the presentation of their image or reputation and, as a result, may wittingly or unwittingly employ scripts, or strategies, to manage their image.”[33] Mullen adds that it is a complex process and not always easily recognized or understood.

A toxic organization, and/or leader, will use this crisis strategy over and over and go to great lengths to protect the impression others have of the organization rather than humbly and seriously consider the validity of pushback or criticism. The frequency and extent of the image management creates a pattern of obfuscation and obstruction.

Money

Often image management is driven not just by ego—a lack of humility—but simple greed. As New York Times columnist, David French says,

 

The temptation of greed is obvious. Ministries can be immensely wealthy institutions, and the greater the reach of the ministry, the greater its wealth. Thus, it creates a dynamic that teaches key leaders that they can do well (high salaries, book deals) by doing good (sharing the Gospel, saving the lost). When scandal strikes, Christians then protect their ability to do well by telling themselves that they’re trying to preserve their ability to do good.[34]

 

It is insidious. Greed is bad enough, but when greed is spun as somehow godly, as French suggests, not only do the leaders justify their own thinking, but their subordinates are shamed for thinking otherwise. It is spiritual abuse heaped on top of greed as Scripture is wrongly used to control and manipulate subordinates. John C. Richards maintains, “There’s a cross-section of the dechurched (sic) community that suffers not from a lack of faith, but a lack of trust.”[35] Often the de-churched have lost faith in “organized religion” because their leader was misusing the church’s finances.

As one missionary sat discussing her experience under a toxic leader with a fellow traveler on that painful journey, she recognized a common thread of behavior in their leaders. Both of their toxic leaders, almost half the world apart, were financially reckless under the guise of building God’s kingdom. The other’s ministry was a multi-million-dollar, well-respected, educational organization, and hers a third world education mission. Though there were differences in their leaders, both were building a kingdom of their own. It was apparent they were spending ministry resources to create their own legacy rather than God’s.

That is a difficult judgment to make. Those who are visionaries are gifted at looking to the future and calling on others to trust in God’s faithfulness to build His kingdom through the finances He has given—even at times trusting the Lord to provide down the road what is not already banked. Are we not called to step into the mighty Jordan River in faith?

But when is it personal kingdom building rather than God’s Kingdom building work? And how can I know a leader is not faithful but toxic in his building program?

It comes down to motive. The leader is either hearing God’s voice or his own as he leads an organization to take steps of faith. If it is his own voice he is hearing (read ego), his motive is self-aggrandizing. He is seeking his own kingdom. He is pursuing his own glory.

How do we determine whether God is directing him, or the toxic appetite of ego is gaining the upper hand? Motives are found in the heart. It is in reading the heart which makes our judgment of leaders a sticky-wicket. Are we truly able to judge another man’s motives—that which flows from his heart? Most would answer, “No.”

However, we are at times called upon to make judgments and sometimes we rely on the outward actions and expressions to get a glimpse inside the man (Lk. 6:43-45). But it is evident in the story of God’s people that the ultimate Judge and Master of all on earth provides wisdom to His people for making judgments.

The good king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, set about making reforms in the land. Judges were appointed for the ordering of the society.

 

He appointed judges in the land in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the Lord. He is with you in giving judgment. Now then, let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God, or partiality or taking bribes.”

2 Chronicles 19:5-7

Jehoshaphat’s instructions are helpful to us even though we are not working for our local court system. Note, the judgments of those appointed were to be based on God’s true judgments. God is the perfect judge, and we are to reflect Him. We are called to consciously mimic the goodness of our Lord’s judgments. And it cannot be influenced by political or financial benefit—God is not partial, nor does He take bribes.

Our judgments need to be open to the truth though it may surprise and shock us. Our initial reaction may be, “John couldn’t possibly think (or do) that!” Pastor John may have led in the expansion of the ministry, but that cannot rule the day. The attention received (image-building) can simply be the result of pursuing our own ends. John may just want to show the world how Christian he is by building, building, building.

Having said that, judging whether someone has acted in evil ways is much easier than judging whether their intentis evil (self-centered). Many good things have been done with evil intent and many evil things done have been intended by their perpetrators as good. Once again, when can we truly judge the motives of a leader who calls on his organization to step out in faith? Especially when he is spending the contributions of supporters on a seemingly good project.

The godliest of men (or women) will struggle with their motives as they set out to build a new program or new ministry structure. No ministry leader can fully claim purity in motive when building something highly visible and that will promote the egos of the organizational leadership. We are broken people, and the temptation is great. We do not easily die to ourselves.

However, there are those who are thoroughly motivated by their egos. Generally, they will give evidence in outward forms to that which dwells within them beyond the purview of their employees or boards. Consider the following actions:

 

The leader shifts the discussion from the merits of the project to a question of loyalty to the leader or organization or question the intelligence or faithfulness of the challenger when questioned.
The leader has frequently sought attention for himself through other projects.
The leader is known for being more concerned about his image than the church or organization’s work.
The leader makes sure his name is front and center in public statements.
When asked about the project, his focus is on his own contributions and not those of others.
It seems image takes precedence over the day to day of ministry work.
The leader is easily angered by pushback regarding the project.
The project does not fit the mission of the organization.

There are leaders who greatly blemish the work of Christ as they create for the purpose of gratifying their own pleasures and egos. They build neat new buildings; they create new ministry programs. How often have we heard from their lips, “If you aren’t moving forward, you are falling back.” God may call an organization to step out in faith, with limited present financial backing, because He is a God who is continually challenging His people to live by faith. But, in the hands of a toxic leader, the financial stewardship of an organization is harnessed not to do ministry well, but to market either his own image or that of the organization—which in turn enhances his own.

One CEO sought to purchase buildings for ministry to the impoverished, while the ministry’s mission was education. All the while, the organization was struggling with decreasing contributions and students. Employees interpreted the reckless vision as a means of drawing attention away from his failed leadership. One CEO continued to build buildings and purchase land while the impoverished students of the educational mission took on more and more debt to pay their tuition. He then marketed a scholarship program that did not provide for the students what was promised to donors. In addition, when giving a tour to a potential donor, teachers were instructed to display stored science lab items prominently despite having never been used by the children.

It was all about image.

If your leader is toxic, he is likely to push his vision until ratified and if rebuffed, be angry or sulk. His distrust of others in the decision-making process will become apparent.

Re-traumatizing Victims

Image management can also cause greater trauma to those who have suffered under the abuse of a leader.

Kimi Harris, writing on the silencing of sexual assault victims, suggests, “When the abuser is a respected person in the community, such as a pastor, the community’s knee-jerk response can be, ‘Is she lying? Please tell me she is lying,’ because the stakes are so high for the community if it were true.”[36]

Unfortunately, this common bias against those who report leadership abuse creates an environment of distrust and shame for those who have already suffered under the violence of toxic leadership. The victim learns quickly to shove her feelings of betrayal down deep, only to see them burst from their confines later through various unhealthy physical, emotional, and spiritual expressions. Trauma can never be hidden for long and as the leader’s image is propped up by those refusing to believe his evil and by the leader himself, the victim knows there is no safety in seeking his accountability or her own healing.

The victim is silenced; silenced from telling the truth.

Protecting Jesus’s Image

Many Christian organizations allege that if abusive leadership—or simply abuse in the pews—is brought to light, Jesus’ name is tarnished. However, it is unbiblical to think Jesus needs our image control rather than bringing sin to light.

Rachael Denhollander, the well-known whistleblower of Dr. Larry Nassar’s horrifying serial sexual assaults on young athletes as the Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics Team doctor, notes,

 

. . . the gospel of Jesus Christ does not need your protection. It defies the gospel of Christ when we do not call out abuse and enable abuse in our own church. Jesus Christ does not need your protection; he needs your obedience. Obedience means that you pursue justice, and you stand up for the oppressed and you stand up for the victimized, and you tell the truth about the evil of sexual assault and the evil of covering it up.[37]

 

The point is that failing to speak truth is never protective of Jesus’ image. Just as an individual or corporation creates an image that they wish to portray to the watching world is disingenuous, so ignoring truth to create an image for Jesus is only a lie. The Apostle John says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14).” Jesus is “full of grace and truth.” To ignore or cover over the truth of sin is contrary to who Jesus is. He came to confront sin.

So often, abusive leaders will hide behind the veil of Jesus’s image. Dr. Diane Langberg writes, “We tell ourselves that measures such as membership growth and financial gain in a ministry are proof of likeness to God. We then make decisions that silence unwelcome truths about fraud or abuse and tell ourselves the cover-up ‘preserves God’s honor.’”[38] Leaders will claim that their witness of Christ to the watching world will be damaged if their abuses are publicized. Rather, as Denhollander notes, Jesus does not need protection and bringing sin to light glorifies the work of His Gospel. The only way for the Gospel to be applied in these cases is for the sin to be made apparent (public), confession be made (publicly), and there be a turning to the Good News that Jesus saves from sin.

The Pharisaic Culture

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart,

and you will find rest for your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Matthew 11:29-30

 

There is frequently evidence of Pharisaism in survivor’s stories. This insidious theological perspective will be described below, but Emily’s story will first provide a picture of the destruction it causes in the church.

Emily’s Story

Emily attended a Christian singles conference where she met Chip. He was a big man and a member of one of her denominational churches in another city. They began “dating” over email.

She and Chip ended up getting engaged, but she discovered him to be very controlling. He hurt her repeatedly both physically and sexually even before they were engaged. Emily had suffered multiple sexual molestations by neighbors when in her teens and actually had no desire to marry Chip, but she explained to me, “I felt like I was used goods and nobody else would ever want me after [being molested].”

Emily said, “[Chip] had molested both of his sisters as children and hoped that I could produce several daughters during our marriage.” She added, “I did try to report this to the [church leadership] but was rebuked and told to stop slandering my [fiancé] in order to balm my own conscience.”

Following one of his rapes she was taken to the Emergency Room where Chip remained by her bedside every minute. One of the nurses wrote in Emily’s record that she was very concerned about the “psychological circumstances of family at the bedside” along with several other comments about who was with her in the hospital room. It can only be assumed that Chip was keeping a close watch on what she would report to the doctors and the nurse had suspicions as to the cause of her injuries.

Emily was frightened and confused.

She reached out to an old boyfriend named Jeff who lived in another city. He offered to put her up in an apartment he had access to while she healed. Emily stayed up all night, packed up what she could in garbage bags, and left her family’s home without them knowing. She told me,

 

I left a 4-page letter on the kitchen table for my parents and Chip. [During] the entire trip to [Jeff’s city] Chip blew up my phone constantly. In the past if I didn’t answer messages and calls immediately, he would hound me and others until I responded.

 

Emily’s experience of rape and abuse at the hands of Chip are horrific, but what comes next has maybe left more lasting scars on Emily spiritually and emotionally than even Chip’s abuse. The evening and well into the night after she left her home, Emily’s father and other church leaders were texting and messaging her. They were “begging me to come home for the good of my soul and blasting me for the sins they thought I had committed, including living with a man I wasn’t married to. Never mind that we had separate apartments.” In time, her father quit contacting her, but her pastor’s messages continued unabated. Emily was being “shunned” by her family and “hounded” by her pastor.

“I asked many times to be allowed to show evidence of the sexual abuse and physical abuse—both in the form of deep bruises and scars (that were still visible months later) and electronic proof I had gathered and kept.” However, Emily explained,

 

Pastor Johnson said anything I submitted [to the church] would be useless and automatically dismissed/denied because of the way I had left made me an ‘unreliable witness.’ I was not even allowed to submit proof since it was simply an attempt for me to excuse my sexual immorality.

 

Emily was compared by church leaders to “Jezebel,” the horribly wicked Old Testament queen. She was told she had “played the harlot.” She was told she could be “Rahab” (a prostitute)[39] if she sought redemption. They called her a “whore.” “I was told that as a condition of repentance I would need to send Chip an apology letter specifically citing the sexual sins in full; explicit detail that I had led him into and for breaking my ‘vows of betrothal to him.’”

Emily sent a letter that she described as full of the “juicy details.” But Emily also begged to show the church leaders her evidence of abuse. Her letter wasn’t good enough. She was planning to marry Jeff, who was a Catholic, and to the church leadership that showed she was unrepentant. It was believed that he could not be both a Christian and Catholic. She was then required to tell Jeff she did not believe he was a Christian and he was going to hell.

Finally, Emily was excommunicated by the church. She said,

 

After the excommunication it was as if I no longer existed. Pastor Johnson had told me I was also being excommunicated because Jeff was Catholic and he told me that they, as elders, had the authority to open and shut the gates of heaven. And that they were shut to me.

 

Amazingly, Emily continued to seek the blessing of her former church. She reached out to them a year later and they told her she needed to show at least eight to twelve months of repentance for her membership to be reinstated. Emily said she lived in “absolute terror of making an error.”

As evidence of repentance, Emily was told to remove pictures of her wedding from Facebook that included her new husband with the feet of Jesus in the background. Emily said, “I was required to stand in front of the congregation while my sins were read aloud in graphic specifics.” However, her parents were unwilling to see her, so Emily was not present when they read her “confession” to the church. She “started to wear a head covering and only wore long skirts to further exhibit humility and submission since Pastor Johnson said that humility was a sign of repentance.”

 

Toxic leadership often involves Pharisaism. Emily’s church leaders expected Emily to keep quiet about the abuse of her fiancé while it was unlikely they would have put up with such horrific treatment of themselves if they were the target.

They required her to go through various acts of submission with little apparent love or empathy for her. They had created a host of rules that were extra-biblical but considered by them to be God’s law. Emily explained that what she experienced in her church could be easily compared to a cult. And yet, her church belongs to a well-respected, Bible-believing denomination whose leaders in the denomination would be appalled at being called Pharisees.

Despite the horror of her sexual, physical, spiritual, and emotional abuse perpetrated by Chip, Emily said this abuse was not as traumatizing as the abuse she received from the leadership in the church. It is hard to imagine, but this is not an uncommon experience among those who have reported abuse in the church and been crushed by Pharisees.

What is Pharisaism?

It may be helpful to look at how Jesus handled leadership by the prevalent religious leaders of his time: the Pharisees. These leaders professed “high standards.” However, these standards went beyond biblical standards and crushed God’s people. We see these same traits in many contemporary churches that likewise need to be challenged as Jesus challenged the Pharisees 2000 years ago. Samuel Rima narrates the story of his youth as an example:

 

My religious upbringing provided fertile soil for the growth of my dark side. The Pentecostal church I grew up in was one in which a subtle legalism ruled the lives of its people. Because one’s relationship with God was based to a great extent on behavior, you were never quite sure where you stood spiritually after a week of being soiled by the sinful world. This lack of spiritual assurance led to repeated rededications each Sunday evening. It seemed that keeping God happy was a difficult and nearly impossible job—but it had to be done.[40]

 

The Pharisees, probably the most important Jewish leaders of the time, were a “sect” that was formed approximately two centuries before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The “Pharisees were a populist pressure group, not an official body with any official power.”[41] However, the informal power they held was felt throughout the Jewish nation.

The sect’s goal was to challenge “the Jerusalem establishment that [was] departing from the law.” The Pharisees saw themselves as the “true Israel.”[42] They had high standards for sanctification and were “distinguished from the rest of Judaism by specific rules.”[43] In essence, the Pharisees sought to develop a complete picture of God’s ethical will for His people. They worked hard to apply the law of God for as many ethical situations as they could.

The problem was, in that process, “fences” were erected around the law as laws unto themselves. These were traditions passed down orally in the religious life of Israel that became codified. Those fences (oral traditions) came to be considered God’s own fences. Note this analysis by Kittel:

 

What is contested is not the applying of the law to life but the placing of Pharisaic rulings as a fence around the law and the resultant according to oral tradition of equal validity with the law and consequent immunity from criticism. The ideal of Pharisaism is a detailed ordering of life which will protect believers against mortal sin and produce fellowship with God through every change and chance of life.[44]

 

If these fences are of equal validity, then others cannot criticize them without incurring God’s wrath for dishonoring His Word to His people. This can create an authoritarian church culture that is abusive spiritually.

This is a picture of many churches in our world today; churches that have set up fences around the law as absolutely binding on their members. These churches do not have to be cults. Often, these fences are an attempt to fight against a “slippery slope” to liberalism, sin, or some other cliff where the church feels they must build a fence to save others from falling.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “slippery slope” as “an idea or course of action which will lead to something unacceptable, wrong, or disastrous.”[45] The Pharisee says, “Don’t do that because it will lead to this sin.” But this protectionism ends up becoming more than loving concern for the wayward. It often becomes “God’s law” unto itself.

As an example, it may be believed that it is wrong (sinful) to miss a prayer meeting because we are called to “pray without ceasing” and a church member is failing to take the specific opportunity arranged by the church leaders. Therefore, shame is attached to the “encouragement” and pressure is placed on the Christian to stay within the leader’s fence—attendance of a particular prayer meeting. A passage is quoted from Scripture, usually providing a general principal or out of context command— “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17) — meant to shame and control the hearer.

Though a fence can meet a need, the fence is not God’s law for His people and cannot be treated as such without doing damage to His Word.

Spiritual Abuse of the Pharisees

Michael Kruger provides a helpful definition of spiritual abuse:

 

Spiritual abuse . . . is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him, as a means of accomplishing what he takes to be biblical and/or spiritual goals.[46]

 

Kruger notes in his book Bully Pulpit that there are concerns about how we define spiritual abuse because the definition can be used against legitimate teaching about sin within the church. As an example, when a pastor preaches that adultery is sin, it is not spiritual abuse. We need to be careful, but spiritual abuse is still a reality.[47]

Dr. Langberg provides another helpful definition of spiritual abuse: “When we use God’s sacred Word in a way that harms another, commanding them to do wrong, manipulating them, deceiving them, or humiliating them, we have spiritually abused them.”[48] There is a distinct difference between a pastor preaching clearly and passionately about a particular sin, giving evidence in Scripture, and a pastor either doing so to control and manipulate his congregants or taking a verse and twisting it to make his argument, shaming those who disagree. Pharisees were spiritually abusive.

Note that this form of abuse is perpetrated by one who has some form of spiritual authority. It may be formalauthority like an ordained pastor or elder or CEO. However, even those who have significant influence spiritually over another person may abuse the informal spiritual authority they have.

Carina explained she wanted to “grow up to be like Susan.” Her friend, Susan had been a Christian much longer and was Carina’s spiritual mentor and she hung on every word her mentor said; she had informal spiritual authority. But Susan ended up using that authority, though not formalized by the church in any way, to control and manipulate Carina. She shamed her and she isolated her from others to keep her under her control.

Anytime Scripture is used to control or manipulate members to do what the leader—formal or informal—deems to be correct there may be spiritual abuse. We see spiritual abuse in action when Jesus faces Satan in the wilderness. Matthew describes in his gospel that after forty days of fasting, Jesus was tempted by Satan:

 

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

Matt. 4:5-6

Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus—Psalms 91:11 and 12. The Scriptures can be used to distract from the LORD—rather than lead to Him—and to control people just as Satan intended to do. Jesus certainly has authority over Satan and so this “temptation in the wilderness” does not fit some definitions of spiritual abuse—such as Kruger’s. However, the use of Scripture to control and manipulate rather than for its intended purpose can be understood more broadly as spiritual abuse.

Jesus was able to provide an example to His people, through His correct use of the words of Scripture, how we are to reject the spiritual manipulation of wicked people. Jesus correctly used Scripture to extinguish the arrows of Satan’s spiritual abuse.

In chapters nine and ten of the Gospel of John, Jesus was in Jerusalem, and he saw a man blind since birth. Jesus healed the man and quite a ruckus broke out. Jesus’s disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him (John 9:2-3).”

There are two responses from the public. His neighbors, who were clearly impressed by the miracle, wanted to see Jesus. They asked the man who it was that healed him. However, the Pharisees had no interest in praising God, but only controlling their “sheep.” So, they said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” A man is miraculously healed and yet the Pharisees, living by their own law with which they had replaced God’s law, suggested Jesus sinfully healed the man. They seek to crush the man, his parents, and any other dissenters to their authority.

Aaron Hann of Thesis 96 helpfully considers John 9 and 10 as he discusses spiritual abuse.[49] Commenting on the passage, Hann explains how the formerly blind man would have heard Jesus’ veiled words in criticism of the Pharisees in John 10:

 

When we remember that the healed blind man of John 9 is still present for the message of John 10, it is striking to consider how Jesus named this man’s experience. Here is how he might have heard Jesus’ words:

 

I thought the leaders of my synagogue, who knew me since I was born, were my shepherds, but now thanks to Messiah Jesus I see they are thieves, robbers, strangers, and hired hands (v. 1, 5, 8, 10, 12).
I thought I was receiving protection and provision, but now I see they were controlled by selfish motives (v. 10).
I thought the synagogue leaders owned me, but Jesus said I belong to God, and these are mere hired hands who do not own me (v. 12).
Because I thought the leaders owned me, I thought they could demand my obedience, but Jesus said I am right to listen to his voice, not theirs (v. 12, 3-5).
I thought they cared for me, but Jesus put words to what I suspected yet didn’t want to believe, that they really care nothing for me (v. 13).
When they threw me out, I thought I was isolated and completely alone, but Jesus found me and helped me see that I truly belong to him and his flock (v. 16-17)[50]

The control the Pharisees had over the Jewish population was extraordinary. They had the power, and used that power, to excommunicate, cutting the man and his family off from their community (synagogue) and communicating that the man and his family were condemned by God. It is one thing to teach about sin and encourage sanctification; it is quite another to shame and manipulate using laws that are not from the Word of God or suggest, even by implication, that someone’s eternal salvation is based on their doing of the law (Rom. 8:1-4).

In a case brought to a church denomination’s highest “court” in 2015, a leader in good standing within the denomination was charged with “delinquency in the management of his household by the regular absence of his wife and daughter from the public means of grace in the corporate worship of the visible church.” In his regional denomination’s thinking, the pastor, as the male head of home, was responsible to ensure his wife and daughter attended worship, apparently at all costs. His wife was disabled and had multiple physical reasons for not attending worship.

Using strong-arm tactics, his regional court charged him with this delinquency and removed him from teaching in the denomination while his case was being appealed to the denomination’s “high court.” Fortunately, the high court determined their ruling was Pharisaical and overturned their decision.[51]

In a toxic church or organizational environment, standards are usually focused on outward signs of righteous living; matters of the heart are rarely discussed. Those outward signs may be manmade and more easily achieved than the true righteousness that Jesus taught in His “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt. 5). In December of 2021 the Christian radio broadcaster and “anti-debt crusader” Dave Ramsey was accused of “firing an employee for wearing masks at the office and for wanting to work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.”[52] We need to ask what part of that was found in Scripture being that the organization emphasizes a “biblical” work environment?

Pharisees control and manipulate followers through extra-biblical rules and poor exegesis.

Pharisees are Hypocrites

But to the wicked God says:

“What right have you to recite my statutes

or take my covenant on your lips?

17 For you hate discipline,

and you cast my words behind you.”

Psalms 50:16-17

 

The Pharisees were hypocrites. “Hypocrite” is defined as, “A feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not: behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.”[53]

Jesus, when the Pharisees came to challenge Him, said, “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:7-9).’” The Pharisees, according to Jesus, were feigning to be what they were not:

 

They sounded good. They honored the LORD with their words.
But they did not honor God in their hearts.
They put on an act of worshipping God,
teaching commandments that were not the LORD’s.

“Emphasizing detailed rules means abrogating essential demands. Hence the legal practice of Pharisaism amounts to hypocrisy (Mt. 6:1ff.).”[54] We are often impressed by and consider someone who keeps “additional” rules as being “godlier.” We look up to these people as examples of righteousness because of their spiritual discipline. And yet, they do not actually follow God’s law in their heart or when certain eyes are not on them.

McKnight and Barringer tell the story of Fred Rogers of Mister Roger’s Neighborhood that many of us grew up seeing on television. Rogers grew up being bullied and developed an empathetic response. What was unique about Rogers was that his on-television personality and attitudes of kindness and empathy were his everyday persona; not an act. The authors explained,

 

Many who knew Fred Rogers said he was the same person behind closed doors and in the studio as he was on-screen. There was no duplicity in his character. Tom Junod, a notoriously hard-nosed interviewer from Esquire magazine who often dented and even crushed the reputation of well-known stars, had this to say about Mister Rogers: “What was amazing about Fred was that he was the exact same person he was on TV. There was no show, no act—that was him.”[55]

 

Fred Rogers was not a hypocrite as we see recounted of the Pharisees in Scripture.

It is common for Christian organizations, including churches, to shame and shun employees for their failures and sins while condoning the same behaviors of its leader.[56] The leader is then treated very differently; often defended and supported. The leadership standards are different than those for the followers.

In 1 Samuel 14, King Saul is seeking to overcome the oppression of the Philistines in Israel (1 Sam. 13:1). He had been the king for two years and was showing signs of toxic leadership. His unlawful sacrifice had brought the pronouncement by the prophet Samuel that Saul’s kingdom rule would fail (1 Sam. 13:14). Jonathan, his godly son, went up single-handedly—with his dedicated armor-bearer—against a Philistine garrison and was successful by the LORD’s hand.

Emboldened by the scattering and self-destruction of the Philistines, Saul commanded his army to go to battle. He then placed upon his soldiers the foolish directive that they could not taste food until the evening (1 Sam. 14:24). In the end, Jonathan, not knowing the curse Saul had pronounced, enjoyed some honey while in battle and by Saul’s command should have been executed. The Keil and Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary notes King Saul’s toxic leadership.

 

This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression וגו נקּמתּי, “till I have avenged myself upon mine enemies.” It was a despotic measure which not only failed to accomplish its object (see 1 Samuel 14:30, 1 Samuel 14:31), but brought Saul into the unfortunate position of being unable to carry out the oath (see 1 Samuel 14:45).[57]

 

Saul was putting on “an act of false zeal”; putting on a show of godliness, but simply acting as a dictator (2 Tim. 3:5). A chapter and a battle later in which King Saul was once again foolish and disobedient to the LORD, “it was told Samuel, ‘Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself . . . (1 Sam. 15:12).” The prophet Samuel sums it up:

 

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the LORD?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

1 Samuel 15:22

 

Even as Samuel confronts Saul, giving him opportunity to repent of his toxic heart, the king asks Samuel to help him put on a good show. Saul says, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God (1 Sam. 15:30).”

Hypocrisy.

 

One church leader described the “Dutch Dominee.” It is defined as, “A dominee is a minister, a protestant clergyman. The word comes from the Latin dominus which means ‘mister’ or ‘lord.’”[58]

The church leader suggested that in practice and use it is an unsmiling and serious persona that some pastors take on to express their authority. He said, “The Pastor acts more like a dominant ‘lord’. He is a serious individual who acts as the authority and figurehead of the local church.” There is a sense you are walking on holy ground when you are in the “dominee’s” presence. Some of these leaders are cruel and heartless as they engage their parishioners. There is nothing holy or godly about their behavior.

Rejecting the Fundamentals

Those who extend God’s law beyond His intention often end up rejecting the fundamental demands of the original law. We see this when the Pharisees are taken to task by Jesus for tithing their “mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law (Matt. 23:23b).” Jesus explains, that, though this was admirable, it was not on the top of God’s list of duties such as showing love, mercy, and faithfulness. The latter were fundamental to God’s intention for keeping His law. If at the core their law-keeping wasn’t from love, mercy, and faithfulness, Jesus said they failed in keeping the law. They were known to shame others who would not follow them down the same paths of hypocrisy.

Their hypocrisy is evident in that, though they kept many man-made laws, they were failing to be obedient to the law of God, all the while proclaiming their holiness. They thought highly of themselves, parading on the street corners praying, yet were, underneath it all, in rebellion (Matt. 6:5).

Jesus opposed their oral traditions that had taken on the status of God’s law. He challenged their hypocrisy of acting like they were righteous, then breaking the fundamental laws of God—justice, faithfulness, and mercy.

Pharisees are Separatists

The Pharisees built fences to be separate from the world. They mistook God’s call to remain free from the sins of the neighboring nations as a call to isolation (Lev. 18:24-30). Rather, God told Abraham he, and his children, would be a “blessing to all the nations.”

When the true Israelite—Jesus Christ—arrives on the scene it became apparent that the Jews had failed miserably at both engaging their neighbors and remaining free from sin. The Pharisees had created law after law—likely using slippery slope arguments—to keep separate from the Gentiles.

They considered it necessary to remain isolated from unbelievers because contact would pollute them with sin. Rather than love their neighbors, they were isolating from them. Pitkin says, “Although we have no real data for the B.C. period, it seems that the Pharisees form societies which are oriented to sanctification and distinguished from the rest of Judaism by specific rules.”[59] These toxic leaders of Jesus’s time had created a host of rules to keep themselves pure from those “others.” The Pharisees could not even enter a home of a Gentile (Acts 10:28) because of their own oral laws.

They practiced separation and required it of all their followers. Jesus harshly criticized the Pharisees while at the same time exhibited incredible kindness to the poor and outcasts. Jesus reserves His harshest criticism for the Pharisees.

 

In our own time, legalistic and Pharisaical churches are often separatists. They find it necessary to separate from their cultural surroundings to keep their man-made rules. They see those “others” as a detriment to their sanctification rather than objects of love with whom to share the Good News. Often, sermons in Pharisaical churches contain an inordinate amount of war imagery and fear, rather than loving courage to engage in humble self-awareness. They are “at war” with the culture, rather than engaging it. They overuse the battle imagery in Scripture and rarely balance it with love as Jesus did so often (Matt. 5:43-48).

Usually, Pharisees see themselves as holy and in their own eyes, above the din and hue of the “Gentile” culture, either due to a failure to be aware of their deeply embedded sinfulness or inaccurate comparison with others.

Hallmarks of Pharisaism

Hypocritical: Pharisees expect of others what they will not do themselves.
Seekers of attention: Pharisees practice only what will be noticed by others. Pharisees are fond of positions, titles, and formal recognition.
Focus on external obedience: To the exclusion of internal obedience, Pharisees tend to emphasize external obedience.
Distract from the Way: By their counterproductive lifestyle and doctrine, Pharisees distract from the Gospel and inhibit others from entering the Kingdom.
Act religiously superior: Pharisees take advantage of the weak for personal gain while simultaneously making a show of religious superiority.
Proselytize: Pharisees apply great zeal in coercing others to act and behave just as they do, to the ultimate detriment of the proselyte.
Deceive others: They are deceptive and savvy, often engaging in institutionalized lying.
Lack of self-awareness: Sadly, Pharisees typically cannot identify themselves.[60]

Conclusion

The heart of the toxic leader is one that is self-focused and self-protective. Whether the leader protects his or his organization’s image at all costs (image management), creates a bubble of cultural expectations around the organization (Pharisaism), or refuses to learn from others in humility the results are a toxic cesspool in which employees or volunteers are poisoned.

In the next chapter I will describe bullying and authoritarian leadership. These leaders use their formal or informal power to protect their self-idolatry. Like Hitler in the 1930s, they seek control through any means necessary.

[1] Mitchell Kusy and Elizabeth Holloway, Toxic Workplace!: Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power, Kindle ed. (Jossey-Bass, 2009) loc. 378.

[2] Theo Veldsman, “How Toxic Leaders Destroy People as Well as Organisations,” The Conversation, January 13, 2016, https://theconversation.com/how-toxic-leaders-destroy-people-as-well-as-organisations-51951.

[3] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022), 46.

[4] Ventura County (CA) Grand Jury, “Bullying In the Workplace” (County of Ventura, California, May 24, 2011), http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/ventura_gj_report.pdf.

[5] Darby Strickland, Is It Abuse?: A Biblical Guide to Identifying Domestic Abuse and Helping Victims (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2020) 178.

[6] Darby Strickland, Is It Abuse?: A Biblical Guide to Identifying Domestic Abuse and Helping Victims (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2020) 218.

[7] Ronald M. Enroth, Churches That Abuse (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993) 185.

[8] PCA Study Committee, “Addressing Abuse: A Theological and Practical Guide PCA Paper on Domestic Abuse Sexual Assault,” (Lawrenceville, GA: 2022) 141.

[9] PCA Study Committee, 2460.

[10] Menkes, “Narcissism: The Difference Between High Achievers and Leaders.”

[11] Otto F. Kernberg, Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism, Reissue edition (Northlake, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1995), 17.

[12] Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “Why Bad Guys Win at Work.”

[13] Nathaniel E. Anderson and Kent A. Kiehl, “Psychopathy: Developmental Perspectives and Their Implications for Treatment,” Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 32, no. 1 (January 1, 2014): 103–17, https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-139001.

[14] “Antisocial Personality Disorder,” Mayo Clinic, accessed July 26, 2024, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928.

[15] Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “Why Bad Guys Win at Work.”

[16] Onorato, “An Empirical Study of Unethical Leadership and Workplace Bullying in Industry Segments,” 5.

[17] Sarah Harsey, “DARVO and the Dark Triad,” Center for Institutional Courage, accessed April 20, 2023, https://www.institutionalcourage.org/the-courage-brief-april-2023-article-one.

[18] Interview by Benjamin Vrbicek, “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.

[19] Mark Dalbey, PhD., “Humility: The Heart of the Servant-Leader,” Covenant Magazine, 2021, 57-58.

[20] Shahida Arabi, “20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You,” Thought Catalog, June 30, 2016, accessed September 23, 2016, http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/.

[21] Guy Greenfield and Brooks Faulkner, The Wounded Minister: Healing from and Preventing Personal Attacks (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 51, Kindle.

[22] Desko, PhD., Jay. “Leadership Fraud: How to Know When Someone Is a Fake.” The Center Consulting Group. Accessed December 29, 2020. https://www.centerconsulting.org/blog/leadership-fraud-how-to-know-when-someone-is-a-fake.

[23] Ludeman, Kate, and Eddie Erlandson. Alpha Male Syndrome. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2006, 1.

[24] Desko, PhD., Jay. “Leadership Fraud: How to Know When Someone Is a Fake.” The Center Consulting Group. Accessed December 29, 2020. https://www.centerconsulting.org/blog/leadership-fraud-how-to-know-when-someone-is-a-fake.

[25] Eric Jackson, “The Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives,” Forbes, accessed March 8, 2017, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/02/the-seven-habits-of-spectacularly-unsuccessful-executives/.

[26] Vries, Manfred F. R. Kets de. The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. 1 edition. Wiley, 2009, 48.

[27] Lipton, Mark. Mean Men: The Perversion of America’s Self-Made Man. Voussoir Press, 2017, 94.

[28] Gibbs, Jeffrey A, and Jeffrey Kloha. “‘Following’ Matthew 18: Interpreting Matthew 18:15-20 in Its Context.” Concordia Journal29, no. 1 (January 2003): 6–25.

[29] Patricia Evans, The Verbally Abusive Relationship, Expanded Third Edition: How to Recognize It and How to Respond – Kindle Edition by Patricia Evans. Health, Fitness & Dieting Kindle EBooks @ Amazon.Com., 3rd ed. (Avon, MA: Adams Media), 167.

[30] Wade T. Mullen, “Impression Management Strategies Used by Evangelical Organizations in the Wake of an Image-Threatening Event,” March 2018, 4. SCHOOL AND PHD DISS

[31] Wade T. Mullen, “Impression Management Strategies Used by Evangelical Organizations in the Wake of an Image-Threatening Event,” March 2018, Abstract.

[32]Wade T. Mullen, “Impression Management Strategies Used by Evangelical Organizations in the Wake of an Image-Threatening Event,” March 2018, .

[33] Wade T. Mullen, “Impression Management Strategies Used by Evangelical Organizations in the Wake of an Image-Threatening Event,” March 2018, 6.

[34] “A Most Urgent Task,” The Dispatch (blog), July 18, 2021, https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/a-most-urgent-task/.

[35] John C. Richards and Jr., “Church Hurt as a Barrier to Evangelism,” The Exchange | A Blog by Ed Stetzer, accessed July 27, 2018, https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/september/church-hurt-as-barrier-to-evangelism.html.

 

[36] Kimi Harris, “Time Doesn’t Heal Sexual Assault If Victims Are Silenced: How Churches Can Help Victims Decades after Assault,” Christianity Today Online, October 8, 2018, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/october-web-only/sexual-abuse-trama-victims-silenced-rachael-denhollander.html.

[37] Morgan Lee, “My Larry Nassar Testimony Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than Forgiveness.,” ChristianityToday.com, accessed July 8, 2022, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html.

[38] Diane Langberg, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Pr, 2020), 62.

[39] Joshua 2:1.

[40] Gary L. McIntosh and Samuel D. Rima, Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: How to Become an Effective Leader by Confronting Potential Failures (Baker Books, 2007) 343.

[41] N. T. Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part One: Chapters 1-12 (Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) 144.

[42] Ronald Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

[43] Ronald Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

[44] Ronald Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006), emphasis mine.

[45] “Oxford Languages and Google – English | Oxford Languages,” accessed November 12, 2021, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/.

[46] Michael Kruger, “What Is Spiritual Abuse?,” Canon Fodder, February 8, 2021, https://www.michaeljkruger.com/what-is-spiritual-abuse/, emphasis mine.

[47] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022) 22.

[48] Diane Langberg, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Pr, 2020), 127.

[49] Aaron Hann, “Spiritual Abuse Tactics in John’s Gospel,” October 24, 2023, https://onceaweek.substack.com/p/spiritual-abuse-tactics-in-johns.

[50] Aaron Hann, “How the Son Re-Names and Rights Reality,” Substack newsletter, Once A Week (blog), January 6, 2023, https://onceaweek.substack.com/p/how-the-son-re-names-and-rights-reality?publication_id=695257&isFreemail=false.

[51] General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Minutes of 2015, 22.

[52] Maria Cramer, “Dave Ramsey Fired Employee for Taking Covid Precautions, Suit Says,” The New York Times, December 14, 2021, sec. U.S., https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/us/dave-ramsey-lawsuit-covid.html.

[53] “Definition of HYPOCRISY,” April 6, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy.

[54] Ronald Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

[55] Scot McKnight, Laura Barringer, and Tish Harrison Warren, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 123-124.

[56] “Exclusive: Ramsey’s Board Knowingly Kept Adulterous Personality on Staff,” The Roys Report (blog), January 18, 2022, https://julieroys.com/dave-ramsey-board-kept-adulterer-chris-hogan-on-staff/.

[57] “1 Samuel 14 Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary,” accessed May 23, 2024, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/1_samuel/14.htm.

[58] Yvette Hoitink, “Dutch Term – Dominee,” Text, Dutch Genealogy, August 17, 2020, World, https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/dominee/.

[59] Ronald Pitkin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (W. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

[60] Kurt Skelly, “10 Marks of a Pharisee | Ministry127,” Ministry 127, April 25, 2014, https://ministry127.com/christian-living/10-marks-of-a-pharisee.

PART 8:
Head Down, Up, or Out of Town

As Kayla and Zachary pressed on, their financial, spiritual, and emotional health were profoundly damaged. While seeking the accountability of their church leaders, it felt like kicking a dead horse. Except, this dead horse kicked back. Kayla and her husband Zachary’s story is particularly disturbing.

Kayla explained that she blew the whistle on Kevin, an elder who had sexually assaulted a member of the congregation. The elder was an important man in the church. He had significant amount of wealth and the leadership of the church clearly was predisposed to trust him.

Kayla had worked under Pastor Brandon for many years. In a meeting with Pastor Brandon, the pastor did not believe the victim’s report of sexual abuse. He told Kayla that Amber—the target of the elder’s attack—had changed her story each time she told it. Kayla, who was knowledgeable of the effects of trauma, explained that memories change and come slowly for those who have been traumatized. She explained that victims remember and forget different parts of the story as time progresses based on their brain’s response to the trauma.

She described Pastor Brandon’s reaction,

 

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 the husband for six hours, but I said, “I work with her for 20 hours a week!”

 

Pastor 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.” When Kayla asked Brandon when he would be done talking about it, 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 get on the bus or get run over.”

Kayla’s husband, Zachary (a trained Christian counselor), was there for this heated exchange. He was shocked by the outburst and when Brandon left, he asked Kayla if the pastor normally talked to her that way. He said Pastor Brandon was “yelling at her” and described it as a “narcissistic kind of rage.” Zachary told me, “He was obsessed with never being corrected.”

Kayla responded, “That is the only way we talk.”

As Kayla sought to bring accountability to Kevin before the other elders, she faced one roadblock after another. The elders didn’t believe Amber’s story. They believed that since Amber had been drinking alcohol when she was sexually assaulted, it was her fault. Because of their friendship with Kevin the other elders were unwilling to believe he would do such a thing. Pastor Brandon was manipulated by Kevin, telling the others that when he met with Kevin, “He sobbed like a baby.” Brandon said he had never seen a man so broken. The elders in the end asked Kevin to leave the church but did not explain to the congregation what was happening and never took steps to care for Amber.

Kayla, burned out and depressed, finally asked for a leave of absence for a couple months. Pastor Brandon encouraged her to resign instead. At no point did she suggest that she was resigning. The elders approved Kayla’s leave, but then later Pastor Brandon announced to the church staff that she was going to resign.

The elders asked her to sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.” They would provide a severance package if she would sign it. It would effectively silence her. She would be legally bound to keep her mouth shut about the failures of the church leadership—particularly Pastor Brandon’s abusive leadership. However, Kayla and Zachary would not be “bought off,” as they described it. Despite Kayla’s job with the church being their primary source of income, she and Zachary 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 and, at the end of Kayla’s leave, fired her.

 

Kayla’s experience is common. As victims of leadership abuse engage their CEOs, directors, pastors, or board members, seeking to lovingly call attention to their sinful leadership or leadership failures, the victims are often shamed, discounted, demeaned, lied to, demoted, or even fired.

Employees of Christian organizations desire to see God’s kingdom expand through the work to which they have been called. They envisage working with other Christians bringing great joy and like purpose and mission. Some have come from the secular marketplace where that was not the case and they long for like-mindedness in both coworkers and management.

However, they begin waking up in the morning, dreading the day that lies ahead because of one person. They try to make peace with their boss. They try to overlook sin as it is entangling their life and creating conflict in other relationships. They begin to show the physical evidence of extreme stress like migraine headaches and insomnia. They have knots in their stomach when they see their manager walking towards them.

How should they respond? Should they keep their head up? Or down? Or should they head out of town?

3 Biblical Ways to Respond to Toxic Bosses

For the Christian, we know God has given us what we need to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever. However, we sometimes feel trapped by our understanding of His direction.

We may think when we are serving in a Christian ministry that there is a one-way road map when dealing with a self-serving and destructive ministry leader. But there is more than one response to toxic bosses found in scripture. The Bible gives at least three ways by example and instruction for dealing with abusive supervisors:

 

Head Up,
Head Down,
Or Head Out of Town

We will begin by summing up these three categories of response and then provide more specific guidance on the practice of each.

Head Up

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar, but the king did not respond as King David did to Nathan’s confrontation. The king proclaimed the trio must be burned to death. The trio told the king:

 

O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.

Daniel 3:16-18

 

The King’s response? “Then [King] Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated (Dan. 3:19).” But the three men trusted in the Lord and kept their heads up. Even though Nebuchadnezzar was intending to fry them to a crisp, the three refused to bow to the king and God saved them.

The LORD does not always save those who stand up against oppression, but he did in their case. In an article for Vanguard Voices, Jessica Bensch says,

 

The act of telling the truth about an incident that should not have happened takes bravery. Particularly in environments where the silence of others has been observed and where misuse of power takes place with people visibly turning a blind eye. The notion of stepping outside of that can be terrifying.[1]

 

Standing up to toxic leadership is almost always terrifying. But sometimes God calls his children to hold their head up when facing abusive authorities—and it sometimes results in being cut off. “The Bible’s language for ‘going public’ is prophetic action. And it’s all over the Bible.”[2] And we know what often happened to the prophets (Matt. 5:12).

When attempts are made to clean up a toxic environment in a ministry and the response is apathy, justification, disregard, or more abuse, an employee should consider asking himself these questions to determine his future with the organization:

 

Is the leadership making it (seemingly) impossible to use my God-given gifts?
Is the toxic leadership behavior creating significant stress to me and others causing physical, emotional, or spiritual harm?
Is my family being affected by my responses to the abusive leadership?
Is the leader’s witness to Christ hurtful and destructive?

God gives permission to keep your head up and face possible consequences while confronting the toxic leader.

Head Down

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool,
for he will despise the good sense of your words.
Proverbs 23:9

 

Some may believe they can continue in the ministry or organization having valuable work for the Kingdom of God. They may believe they can continue without being traumatized, harming their family, or bringing shame to Christ’s name as complicit in the leader’s failures. Their choice may be to press on by putting their head down and doing their job.

We saw in Peter’s first epistle instructions to the slave responding to the abuse of an “unjust” master. “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust (1 Pet. 2:18).”

When interpreting this passage, we must firstly remember that, as noted in Part Five, Peter was speaking specifically to slaves, not your average 21st Century employee. Though there is much to be learned in the passage throughout the ages and in voluntary work situations, these slaves, whether forced into servitude or by choice signed their lives away because of financial need, were not at liberty to leave their place of employment. Peter says, “Keep your head down so it will not be any worse for you.”

In our modern society and work settings, Peter is speaking to those who are convinced nothing good can come of responding to—or confronting—the boss. The employee is convinced that any response will only make matters worse, bring greater emotional trauma, and possibly the loss of his job. The employee or volunteer believes his calling is to stay in place and continue serving the toxic leader.

Peter goes on to say that it is better to be treated badly when doing the right thing than doing wrong. He is saying a response to the abusive tactics of the leader will get you nowhere, so keep your head down and do your work for God’s glory. We at times feel justified in striking back in anger and using one-line clever quips to put the leader down. However, even our engagement with evil people should be glorifying to God and a witness to the abuser and others.

Paul says to the young pastor, Timothy,

 

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:1-4

 

Paul challenges the 1st Century believers to keep their head down, being “peaceful and quiet” as a witness to them. This is not an absolute. Our response to toxic leaders is informed by a variety of passages in Scripture and so cannot be made into a legalistic requirement in every case. However, the head down approach certainly has biblical backing.

In the 1 Peter passage, the Apostle based his instruction on the example of Christ when he went before the authorities who unjustly abused Him and He did not strike back . . . though he could have done away with all of them with one word as the Son of God. But Jesus did not attack.

God gives permission to keep your head down and endure under toxic leadership when you see no other good options in the circumstances.

Head Out of Town

Finally, there is one last way to respond to nasty bosses: Head out of town. Chris Davis, writing for Christianity Today regarding the failure of Southern Baptist Convention leadership in the face of the many reports of abuse in 2023 explains,

 

One woman who has experienced incredible institutional harm has intentionally used the word “escaped” rather than “left.” In an organization where trust has been betrayed, this language is far from excessive. Each person must ask God for wisdom to know when their participation tilts from being a voice for change from the inside to being complicit in enabling a corrupt institution. And we must respect each other’s obedience to God to stay or go.[3]

 

Staying and keeping your head down may become complicity. Jesus, in Luke 4, chose to disappear into the crowd rather than be thrown over a cliff. His time had not come for Calvary and so He walked away from the abuse. There would come a time when he would keep His head up—responding to the Chief Priest especially—and keep His head down—responding to Pontius Pilot—but in Luke 4 He got out of town.

Trauma increases with greater and greater exposure to abuse. Distrust in organizations, boards, leaders, and all things Christian builds over time. Many victims of leadership abuse testify to these results of their experience of staying in a toxic organization. Consider carefully if it may be time to head out of town.

 

In many toxic ministries leaders keep the doors to the inner sanctum tightly shut to “outsiders.” There is no real “team” though there may be much talk about being “part of the team” from those in leadership.

Adam called the international Christian organization he served a “family business.” He had joined the multi-campus educational ministry in Africa and, after a four-year break to attend seminary, moved his family back to Africa for more punishment. Referring to the family structure of the mission, Adam said, “Even though there were titles, because it was a family ministry, there was a multitude of voices, so you never knew where you stood.” It wasn’t only one leader but a whole family of leaders who fed off one another’s toxic leadership tactics.

Adam went on, “[I had] very little sense that I was part of something whose passion was building God’s kingdom. It was very much building” the family’s kingdom. He discovered “if you weren’t in the family, you were out of business.” Adam explained, the “family called the shots and it didn’t matter the thoughts, opinions, the ideas of anybody outside . . . Real decisions were made around the family table.” There was no way for those outside the family to have any say in the ministry.

Adam was unable to “keep his head down,” finally resigning after the toxic ministry environment became too much for him to overlook and excuse. The trauma heaped upon his family, the poor witness to Christ, and the difficulty he was finding to use his God-given gifts to serve others finally became too great to stay.

God gives permission to head out of town when there is too much trauma in staying or confronting the toxic leader.

Moving Between Head Down, Head Up, or Head Out of Town

One victim of toxic leadership explained his experience using all three when working with a mission agency for eight years.

It is common to go from head up, to head down, and finally to head out of town as each door is shut. Jackson challenged the CEO on one occasion—head up—and the CEO shifted the blame and let Jackson know it was not appropriate for him to challenge the CEO’s views.

Jackson refused to get sucked into a discussion about his conflicts with the CEO’s leadership—he kept his head down. The CEO had shown himself to be lacking in humility and would use what was said in meetings with missionaries to hurt them later. He refused to communicate on email about problems so he could easily deny any charges made against him.

Jackson finally left the organization—head out of town—knowing there was nothing left to be done about the leadership. Like Ben, Jackson’s family was suffering from stress-related physical ailments, and it was becoming more and more evident their gifts were being squandered by the ministry.

 

Rest in knowing that the Lord leads His people and gives wisdom as we ask (James 1:5). Though we can seek justice—head up—there are other options that are just as biblical and should be considered according to the circumstances, the Lord’s leading, and your conscience.

Keep your head up, down, or head out of town.

Hanging In There

Maybe you have chosen to hang in there. Remaining under the authority of a toxic boss means keeping your head up or down. As we consider steps to ministry progress, employee safety, and the witness to God’s kingdom, we will bring together the psychology of abuse and the biblical exegesis we did earlier.

There are many reasons why a beleaguered employee chooses to hang in there when suffering emotionally, spiritually, and sometimes physically.

 

Love of job . . . when not being oppressed.
Love of location and people.
Joy in the use of gifting.

No better prospects.
Financial need and debt.

There may be other reasons to decide to remain active in a ministry that has abusive leadership. However, this decision should not be made without significant soul-searching. The following are considerations for each reason listed above.

Love of Job

There is real pleasure from “working together with people who believe the same thing you believe,” Susie noted.[4]Working with others with a common goal can provide significant fulfillment.

Susie, working in a large suburban church, took great pleasure in using her gifts to serve people in the church. It was evident that she was supported and encouraged by most in the congregation where “you are seeing people’s lives grow and be fulfilled in a way that has never been fulfilled before,” as Susie explained.

Susie said, “I was a little bit nervous about going to the church setting because my background is in management and typically churches don’t manage themselves very well.” However, her administrative work in organizing the various teams for worship resulted in the development of leaders—where there were none when she arrived—and helpful procedures for all the teams. She said before she resigned, “I wrote all these procedures and taught everything. Everything was set up so they wouldn’t need me at all.”

Susie experienced many opportunities to use her giftedness for building God’s kingdom in her assistant role in the church. She was able, on a day-to-day basis, to minister to the needs of her little flocks over which she was given authority. She suffered under her toxic pastor for some time, refusing to leave, until his abuse became too much for her.

That love of job makes it very hard to leave.

Love of Location and People

Many stories involve the pull of location or the people. Either the people with whom the employee works or the people they serve have provided encouragement and challenge that keeps the victim engaged in the ministry.

One missionary explained how his family became captivated by the community culture of both the country in which they served and the mission organization. It took a significant amount of trauma for them to make the decision to leave the organization.

A country, city, or people hold the heart in such a way that leaving the organization, church, or business becomes difficult. Some have dreamed of working in a particular location because of natural beauty or location of family or friends. When they have finally arrived, departure seems nearly inconceivable. They will often do anything, even suffering through toxic leadership, to stay.

Joy in the Use of Gifting

One missionary said when he returned to the United States after serving in an African country, he felt unappreciated by his American congregation. He did not sense the amount of gratitude from his American congregants as he did from the Africans he served.

Though these feelings may be wrong and even inaccurate, they have a strong pull and can provide strong purpose for our lives. Leaving a ministry to serve somewhere else seems to many like a step down or backwards. One missionary was forced to leave the mission field due to violence. He shared with the churches that had supported his and his wife’s mission work that they were grieving the loss of ministry. He said his identity had been in part wrapped up in his work as a missionary.

Because the church sometimes places undue importance on missions or church work, one’s own self-importance can begin to rule decision-making. It may be necessary to step out of ministry because of finances or because of the trauma created by toxic ministerial experience. But your gifting may seem particularly suited to work within the church and stepping away feels like running from the Lord.

Loyalty

We like to attach ourselves to stars. Our proximity to “important” people—possibly our toxic ministry leader or company CEO or a well-known ministry or organization—make it difficult to give up. This is especially true when others praise our leader or organization and nearly gush over how important they are. We gain self-importance in the overflow of these praises.

In addition, the ministry and/or toxic leader may have had a vital impact on your life. It may have been his preaching, the initial welcome and hospitality, or personal discipleship. You may have been brought out of a low place in your life when you joined the ministry or organization, and you see the ministry or leader as responsible.

Steve Timmis, popular preacher and CEO of the Acts 29 Network, was fired for being spiritually abusive.[5]Christianity Today reported,

 

Even some people with stories of spiritual abuse under Timmis still see the good he has done through his ministry career. Goodwin, who wrote the long letter when he left The Crowded House, said Timmis is “still probably the best preacher I have ever been taught by.” That makes it even harder for victims to grapple with their experience—they see a clearly gifted minister whose abrasive personality has instead damaged people’s relationship with the church.

No Better Prospects

When you pull the plug, where will you go? There are some reading this book who see little future in leaving. They have few job prospects on the horizon. Even those who are gifted may have little vision for better, or even equal, work opportunity somewhere else. We are used to moving forward and up . . . never down and out. At times it seems there is nothing but the latter.

When Jackson and his wife began considering the need to leave their ministry he could not conceive of a better place to be. He had left work in the United States that had been good and satisfying, but nothing like what he had experienced overseas. Even after Jackson’s family left the country and arrived in America, he was not getting anywhere with his employment applications. “It seemed that there was nothing I would be able to do.”

Sometimes resigning comes with a real price to pay. There may be temporary setbacks in the trajectory of your vocation. It may be necessary financially to seek employment that is less satisfying, less interesting, and less ego gratifying. The new job may not use your gifts as well as the old ministry did.

Recently, a couple who were suffering under toxic church leadership shared this same sense. The husband explained, “We have no place to go. If we leave the church, we leave our community and my job. And we believe so strongly in the goal of the church.” However, his wife was being crushed under the leadership and their children’s faith was being impacted by a hypocritical pastor.

Financial Need and Debt

One missionary explained he was doing work he loved but was likely going to have to leave the mission field. He did not have work he felt he could do in the United States, but he had significant debt that had built up over the years.

Moving from a foreign country or even across your own country can be exceedingly expensive. Setting up a new home, paying various deposits, and purchasing new furniture can be overwhelming if you have not saved well over the years—and most have not.

These are legitimate concerns that may play heavily in a victim’s decision-making process. If leaving means a cut in salary and huge moving expenses, and there is a mountain of debt to be paid off, a decision to leave may seem unwise and insurmountable.

Not a Quitter

As noted earlier, Ben shared after leaving a toxic leader,

 

We had hot and cold responses from different churches in terms of understanding and encouragement and follow-up. Some churches very coldly listened to what we had to say, “Well thank you for your service, God bless you as you go.”

 

The fear of being seen as a quitter or simply holding a personal standard of toughness may keep some from leaving. “We came to finish a job, and we are not going to be quitters.” Despite the fault for the “failure” being squarely on the shoulders of toxic leaders it can feel shameful to “give up.”

 

Each of these reasons can weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of those who are determining whether to stay or leave an organization, church, or business because of the leadership. If you choose to stay, there are important considerations.

Head Down

The Johnsons suffered under toxic leaders in a foreign country for nearly 20 years because they foresaw no good way to stay in the country doing ministry—retaining their financial support—without their connection to their current ministry. Having adopted children there, they were caught between a rock and a hard place; between immigration policy and their abusive leaders.

As is noted by any number of abuse counselors, healing from trauma—great or small—caused by abuse does not happen until the abuse is gone. At very best, the physical effects of trauma in the brain—and rest of the body—will remain, and at the very worst will continue to grow with continued abuse. This means that if you choose to stay you should have very good reasons for allowing yourself to be further pummeled by abuse.

If “hanging in there” is the decision you have made due to any one of the reasons above or some other reasons, how are you going to make it work? How can a Christian employee, under the duress of an antagonistic ministry environment, find the means to effectively use his or her God-given gifts? How can she experience shalom and healing from the trauma created by the toxic leader?

One of the answers may be found in how we manage ourselves psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. Subordinates to toxic leaders will likely not see changes in their abusive boss so how the employee responds to the toxic leadership will largely determine their ability to work, using their God-given gifts, and limit the trauma.

It is imperative that you understand that what follows may be helpful and create some safety as you move ahead in ministry under wicked leaders. However, at no time should you feel, because you are not “self-differentiated” enough or respond calmly to the lies, manipulation, or anger of your boss, that you are somehow responsible for his evil behavior, nor should you feel shame or as if you are a failure.

Hopefully, the information contained in the pages of this book has made it very clear that abusers are abusers because of their own sin. No one makes them that way, including their employees. They are culpable for their own misconduct.

Self-Differentiation

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Galatians 1:10 (ESV)

 

Seeking other people’s approval for our choices, words, actions, ad infinitum can be debilitating. “Self-Differentiation,” though an uncommon term among Christians, is a psychological concept that can be exceedingly helpful when under or free from toxic leadership. It is necessary for the one who wishes to stay in the fray of toxic environments, and it is a help on the road to healing once you are free from these environments.

Though there has been significant study in toxic leadership in the secular business environment, Astrauskaite, Kern, and Notelaers found little research on the “antecedents” of bullying. In their research they sought to understand whybullying takes place—outside of the bully himself. They found, “High inferiority and lack of belonging combined with higher sensitivity and the propensity to view the environment as hostile put people in the position of being targets” of bullying in the workplace.[6]

It is difficult to write on this topic. Astrauskaite’s findings can be read as shaming or laying blame on the targetsof abuse. That is not the authors’ intent. Abusers are abusive by choice; not because of the target of their abuse. The authors are simply saying that abusers target people with certain personalities of which can be more easily taken advantage. They will abuse, but there are some people who make particularly good targets.

Considering Astrauskaite et al.’s helpful article and other research, how can the subordinate of a toxic supervisor respond in ways that discourage bullying and provide at least some emotional, physical, and spiritual shalom?

Defining Self-Differentiation

What is “self-differentiation?” It may be most helpful to simply give a biblical model before we dive into the definition:

 

But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. 13 So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves 14 and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves. 15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.

Exodus 1:12-17 (ESV)

 

The midwives chose to follow the Lord rather than Pharaoh as the opening passage from Galatians describes.[7]They rejected the evil of the king of Egypt, risking life and limb, to follow God. This is Christian self-differentiation.

Edwin Friedman, an ordained rabbi, family therapist, and leadership consultant wrote a seminal work on “family systems theory” in the 1980s. His most popular work, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix was published by family and friends posthumously in 1997.[8] This work has had a significant impact on understanding the psychology of organizational and familial relationships. The Christian authors, Jim Herrington, Robert Creech, and Trisha Taylor have made good use of his research and theories in their book, The Leader’s Journey. Coming from a biblical worldview, these authors have utilized many of Friedman’s higher ideals.

Herrington, et. al. say that fundamentally self-differentiation is developed by “managing yourself” rather than others.[9] “Differentiation is the ability to remain connected in relationship to significant people in our lives and yet not have our reactions and behavior determined by them.”[10] Deciphering this definition, Herrington argues that being self-differentiated means loving people but not being controlled by them.

Neil Damgaard, author of “Wounded Faith,” encourages targets of abusive people to practice a form of self-differentiation when a telemarketer calls. He says,

 

. . . next time a telemarketer calls, say simply, “I’m not interested.” When he comes back with something such as “Do you want to spend money that you don’t have to?” say once again, “I’m not interested.” Continue saying, “I’m not interested,” and within a few sentences, the telemarketer will hang up (if not, you can hang up). You don’t have to be rude, belligerent, or aggressive. Merely calmly state and restate your position—namely, that you’re not interested, without feeling obligated to justify your choice.[11]

 

You may laugh, but many have an incredibly difficult time stopping one of these telemarketer conversations from turning into an unwanted sale.

Some Examples of Self-Differentiation

In addition to the midwives in Egypt, another helpful example from the biblical narrative is the interplay between King Balak and Balaam found in Numbers. As God instructed Israel to migrate through the various Canaanite lands, they came to Moab. Balak, the king of Moab, was fearful of Israel, for good reason. Each time the Lord instructed Israel to war against a people they were victorious, sometimes visibly miraculously.

King Balak sent for Balaam, a known prophet in his land. Balak thought he could hire Balaam to curse the people of Israel. But Balaam would not be bought. In the end, he says,

 

“Rise, Balak, and hear;

give ear to me, O son of Zippor:

19 God is not man, that he should lie,

or a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Has he said, and will he not do it?

Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

20 Behold, I received a command to bless:

he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.”

Numbers 23:18-20 (ESV)

 

Balaam explained that he could only do what the Lord told him to do. Despite the power of the king over death and life in the case of his subject, Balaam, the prophet held firm. His allegiance was to the Lord.

In another example, King David, prior to taking the throne of Israel, ran for his life from King Saul. Saul’s jealousy drew out the beast in himself and he was murderous and unpredictable. When David came upon Ahimelech, he sought help from the priest. Ahimelech gave him—and his men—food and the giant Goliath’s sword that was stored there. When Saul found out about Ahimelech’s aid to David, he told his men to kill both Ahimelech and eighty-five other priests. “But the servants of the king would not put out their hand to strike the priests of the LORD (1 Sam. 22:17).” This is the practice of godly self-differentiation. They stood up to the king. They refused to follow a wicked command and risked their lives doing so.

The best and only perfect example of self-differentiation is Jesus Christ. The God-man was deeply involved relationally, caring for the emotional, spiritual, and physical needs of the masses of people He met. Yet, he refused to be controlled by their fickleness. This is evidenced by a simple statement made by the Apostle John,

 

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

John 2:23-25

 

Jesus did not “entrust himself to them.” He did not place His confidence in their allegiance to him because their unreliability was evident repeatedly. Less than three years later some of his own disciples turned away from following him when things became difficult. But Jesus did not stop serving these same unpredictable men and women while knowing they would desert him. Jesus continued to teach, confront, and encourage them through the ups and downs of their ministry. And though we see Jesus’ deep emotional anguish in the garden the night before he was crucified, he is exceedingly patient with his weak and misguided followers.[12]

The Apostle John says, “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end (Jn. 13:1).” To the end; despite a toxic leader sitting at table with him (Jn. 13:2); despite all men would do to Him; despite their turning and being swept away by their fear of the crowds. Jesus loved them to the end—and continues to do so.

Focus on Your Own Integrity

Friedman notes a self-differentiated approach moves away from “one that focuses on techniques that motivate others to one that focuses on the [practitioner’s] own presence and being.”[13] He says the self-differentiated must “focus first on their own integrity and on the nature of their own presence rather than through techniques for manipulating or motivating others.”[14]

In practice, his method takes the pressure off the employee of a toxic leader to change the leader’s behavior or attitude, something we learn time and time again does not work. Self-differentiation focuses on the employee’s own responses and sets him or her, in a sense, free and above the fray. As an example, Christian counselor Leslie Vernick has helpfully guided many women in abusive relationships to focus on their own spiritual growth rather than seeking a change in their abusers’ behaviors.[15] In addition, Drs. Bill Eddy and Henry Cloud have written extensively on how to set boundaries in abusive relationships both at home and in the workplace.[16]

Heifetz and Linsky, authors of Leadership On the Line, write, “First, know yourself, tell yourself the truth about what you need, and then appropriately honor those human needs.”[17] The trauma created by toxic leaders can have long-lasting effects and, as noted earlier, abusive individuals will often twist their targets’ attempts to make peace for their own evil ends. Their victims need an inordinate amount of self-focus to create a “trauma-free bubble.”

As has been explained, the emotional, physical, and spiritual effects of abuse are extensive and should be avoided as much as possible. Sutton argues that taking the focus off forces the employee cannot control is an important part of keeping his “mental and physical health intact.”[18] Dianne Crampton agrees, suggesting self-differentiation begins with taking “care of your own needs before addressing the needs of others.”[19] This may sound selfish, but it is biblical to seek rest and solace, and to meet your own physical needs as exemplified by Jesus on multiple occasions (Mk. 6:46, Lk. 9:10-17).

In these shells of human existence, we have needs. We are not “above” a worldly existence. We are broken and in need of frequent repair. When you are being battered by an abusive boss, it is nearly impossible to attend to other’s needs before seeking places of safety for yourself. Self-differentiation can be helpful in moving away from changing others in exchange for caring for yourself.

Charting One’s Own Way

Several writers explain that a differentiated self does not seek to impress others. Herrington, Creech, and Taylor contend self-differentiation is “choosing to be who we are with each other rather than living out of an image or a persona.”[20]Friedman proposes “charting one’s own way by means of one’s own internal guidance system, rather than perpetually eyeing the ‘scope’ to see where others are at.”[21] He says to be self-differentiated, an individual must be “clear about one’s own personal values and goals.”[22]

Whereas many toxic leaders are more concerned about their image as visualized by others, those who write about self-differentiation suggest we “chart our own way.” When it comes to living under toxic leadership this means not becoming wrapped up in the leader’s view of you. Practically speaking, we must please our bosses to keep our jobs. However, if the expectations are exorbitant and their controlling and bullying behavior is tearing down who you are in Christ, you must do all you can to focus on who you are and what your own values and goals are.

Edward Welch, author of When People Are Big and God is Small, states that the fear of other people overwhelms the “fear of the Lord.”[23] He explains that we spend too much time concerned about what other people think of what we say.[24] Those who are under the crushing negativity of a toxic boss need to not care what he thinks.

One missionary couple said often to one another about their toxic leader, “To hell with what he says.” They meant this literally because their toxic leader’s lying and manipulative words were “from the pit of hell” in their minds. This little mantra provided a reminder to them that they were to follow the Lord and not listen to the falsehoods of their leader.

 

Clearly, focusing on your own values and goals is easier said than done. It can result in everything from being shamed to losing a job or being blacklisted. Yet, self-differentiation is a worthy goal. People-pleasing is good for marketing and image-building, but horrible in the long-term care of one’s emotional health or for keeping leaders (and others) accountable for their bad behavior. We must remember, Jesus’ love for us is complete. We are fully justified by His atoning death and need no justifying by other people, especially a wicked leader.

Though we can never fully be who Jesus is, He provides the best example of responding to these kinds of leaders. Jesus pressed forward, fulfilling his goals, refusing to be derailed by the anxiety of his subjects or religious leaders. The attentive reader of Scripture gets the sense that Jesus is above the fray of those who pressed Him from every side to change His purpose and goals as the religious leaders often did. His mission was clear, and the angst of others did not disrupt Jesus’ life trajectory.

Lipman-Blumen describes a study by a Yale University researcher who was “exploring obedience to toxic leaders.”[25] It was found that volunteers were intimidated into obeying an authoritative individual when commanded to give electric shocks to other volunteers because the “authority” was wearing scientific garb and speaking authoritatively.[26]

Where Jesus was not swayed by those seeking to influence him wrongly, people, in their weakness, find self-differentiation nearly impossible. Heifetz and Linsky say, “Intuitively, people play it safe rather than put at risk the love, esteem, and approval of people or institutions they care about.”[27] In other words, many of us are “people-pleasers” even when our integrity or well-being are at risk. But, Welch writes, rather than care “more about the praise of man,” Christians should seek the “praise of God.”[28] This, he explains, brings “liberation from the snares of the fear of man.”[29] There is an incredible freedom in turning from pleasing man to pleasing the Lord. Chains fall from our hearts as we release our need to change other’s opinions of us.

In the context of workplace abuse, embracing our freedom in Christ can melt away fear and anxiety when suffering under the abusive treatment of a toxic leader. Desiring for God to be praised is goal-oriented and makes us willing to look beyond the immediate pleasures of people-pleasing and ego-gratification.

Self-Differentiation vs. Empathy

Does self-differentiation exclude empathic connection to others? Recently, there has been an upswing in blogs and articles criticizing empathy among Christians. Empathy is said to lead us away from truth-telling as we become “soft” to the emotions others are feeling.

Friedman, himself, argued empathy has no place in self-differentiation. He maintained, “The original intent of the word empathy was to convey how projecting oneself into a work of art (painting, sculpture, theater) would enable a viewer to appreciate better the creation being observed.”[30] He wrote it was an extension of “concepts such as sympathy or compassion, which mean only ‘to feel or to suffer with.’”[31] He went on to explain he had never seen empathy help the other “be more self-aware,” “mature,” or “more responsible for their being.”[32] Friedman was decidedly anti-empathetic.

However, just as Herrington, et. al observe, “Jesus cared for the crowds.”[33] Jesus was emotionally connected to the crowds in his concern for them, “but he governed his relationship to their needs on the basis of principle, not their demands.”[34] He did not give in to their demands when those demands conflicted with God’s will. He was a truth-teller while understanding the needs of those with whom He interacted. This understanding is fundamental to empathy. It is as Hebrews tells us:

 

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:14-15 (ESV)

 

The Greek for sympathize (συμπαθέω) means “to be affected with the same feeling as another.”[35] Empathy, according to Merriam-Webster is

 

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.[36]

 

The two words have very similar definitions and we see sympathy used throughout Scripture. However, Jesus did not empathize in such a way as to become lost in man’s despair.[37] So, Herrington explains a biblical self-differentiation is not so much lacking empathy as being able to “choose a response rather than simply” react to the demands of other anxious individuals.[38]

Dan Allender contends empathy is a necessary ingredient in functioning relationships. He says, “Evil is present when there is a profound absence of empathy, shame and goodness.”[39] The lack of empathy is indicative of the sociopathic disorder. There is something seriously wrong with those who have little or no empathy. Non-empathetic individuals have an inordinate number of broken relationships. They do not connect with others as Jesus connected.

Feeling What They Feel

As empathy is knowing intimately the suffering of others—feeling what they feel—it often requires our own suffering to take this step in helping others. Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthian church, wrote,

 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. 6 Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. 7 And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also you will partake of the consolation.

2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (NKJV)

 

Have you experienced this? You pronounced judgments on the suffering of a friend—or enemy—and then you suffered a similar trial. Suddenly, you were transformed into an empathetic listener. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians says it is in part the “goal” of our suffering; to be empathic to others who need “consolation.”

Empathy is recognizing our common trial and sharing in the other person’s story with the purpose of comforting and consoling. The Apostle said as much to the Roman church when he encouraged them, “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 (Rom. 12:15-16).” We are called to enter into the lives of others; to share their emotional baggage.

It is in that context Paul instructs the Romans to be humble. The word, “haughty” (ὑψηλός) in Greek is really the opposite of humble. Those who are haughty will have a difficult time living in the moment with someone whom they see as “lowly.” The non-empathic could be described as haughty in this case. They see the emotional one as lower than themselves. You can hear them saying, “He is just emotional. He just isn’t being rational.” Which of course is intended as an insult.

Therefore, any call to “self-differentiate” must not demand heartlessness. In our self-differentiating we must enter the suffering of others as Jesus did while not allowing ourselves to be carried away by it. Not an easy task. It is much easier to simply say, “Get over it.”

Head Up: Confronting the Bully

Winston Churchill alleged the Second World War came about because those who were good failed to stand up against evil.[40] The failure to stand up against toxic leadership can be a form of complicity. Refusing to stand alongside those who are suffering the oppressive behavior of toxic bosses is at times the same thing as proclaiming those behaviors are acceptable.

However, there are reasons to remain silent and reasons to stand. And those reasons—the good ones—are largely dependent on the leader and on the bystander or victim.

Some volunteers or employees may believe the Lord is calling them to keep their head up and confront their toxic leader. Before an employee takes the step of confrontation, he needs to consider the risks associated with such a strategy. It is important to count the cost and go in with eyes wide open.

Toxic leaders are each different, though you may see your boss in many of the descriptions in this book. His own willingness to hear criticism of his leadership will depend on many factors. When considering whether to confront him, it is wise to consider his responses to others or when you have challenged him before.

There are two primary responses to confrontation you can expect from toxic leaders: Your boss may be the do-nothing sort or the volcano.

The Do-Nothing Boss

Sometimes confrontation or criticism results in little or no immediate response from a toxic leader. Sometimes confrontation presents little risk but might bring little reward as well.

Deirdre worked for a Christian school in an impoverished country. She began visiting there on short-term mission trips when her husband passed away and she had retired from church work. She described herself as “non-confrontational,” but she noted that many others in the mission work had confronted the mission founder and director. “They were wanting [the mission director] to do things; wanting her to make an appearance for visiting groups; needing her to be at school to handle different situations . . . and she was never there.”

In Deirdre’s experience, she watched as others confronted the founder of her mission agency. In her words, normally they “couldn’t get [the founder] to do anything.” Some toxic leaders may create great pandemonium but when confronted, they ignore or only give the cold shoulder. Little is lost in the confrontation. On the other hand, little is gained by it as little action is taken.

Though Deirdre said she confronted her, the director “would dig her heals in and do something different just because it wasn’t her idea.” Dierdre recounted an experience when a former student of the director’s was seeking to return as a teacher in the school. He reached out to Deirdre to help him communicate with the founder because he had been having difficulties getting responses from the founder. Deirdre explained, “I have no say whatsoever.” The young man “just gave up” and Deirdre added she hoped “he has a good position someplace else. He did not come.”

Though the director was controlling, demeaning, lied, and treated “employees like slaves,” she would not respond to criticism of her failings. Dierdra said, “Going back maybe twenty-five years,” she was “sure [the director] did many great and wonderful things. But something changed along the way.” Dierdra kept her head down, spending most of her time focused on teaching and acting as a guardian for a young orphan.

The Director was ineffective and unresponsive, and, in the end, the board finally asked her to leave. Dierdre was one of few subordinates to toxic leaders who outlasted her boss. Generally, the do-nothing boss is the most tolerable. It is more likely subordinates of these bosses can stick it out in the organization or church.

The Volcano and Manipulator

The volcano is the boss who is the most destructive to those who stay. He blows his stack, manipulates, bullies, or demeans those who confront him while often blame-shifting. Most Christian leaders use manipulation rather than outward anger. These leaders don’t always yell, but their words and actions sting.

Isaac and his family moved to Africa to serve a medical mission. He was effective and well regarded by both coworkers and employees alike. His management of the clinic was both efficient and sensitive to the radically different cultural context. However, the mission leadership verged on cultish, suggesting Isaac and his wife “were irresponsible for being pregnant” soon after they arrived on the mission field. After this discussion regarding their reproductive choices, Isaac realized his days with the mission were numbered. They became interested in a village mission work nearby and moved there while finishing out their commitment to the medical mission.

Isaac said he had several meetings with the CEO of the medical mission and the meetings went through a “cycle . . . of flattery and guilt and threatening . . . He would flatter us—tell us how great we were—then talk about our obligation. Then he would talk about our supporters—what would they think—then [finish] with threats.” It was a constant flow of manipulation and shaming.

Even when Isaac resigned, he remained loyal to the mission, continuing to work part-time for several months to help with the mission’s transition. However, the CEO sent a letter to the immigration authorities at the airport asking them to refuse Isaac and his family’s re-entry to the country on their return from a short trip to the United States. Isaac explained they missed a connecting flight and flew into the country through another city, thereby circumventing the immigration at the local airport unintentionally.

Some bosses simply do not “hear the cries” of their subordinates and, whether out of disinterest in maturation as a leader—or manipulation—do nothing or sidestep the confrontation by lying or blame-shifting. However, if the leader is abusive, sparks may fly. In these cases, the toxicity of the leader’s behavior erupts like a volcano when they are confronted or in any way questioned. Demotions, firings, and disciplinary measures are not unusual. It is disheartening when suggestions and ideas are ignored but when leadership failure involves mistreatment and bullying it can be especially traumatic for an employee.

Adam, while acting as interim director of a mission, recounted an experience when his wife had purchased plane tickets for their trip home for furlough. The CEO’s wife “demanded that she change the flight,” having scheduled a school event she wanted Adam’s wife to attend. She responded, “I’m sorry, I can’t.” Adam said, “That was the moment [the mission leader] realized we weren’t always going to say yes.” The CEO and his wife’s treatment of Adam and his family changed after that. Adam observed that future conflict “had to travel through my wife.” He explained, “She took the brunt of all these incidences, and I believe that they knew we were peace loving people . . . but I really believed they used that against us, because they knew. . . like a bully they can get away with it.”

Daniel knew Pastor Jim as the leader of his college ministry. After being fired by the college ministry, Jim planted a church in a bustling Northeast metropolis. When Daniel completed seminary, Jim asked him to join his church 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 the work went satisfactorily. 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 ten days after arriving. Daniel was getting all kinds of experience.

But things fell apart quite suddenly. It all began when Daniel disagreed with Jim on a theological issue that could have been discussed by two mature Christians. Jim, however, seemed to see his control of his young charge slipping away. He took whatever steps he could to regain that domination. 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.” Jim took extraordinary steps to keep Daniel under his control, using the elders to do his bullying at times.

Note that, in each of these stories, voices may not have been raised. However, those who suffered under these volcanic leaders were deeply hurt by the leader.

 

As we consider standing against bullies and the dangers involved, we need to have some underlying principles of why we would risk it. Some experts argue, subordinates who practice self-differentiation may influence their toxic supervisors and the health of their coworkers. In other words, if we battle our fears and stand up, there can be great dividends. Chapman, White, and Myra provide several examples of self-differentiating behavior when under the supervision of a toxic boss. They suggest victims of the terrorism of toxic bosses seek to

 

gain “perspective” by seeking “objective counsel,”
resist “embittered resentments” that start to create toxicity in the victim,
face fears rather than burying them,
establish clear boundaries that may include confrontation of the boss,
and seek to protect others from the poison.[41]

Note that the authors move from self-care—getting counsel and putting away bitterness—to confronting the boss and protecting coworkers. These are important ideals, worthy of attaining. A popular blogger who addresses spiritual abuse writes, “If we observe damaging patterns in a person, ministry, or church . . . and we let them continue unchallenged, we are complicit—accomplices—to the damage these perpetrators inflict.”[42] O’Donnell says there are times that people “must stand firm and say to dysfunction what Gandalf said to the monstrous balrog in the Mines of Moria: ‘You cannot pass!’”[43] For example, the “Futurist Guy” explains, “From earliest times of Mark Driscoll’s ministry, there were people who took up their responsibility to challenge him on his personal issues and sins, and hold him accountable.”[44] They were largely unsuccessful, and were often crushed by Driscoll, but they did battle with complicity.

“Toxicity, like truffles, grows best in the dark,” says Lipman-Blumen.[45] But it takes great courage to confront a bully. It is dangerous in that these bully bosses are likely to go to great lengths to save their image and control. Many subordinates are not ready for the blowback. They are not self-differentiated enough to withstand the results of their confrontations. The counterattacks by the abusive leader can be damaging to reputation, livelihood, spiritual and emotional wellbeing, and important relationships. Those relationships may be with others who are complicit with the leader.

But it is courage to which self-differentiation leads. Cohn and Moran say, “Courage can be understood as a profound level of human balance and centeredness.”[46] It is a strong commitment to a cause.[47] When we have a passion and we reject our tendency to seek the approval of others, we may have the strength to confront, rejecting the complicity of remaining silent.

We may think that remaining silent when facing toxic behavior is the safest course of action for the embattled employee. In the bigger picture, silence is not good for the organization. Lipman-Blumen writes that toxic leaders must be exposed by those suffering their abuse for health to return to organizations. She explains, if followers are unwilling to confront their bosses, “The leader becomes emboldened to continue on a misguided path.”[48]

When the bystander or victim determines they need to take a stand, where should their conviction to do something lead? There are several responses to abusive supervisors such as confronting him, seeking justice from those in higher authority, or leaving the organization. Each of these require self-differentiation and reject complicity.

Take Care

If choosing to confront a toxic boss, care must be taken. As noted earlier, Kelly O’Donnell contends, in much of the literature, assumptions are made “that people are playing fair and that there is not significant dysfunction in one of the individuals or organizations involved.”[49] In a toxic work environment there is “significant dysfunction” in how the leader relates to those around him.

A doctrine from the 16th Century is that of the total depravity of humankind. The meaning of this doctrine is that man is born in the sin of Adam (fallen nature) and every aspect of his person is stained by sin. Kruger notes that “while every human being is not as sinful as they could possibly be, every human being—even pastors—has the potential to commit acts of serious wickedness.”[50]

This is an important point: We should not be surprised by the level of wickedness found in leaders of any organization. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that fallen man can be deeply wicked (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10-18). “Their throats are an open grave (Rom. 3:13).” We should not be surprised by the evil perpetrated by powerful and powerfully broken people. The expression of that evil is at a variety of levels, but the fact that there is such evil should not shock us.

How deep the wickedness runs in the individual boss will largely determine how they are approached. Whereas in normal conflict, confrontation should be done with gentleness as instructed in Matthew 7:1-5 and 2 Timothy 2:25, in the experience of Lundy Bancroft, niceness does not help an abuser.[51] He says, “You cannot, I am sorry to say, get an abuser to work on himself by pleading soothingly, gently leading, getting friends to persuade him, or using any other nonconfrontational method.”[52] This is the testimony of Christian interventionists as well. If an abusive individual has a sense of his destructiveness on those around him, he may respond well and take the difficult steps necessary to change his behavior and attitudes, according to Bancroft.[53]

Having said this, it is more likely that confronting a boss will be met with reprisal. Whereas confrontation of an abusive person of equal authority may involve little danger—or have little impact—an abusive leader in the home, workplace, or church will often bring harm to the confronter.

Safety in Confrontation

What if you believe it is imperative to confront an abusive leader? Many subordinates are convinced that they are called by the Lord to confront their toxic leader. They do not want to be complicit in his evil or they have hopes that their words can finally break through the callousness of their leader’s heart. When a leader is truly toxic there is little possibility that a confrontation will be easy. In the moment there may be a positive response from the leader, but if they are truly abusive, there will likely be no lasting change.

When Susie was placed in the uncomfortable position of telling churches in Africa that all commitments made to them were off because of her toxic pastor’s decision, she recognized that the onus of the failure was on the senior pastor. Her self-differentiation was evident in her confrontation of her senior pastor during two meetings with him. Susie told Pastor Pete that she expected the Lord to “get his attention” at some point if he didn’t change his behavior. Susie also encouraged those who were struggling with Pastor Pete’s decisions to go to him directly as a brother in accordance with Matthew 18.

Witnesses

If a target determines to confront, Lipman-Blumen recommends that there be “multiple witnesses to the encounter” as this can “keep the toxic leader in check and possibly force him to change his behavior.”[54] On Lipman-Blumen’s view, change only happens when a leader sees that for his own wellbeing—maybe his job is on the line or he will lose control—he needs to make changes.

Tomlinson, et. al, say it is helpful to form alliances with others. Eliciting the help of others who know the situation and will stand with you may give you both the self-differentiation you need and the upper hand in the confrontation. The authors say it can “enhance your confidence and lessen the chances of reprisal” from the supervisor.[55] Lipman-Blumen agrees, saying the leader may be unwilling to hear criticism when a “sole critic steps forward” because “no one else supports the dissenter.”[56] With others on hand, it is harder for the toxic leader to claim it is only your problem.

However, those who are part of the confrontation must also be self-differentiated that they remain firm in the face of the danger. McFarlin, and Sweeney, authors of the article, “The Corporate Reflecting Pool,” suggest employees “display strength instead of weakness when facing narcissistic tantrums.”[57] Tomlinson says, “Bullies lose their power if you don’t cower.”[58] Not an easy task, but those who confront an abusive leader should be prepared to stand strong when facing off with his manipulation and charm. There can be no wavering in the purpose of the confronting team.

BIFF

Bill Eddy and Megan Hunter founded the “High Conflict Institute” and have written helpful guidelines to direct the besieged employee of a “high-conflict” person. Just as “high-conflict” suggests, these people are continually in conflict with others.

Eddy says, “High-conflict people are blamers. They blame anyone, anywhere. They blame people they know well; they blame complete strangers. They might even blame you!”[59] They may have personality disorders or be abusive—or both. They are difficult people who practice patterns of abusive behavior towards other people. They are unable or unwilling to see their own behavioral dysfunction. But they are very good at seeing others’.

Eddy points out four characteristics of this broad category:

 

Preoccupation with blaming others
All-or-nothing thinking
Unmanaged emotions
Extreme behaviors[60]

Based on these categories, his suggestion for engaging with these challenging people is to follow his BIFF acronym:

 

Brief
Informative
Friendly
Firm

Eddy notes that this is not easy to do. It is more common for those caught in the vortex of a high-conflict person to do just the opposite of these four things. Often, our first response is to defend our views with a great many words, blow up, and blame back. Eddy suggests it is often more helpful to write to the person as responding on the spot can be difficult. High-conflict people can be very intimidating, and if you do not do well thinking on your feet, putting it in writing may be your best option.

Whether in person or on email, Eddy says to keep your response brief. He instructs keeping it to just a few sentences; a paragraph at most. Make sure there is objective information, not defensive in posture or only your opinion. He says it is helpful to start and end with something friendly like, “Thank you for telling me your opinion on this subject” and ending with, “I hope you have a nice weekend.” Finally, the goal is to disengage therefore, you want the HCP to “know that this is really all you are going to say on the subject.”[61]

Acting as a Mediator

It is common for those who are suffering under toxic leadership to seek the aid of others to mediate. This may be an informal request to a fellow employee or a more formal entreaty to a board member, elder, or other individual with some form of authority.

Those who are called to mediate between a victim and his abuser, need to beware. The normal rules for mediation do not apply. Several years ago, there were mediation attempts at a church in the western United States. The church had a toxic pastor who had created a great deal of destruction, decimating church attendance, and deeply wounding numerous members.

It had been recommended to the elders of the church to hire an organization well-trained in mediating conflict in churches. One member had recently begun attending, knew little about abusive dynamics in conflict management, and was asked to be interviewed about his own experiences. The mediation organization had been hired to seek reconciliation between the pastor’s entourage and another group in the church. The goal was for the mediators to get a better idea of what had happened to create the conflict.

After a variety of interviews with members of the congregation and the leadership team, they encouraged both parties to confess their own sins publicly to the congregation. In normal relational conflict the “he sinned, and I sinned” approach can be a tremendously helpful method in reconciliation as stated above. Many can attest to changed hearts as each side of a conflict shares humbly their own sins, breaking down walls of antagonism.

In this church’s case, those who were wronged by the pastor’s sinful behavior and attitudes humbly sought to recognize their own sin and confess it. However, the pastor and his collaborators, while confessing some inconsequential failings, held tenaciously to their righteousness. In this case, where there was a toxic leader involved, it only emboldened him. Fortunately, within a few months he was encouraged to resign by a denominational governing body but not until the church had shrunk to half its size.

There could be no mediating his wickedness.

Kruger explains in Bully Pulpit that the church, when mediating toxic leadership, fails to understand the dynamics of abuse. Elder boards or other leaders think

 

(1) this is an isolated incident (what dead bodies?); (2) this pastor seems like an honest, good person whom we know and love (there are no monsters); (3) everyone’s an awful sinner and blame must exist on all sides (everyone’s a monster); and (4) accountability isn’t needed because conflicts can be solved if the two parties just meet together (just meet with the monster).[62]

 

However, the abusive leader’s sins are not like his victims, and he is the fundamental reason for the conflict.

Neutrality

O’Donnell warns against the usual mediatorial approach presented in many texts, saying, mediators “usually default toward wanting to stay neutral.”[63] It is the modus operandi for counselors to remain neutral when mediating conflict.[64]

However, O’Donnell argues that this perspective is inadequate when working with toxic individuals. O’Donnell suggests, “Surely we must not make a mountain out of a molehill; yet we should not make a molehill out of a mountain.”[65] Abusive leaders are mountains and many die on it when seeking reconciliation by mediation. Many mediators give the benefit of the doubt to the abusive individual—or group of individuals—thinking the abuser “couldn’t be all that bad” and “everyone has a part to play in the conflict.” But abusive leaders are that bad and there is one individual—or group—fundamentally responsible for the conflict.

Where there is abuse, a neutral perspective will fail to see the one-sidedness of the conflict. Scripture never suggests a neutral stance when opposing wickedness. Biblically we always take the side of the truth-teller, victim, or oppressed. Solomon bemoans the sorrow caused by supporting the oppressor rather than the oppressed.

 

Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them.

Ecclesiastes 4:1

 

In addition, mediators must be cognizant of the power differential found in leadership abuse—even when one person has informal authority. The Cedarville University website provides helpful guidance in identifying power differential. Cedarville speaks to campus relationships, but the basic categories can easily be applied to leadership abuse.[66]

 

Status/Popularity: “Majority will support one side/story.” As applied to leadership abuse, the individual who has greater status in the eyes of the majority has inherent power over the victim. The leader’s charm and practiced negotiating strategies may confuse a mediator and blind the mediator to the abuse.
Social Support: If someone has a lack of supportive people, they may be more reliant on that relationship for connection. As applied to leadership, being connected to the leader can outweigh other connections and keep a victim quiet or cause him to recant when there is pushback.
Knowledge/Experience: One person may feel unable to voice their own opinion because the [leader] is “the smart one.” This discrediting oneself and automatic compliance to the other can place someone in a vulnerable position in mediation. A mediator may be more comfortable accepting the confession of the victim rather than pressing the leader for truthfulness.
Financially: The victim’s job may be at risk if they report the abuse. The mediator may also have been hired by the church or corporation. Christianity Today reported on Judy Dabler, a renowned conciliator, explaining, “”Former clients and colleagues say Dabler protected and perpetuated power imbalances through mediation, all while appealing to Scripture and her authority as an experienced conciliator who had seen behind the curtain of the worst dysfunction in contemporary Christian ministry.” CT reporter, Daniel Silliman, wrote that she sided consistently with the leader who was paying her bill.[67]
Passive vs. assertive personalities: Healthy assertive communication allows us to respectfully share what we’re feeling and then respectfully and quietly hear how the other person is feeling. Where there is leadership abuse, often the leader is especially assertive and shuts down all discussion as it may challenge his or her authority. In the context of mediation, the one in power immediately has more to lose and often great skills in dodging accountability. The advantage is clearly the leader’s.

This list gives attention to both formal and informal authority. In either case, the difference in perceived or real power creates dynamics in the mediatorial process that cannot be ignored. A neutral stance by the mediator will not accomplish the desired justice. Just as Bancroft and others recommend, the abuser must not be allowed any wiggle-room in the confrontation.

Playing the Odds

Being an agent of real change in the life of a toxic leader is an unhelpful expectation. Herrington argues that using the term “confront” is evidence that the focus is on changing the other person rather than on “differentiating self.”[68]

If you expect to bring change, it is both an unhealthy and an unreasonable expectation. Unhealthy because your spiritual and emotional wellbeing cannot be tied to fixing your boss. Unreasonable because it is exceedingly unlikely that the boss will truly change after your confrontation.

Some Christian employees or volunteers may believe they need to have “faith” that the Lord will use their confrontation to change the boss. This faith may drive the victim or bystander to bring accountability—a worthy goal. However, according to Chrnalogar, “The longer you try to reason with [the toxic leader], the greater will be your chance of suffering an emotional beating.”[69] She suggests it is important to recognize when there will be no further progress towards reconciliation.

A Workplace Bullying Institute survey would support Chrnalogar’s contention. In a 2012 survey, only 3.5% of those who confronted their bullies at work experienced a change in bullying.[70] In another WBI survey, 61% of the victims lost their job, while only 15% of the perpetrators lost theirs.[71]

The odds are clearly against those who seek to confront their bully. But the odds should not dampen employees’ convictions—they need to follow their conscience (Rom. 14:5-9). Yet, they should recognize, when they fail, that there will be more harm done to victims emotionally, spiritually, and physically than improvement made to the leader’s character or organization’s health.

Remaining Silent

Having started this discussion on the evils of being complicit in the leader’s abuse, remaining silent may still be your best option. In many cases, there is no shame in remaining silent.

The leader has likely been confronted over and over by people in his life and if he has remained unrepentant, one more confrontation is not likely to be the straw that breaks his back. Biblically, I have already argued that you are free from the responsibility of personally confronting a toxic boss when it is clear they have refused the grace of confrontation from others (chapter 5).

Dr. Eddy, after sharing his BIFF strategy, goes on to acknowledge that there are times when responding is not in your best interest. He gives five helpful hints to determine when it may be best to remain silent:[72]

 

When no one else is involved in the communication except you and the other person.
When there is clearly no real issue being discussed (their personality is the issue).
When it is simply the other person’s opinion about your behavior, personality, etc.
When it is clear that you will not change the other person’s point of view.
When you have already responded sufficiently on the same subject.

There is much more that Eddy recommends and explains in his book that can be helpful. Just keep in mind, in the case of abusers, mind-changing is rarely achievable. Confrontation will seldom achieve the desired outcome of relational reconciliation or agreement.

Negotiating Strategies in the Workplace

Authors Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie present the “negotiating strategies” for those who have conflicting power and interests in their book Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People.[73] In the case where an employee sees no way forward to bringing repentance in his boss, it is helpful to consider these authors’ ideas for engagement with the toxic leader.

The authors developed a helpful diagram of their approach to relationships in the workplace where there is a power differential:

 

Table 1. Power and Interests

 

“Cell Four” is of interest to this study as it describes conflict between individuals who have “unequal power” and have “conflicting interests.” This translates to a boss and employee who disagree on a particular action or policy. Following a “review of the gospels,” the authors determined Jesus ministered primarily in Cell Four as he engaged the religious and governmental authorities. The authors argue for five types of responses to conflict with those with a greater position of power. The methods include counteract, subvert, defer, suffer, and surrender.[74]

 

Burns, et. al., describe “counteract” as to “take concrete action against” the one with greater power which can include supervisors. This, the authors say, is the norm in confrontation.
“Subverting” is acting to reverse the “values and principles” of the systems in place or actions of the toxic leader.[75] The Hebrew midwives subverted Pharaoh’s edict to kill all the boys born and Moses’ mother hid her newborn son from the government authorities.[76] Jonathan subverted his father, King Saul, when Saul planned to murder David.[77]
The authors describe “deferring” as conforming to the requests of someone else. Joseph deferred to the “will of God,” remaining engaged to Mary who was pregnant with Jesus.[78]
“Suffering” is to willingly tolerate “loss, pain, distress or even death” when responding to conflict. The Apostle Paul explains his suffering at length in his second letter to the Corinthian church.[79]
“Surrender” is to “give up control” or to resist combat.[80] The authors argue Christians should always “surrender their prerogatives to the plans and purposes of God.” They propose followers of Christ should never surrender the truth as found in scripture to obey an earthly leader.[81]

As you can see, each of these methods are used when the leader will not repent. There may be little or no hope on the part of the subordinate that her boss will ever be self-aware enough to confess his sins and seek the forgiveness and reconciliation with those under his authority. The employee is left either keeping her head down, working behind the leader’s back, or standing up to the boss and taking the risk of being ridiculed, demoted, or fired.

Seeking Justice and Accountability

Where direct confrontation or mediation fails, or is unfeasible, some authors suggest seeking justice with those in greater authority. According to Astrauskaite, et. al., “bullying will take place only if supported by the organization and superiors.”[82] When direct confrontation with his bully is not enough or too dangerous, a subordinate may report to upper management and human resources.[83]

However, there may be difficulties in seeking justice through those in higher positions. David French, in the Dispatch, warns that seeking accountability for those who use their authority to prey on the sheep can be particularly challenging.

 

Sometimes abusers seem to truly fool the pastors, leaders, and colleagues who vouch for them. Ravi Zacharias, for example, issued a tepid apology (saying he failed to “exercise wise caution“ and to protect himself from “even the appearance of impropriety”) after grooming and sexting allegations were made against him. In the meantime, he was abusing massage therapists ”in the United States and abroad” and continued committing acts of misconduct until a few months before his death.

Other times the pastors and leaders have all the information they need to take decisive action to sever a person from ministry, yet still they try to maintain his position. Kanakuk Kamp received reports of terrible misconduct by a camp director named Pete Newman, took him through a laughably inadequate internal disciplinary process and enabled a decade of terrifying abuse, with a list of victims that could ultimately number in the hundreds.

In 2021 the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to deal with this challenge by passing a resolution that declared “any person who has committed sexual abuse is permanently disqualified from holding the office of pastor.” The current president of the SBC, Bart Barber, issued a statement saying that he would “permanently ‘defrock’ Johnny Hunt” if he had the power to do so. (He does not. The SBC is a highly decentralized denomination, and the president of the SBC possesses no such authority.) But even if Barber could bar Hunt from ministry in his own denomination, neither Barber nor the SBC can do anything to block him from entering ministry in any number of innumerable other Evangelical churches, ministries, or denominations.[84]

 

Granted there are difficulties in bringing accountability. But the following are ways of “going over the head” of your toxic boss that might be effective.

Human Resource Officers

Human resource departments at times have the authority to bring an end to abuse in the workplace. If HR offices are truly given the authority to bring accountability to members of the leadership who are abusing their authority, are committed to confidentiality, and have policies in place to protect whistleblowers, they are a good place to start.

When reporting to the HR office, it is helpful to have clearly documented abuses and as many fellow workers as possible who can attest to the misdeeds of the leader. Clarity and calmness—despite how you feel walking into what can be a very intimidating process—will more likely result in being heard.

However, HR offices may also be under pressure from “corporate policies and government regulations” and fail to provide help.[85] Lipman-Blumen says when employees seek justice they often “share the lot of Roger Boisjoly, an engineer formerly with the Morton Thiokol Company.”[86] He spoke out against the launch of the Challenger space shuttle because he was concerned that the O-rings would fail. Following the shuttle explosion, and the death of the astronauts onboard, he was fired and “lost his professional standing as an engineer.”[87] Unfortunately, Lipman-Blumen notes, “most . . . are quite unprepared for the hostile reaction from those they believe secretly agree with them.”[88]

360-Degree Referencing

“360-degree referencing” has become a common business practice used for job reviews. The idea is to provide complete confidentiality to subordinates reviewing the leader, thereby providing effective feedback. It is not designed specifically to call out toxic leadership, but it can certainly result in accountability for abusive leaders.

However, when completing 360 reviews, employees “naturally fear that full disclosure might come back and bite them.”[89] Despite the assurance of confidentiality, the fear that their review may be just unique enough to identify the subordinate to their toxic boss may discourage full disclosure.

In addition, toxic leaders have been known to reference the glowing reviews of subordinates claiming the subordinates were free from fears of retaliation, but were not.

Board of Directors

Boards of directors are in theory given oversight of organizations. Laws require non-profit organizations (501-3c) to appoint boards that are responsible for the operation of these organizations. Of the ways of challenging a toxic leader they are the most likely to be effective in bringing accountability.

However, let me begin with the bad news.

Some Stories

Eugene said, “My greatest disappointment in missions is the boards.” He said, “Leaders need good accountability. The boards I’ve had experience with do not provide that.” Unfortunately, this is all too often the case for those suffering under toxic Christian leaders. Recently when speaking with a new hired CEO of a mission organization, he said that his mission was known for having a board in name only. He had been told over the years that the board was only there because it was a 501(3c) and it was legally required.

Rowe said he has “a real major cynicism about Christian boards.” He explained that Habitat had a strong commitment to “covenants” and when the “manure was hitting the fans” the board met and everyone involved was asked to sign a covenant. He explained, “The covenant was that, in effect, everyone would go forward honorably, and believe the best intentions about one another, and there would be no firings, no recriminations over this at all, guaranteed. And we signed a covenant. Six months later, all those people on the covenant are being fired.”

Emily joined the African mission work because it “sounded good. It was the way we should be helping.” The mission hosted an orphanage and had plans to build a school and tech center for women. It was holistic in its service to the poverty-stricken community. Emily had just graduated from college and was ready to begin her life in a foreign land, serving people as Christ would want her to serve. Emily bought her plane ticket with the intention of being a career missionary. She was excited to serve the Lord in this way.

When Emily decided she needed to leave her African mission, she sought to bring some accountability to Janice, the director, by going to the board of the ministry. She said, “I had a list of all the injustices. I laid it out for the board. But they simply responded, ‘Well, [the leader’s] been there so long. We just have to trust what she’s doing.’” Emily sadly said she was in a long line of those seeking accountability for the mission leader; there were at least four others who had gone to the board before her.

Why Is It?

As Graham Nicholls explains,

 

It is not easy for churches or outside bodies such as denominational networks to assess the validity of these claims because they are mostly about the subjective interpretation of behaviour, boundaries of leadership and discipline, and assessing patterns of behaviour rather than single instances.[90]

 

In the experience of many, denominational boards are particularly poor arbiters of toxic leadership.

 

Boards rarely have training in abusive leadership.
Boards are often biased toward their hand-picked leader—they have an aversion to having made the mistake of letting a wolf into the sheep pen.
In addition, they can foresee the loss of donor dollars when news of toxic leadership is made public.
Finally, there are often threats of lawsuits from fired leaders.

Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie write, “Those who serve as trustees too often see it as an honor . . . failing to help ensure key board functions.”[91] They are too lazy to be bothered with employee complaints. In addition, some boards “lack independence” as the leader may be a member of the board. The board may be hand-picked by the founder and the board may lack the independence to make the difficult decision to end the leader’s reign. Mulvey and Padilla say boards are less likely to remove leaders who also serve on the board.[92]

Because they were hand-picked by the toxic leader, other “executives” may not provide relief and, like Mark Driscoll’s “executive elders,” fail to be held accountable or take responsibility for the authoritarian leadership.[93] “The clubby composition of these boards appears to be one major factor in boards’ . . . inability to maintain their oversight objectivity,” according to Lipman-Blumen.[94]

What Can Be Done?

Though there are a variety of dangers involved in approaching those who have authority over the toxic supervisor, research also suggests organizations and businesses do sometimes provide these avenues of justice.

Ludeman and Erlandson tell the story of a turnaround in leadership at Dell Computers when a unfriendly and unencouraging manager discovered through the 360-degree process “his people found him hard to read and craved more direct feedback.”[95] He was “remote and transactional” even with colleagues he valued.[96] The process provided an important turning point in management at Dell as the manager made significant changes to his leadership style.

As the employee seeks these various ways of staying in the fray of toxic leadership, there may come a time when the trauma has become too great, emotional distress has increased, and the victim’s family is suffering. It may be time to give it up.

Head Out of Town: Leaving the Organization

Experts acknowledge the difficulty of leaving a toxic Christian organization. Considering the woman who returns to her abusive husband on average eight times before finally calling it quits for good, Douglas asks, “Why do we stay in spiritually abusive relationships?”[97]

She suggests in part it is due to victims feeling they “are to blame for the abuse.”[98] Some feel “ashamed of the way [they] have been taken advantage of.”[99] Hare says psychopaths “often give the impression that it is they who are suffering and the victims are to blame for their misery.”[100] Toxic leaders do a superb job of brainwashing their victims. Survivors of their abuse take on that blame, at times because it has been placed on them so often.

Stories On the Way Out

Adam explained, “Some people were the fighters, and some people were just apathetic” in their response to their toxic leader of the mission organization. In his experience, the fighters were “worn out” through a lack of impact they were having in the battles. The fortress the leadership had created seemed just too strong, immoveable, and unyielding. He said the apathetic ones seemed to recognize that and “put their heads down.”

Adam explained that many of the missionaries developed ministry opportunities outside their work for the organization. Though these additional ministry avenues gave them the joy necessary to provide some incentive to remain with the organization in country, the leadership of the mission criticized these “moonlighting” missionaries. Adam added that he was determined to not “become apathetic to leadership” or “go find another mission somewhere for survival’s sake.”

Yet, in his final years with the organization, Adam spent many weekends ministering in village churches outside the mission. It was not enough to overcome the betrayal he experienced from the leadership and Adam and his wife believed remaining at the organization would mean being “a party to the abuse.” They did not want to risk joining either of these “camps,” either to provide an outlet for the use of his gifts or become apathetic .

Adam and his wife left the mission mid-year, deeply wounded, and spent years struggling with the bitterness of having had their mission work cut short.

 

“80% of people who leave jobs do so because of a toxic boss.”[101] Dan Allender says,

 

A person’s hope is deadened when nothing she does is good enough, or when all her choices, no matter what they are, are used to punish her. We all fear being cast out of another garden—be it a tightly knit family or an authoritarian church—yet to defy evil results in sure banishment.[102]

Though self-differentiated individuals may have an impact on the toxic systems in the work environment, Friedman warns it also can have the effect of igniting opposition. He says, “Self-Differentiation always triggers sabotage.”[103] Leaving the organization may not be the choice of the beleaguered employee, but Chapman and White suggest that employees and volunteers determine the toxicity of the supervisor as soon as possible. They say, when the time comes to leave the organization, “you may have spent far too much of your life in a toxic situation.”[104] Or you may have to leave involuntarily before you are ready. Neither of these is optimum.

Mark Driscoll founded the Mars Hill Church in the Northwest in 1996. His unique style, lauded by many whose lives were radically changed under his ministry and openly criticized by pastors and public, created a mega-church that spun off dozens of church plants. The ministry closed its doors in 2014 following his tumultuous ministry. Many who served under him as campus pastors or elders were among those with changed lives, but in the end, were deeply wounded by his “arrogance, a quick temper, and domineering leadership.”[105]

An extensive number of pastors and elders went by the wayside over the years because of his callous view of leadership. Two days after firing two elders, Driscoll told a small group of church planters with the ministry, “There’s a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus and by God’s grace there will be a mountain by the time we are done. You either get on the bus or get run over by the bus.”[106] Getting on the bus meant agreeing with Mark Driscoll, the self-appointed CEO of the church. It is likely that many, if not all, would say their life changes made those years important to their growth. Like others under toxic leadership, they would say they wasted much time trying to fix an unfixable problem.

There are a few reasons Christians choose to leave abusive leadership:

 

To be free from suffering emotional, spiritual, and physical symptoms of abuse.
To make a statement—be prophetic—to the watching world and the organization.
To be free from harm.
To gain a place of safety to blow the whistle.
To seek a more conducive working environment for use of personal skills and gifting.
Giving It Up for Health

Remember Mandy’s story: “I was under so much stress that I was having migraines every two out of three days and throwing up in the middle of staff meetings. I developed an autoimmune condition and insomnia. I ended up in counseling for depression.”

Mandy was hesitant to share too many details. It had not been long since she had resigned from her women’s leadership role in a large southern church. Clearly, her life while under a toxic pastor was a form of hell and the suffering created by his lying, manipulation, and slander has not ceased. She explained,

He preached about loyalty and threatened from the pulpit that he would take down anyone who came against him. He used shame and guilt to manipulate and make people fall in line. Communication was completely compartmentalized so that he could spin everything. He would constantly set staff up for failure, telling us to run events/programs our way, then ripping us to shreds over absurd, previously unstated expectations.

Abuse wounds not only the soul but the body. The longer a person stays in it the greater the damage done to both. It is a basic spiritual and neurological fact.

At some point, those who work in this kind of environment will need to carefully consider her and her family’s well-being: physically, psychologically, and spiritually. To stay in the abuse will have long-term impact and she must consider if she is willing to live with that choice. It was Mandy’s parents who encouraged her to see the damage she was experiencing and of whom she said, “Spiritually, if it had not been for my parents, who are also in ministry, I don’t know that I would still be in the church. It is hard to trust that God is working for good when I see the one who should be feeding the sheep, feeding on the sheep.”

Many misconstrue the biblical direction to “turn the other cheek” for hanging in there when being abused by a boss. As noted in the exegesis of 1 Peter 2:18-25, to leave abuse is not discouraged by the biblical authors. Where employment is voluntary there may be no good reason to stay in an abusive work environment, particularly when spiritual and physical health are at stake.

Leaving Prophetically

Often, employees and volunteers desire to stay in the organization to be a witness and seek transformation of the organizational leadership. They hoped, by remaining committed to the ministry, their voice of reason would be heard more clearly from inside the room rather than from outside the camp.

However, the act of leaving, rather than staying, can speak volumes as McKnight explains:

When Pat Baranowski’s story of abuse at the hands of Bill Hybels [former pastor of Willow Creek Community Church] was published in the New York Times, Steve Carter, Willow Creek’s leading teaching pastor, was physically sickened by what he read and by what he now recognized as an inappropriately toxic response from the church’s leaders. “After many frank conversations with our elders,” he said, “it became clear that there is a fundamental difference in judgment between what I believe is necessary for Willow Creek to move in a positive direction, and what they think is best.” Steve pleaded with Willow Creek’s leaders for truth and transparency, but when his appeals went unheeded, he resigned his position as teaching pastor, saying, “It would be misleading of me to stand on that stage as if presenting a unified front.” The way we see it, Steve’s decision to abruptly leave Willow Creek was prophetic. His public act of immediately resigning spoke louder than words ever could.”[107]

It is difficult for boards and others connected to the ministry like donors and employees to ignore the exodus of good employees. And yet, even then, that fortress may remain intact. When over thirty missionaries left the employ of Ben’s mission organization in one year and forty missionaries sent a letter to the board asking for an investigation, it certainly raised eyebrows. Though there were some moves by the board to control the situation, the leadership remained in place for several more years and continued their abusive behavior.

Therefore, if you choose to make a point by leaving, you should gear up to make that point in a biblical way. And when all is said and done, how the organization responds to your “prophetic voice” is not ultimately your responsibility and you can rest knowing you took the steps your conscience led you to take.

Whistle Blowing

It is important work to blow the whistle on wicked leadership. There are many who suffer under their manipulation, control, and oppression. Though an employee may be getting free of the abuse by resigning, he may sense a responsibility to stand up for those who are facing the injustice and oppression of the leader (Is. 1:17). He may believe he is called to bring light to the darkness, telling the truth about the abuse even as he gets free from it.

But doing so will cost the whistle blower. Those who take on the role of whistle blower rarely walk away unscathed. Commonly, other employees who remain and have been your friends in addition to workmates, will not fully understand your experiences. As noted in other parts of this book, abusers often do well at isolating the “problem child” who brings attention to their lies and manipulation. They know how to win others over so that their team is bigger than your team. Therefore, your workmates may not take kindly to your attempts to free them from oppression . . . they may not even see it.

As Morgan Lee, reporting on Rachael Denhollander’s testimony in the Dr. Larry Nassar court case, wrote, “It will cost to stand up for the oppressed, and it should. If we’re not speaking out when it costs, then it doesn’t matter to us enough.”[108] Those who choose to be a whistleblower find themselves in good company. It is described in Exodus 2:16-16 that Moses, when running from Pharoah as a young man, came across some young shepherdesses who were trying to water their flock. Other shepherds were driving them away, but Moses stood up to them, allowing the shepherdesses access to the watering trough.

This and other experiences prepared Moses to stand up to the oppressive Pharaoh for the people of Israel (Ex. 3:15-20). However, there were times when Moses likely did not consider it a privilege to stand up, particularly when his own people turned against him. “They met Moses and Aaron, who were waiting for them, as they came out from Pharaoh; and they said to them, ‘The LORD look on you and judge, because you have made us stink in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants, and have put a sword in their hand to kill us.’” (Exodus 5:20-21)

The whistleblower needs to take care. It is not an easy road to take, though it is honorable.

Looking for a Better Place

Some bullies drive their victims and witnesses to their abuse “out of their jobs.”[109] However, sometimes the decision is firmly in the victim’s hands. Though they suffer, they are not fired or forced out. O’Donnell says, “Sometimes the wisest thing to do is to back away or to move on.”[110]

Chapman, et. al., provide guidelines for determining if leaving is worth the “fallout” that sometimes make a transition difficult. It may be time to begin putting out “feelers” for possible jobs that fit your gifts and training. This can be done quietly. In addition, it may be a good time to seek further training in your field or another field that you believe suits the gifting the Lord has given you. Consider the following options and remember there are likely many more.

Begin saving for the day you can leave your current work so that you have the funds to hold you over.
Seek a position like your current job.
If you are in mission work, consider mission agencies that work in your current context.
Seek a position that is a promotion in another company.
Consider taking a pay cut to move into another company, organization, or mission work more easily.
Consider training (college or online) to move either up in your position (in another company or organization) or over to a new job altogether.
It may be helpful to remember that the Lord opens doors when He is shutting others. Is your current struggle His way of moving you to where He ultimately wants you to be?

Summary

The situations of despairing victims of leadership abuse often seem untenable. At times it seems that we can only weep with them. However, the impact they experienced is often limited, particularly in the long-term. Most have moved on to satisfying work or the toxic boss is gone and they have found rest and shalom.

In the next section, I provide a road map to “shalom” for the suffering employee who desires to serve the Lord once again.

 

 

[1] Jessica Bensch, “Target the Bullies at Work with Action,” Vanguard Voices, December 2, 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/target-bullies-work-action-jessica-bensch-jru5c%3FtrackingId=0PLACqq%252BTeKOMOjnnF9Nyw%253D%253D/?trackingId=0PLACqq%2BTeKOMOjnnF9Nyw%3D%3D.

[2] Scot McKnight, Laura Barringer, and Tish Harrison Warren, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 144.

[3] Chris Davis, “Another Southern Baptist Betrayal,” ChristianityToday.com, October 31, 2023, https://christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/october-web-only/southern-baptist-betrayal-amicus-brief-kentucky-abuse.html.

[4] Susie’s story is found in “The Rule of Christ: Matthew 18.”

[5] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022), 63.

[6] Astrauskaite, Kern, and Notelaers, “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying,” 228.

[7] Galatians 1:10 (ESV) For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

[8] “Edwin Friedman,” in Wikipedia, February 20, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_Friedman&oldid=1007917623.

[9] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Introduction (location 70), Kindle.

[10] Ibid., 273–74.

[11] Neil Damgaard, Wounded Faith: Understanding and Healing From Spiritual Abuse, n.d. 50.

[12] Luke 22:39-46.

[13] Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Introduction (locations 158-59), Kindle.

[14] Ibid., 313–15.

[15] Leslie Vernick’s website has many helps and the services she provides: https://leslievernick.com.

[16] Dr. Henry Cloud’s website is https://www.boundaries.me/blog. Dr. Bill Eddy is CEO of the High Conflict Institute. His website can be found at https://www.highconflictinstitute.com.

[17] Heifetz and Linsky, Leadership on the Line, 184, Kindle.

[18] Sutton, The No Asshole Rule, 130–31.

[19] Dianne Crampton, “How Effective Are Emotionally Intelligent Leaders – Really?,” LinkedIn Pulse, February 13, 2016, accessed February 16, 2016, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-effective-emotionally-intelligent-leaders-really-dianne-crampton.

[20] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 7 (locations 1375–76), Kindle.

[21] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 5 (location 3359), Kindle.

[22] Ibid., 3364–74.

[23] Edward T. Welch, When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), 40.

[24] Edward T. Welch, When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), 40.

[25] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 16, Kindle.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid., 28.

[28] Welch, When People Are Big and God Is Small, 237–38.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 4 (locations 2492–95), Kindle.

[31] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 4 (locations 2492–95), Kindle..

[32] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 4 (locations 2510–12), Kindle..

[33] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 2 (locations 322–23), Kindle.

[34] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 2 (locations 322–23), Kindle.

[35] James Strong, The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Expanded edition (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

[36] “Definition of EMPATHY,” accessed December 31, 2022, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy.

[37] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 2 (location 383), Kindle..

[38] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 2 (locations 339–41), Kindle..

[39] Allender and Longman, Bold Love, 234.

[40] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 4 (locations 2757–59), Kindle.

[41] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 142–43.

[42] “Capstone 2-8.”

[43] O’Donnell, “Wise as Doves and Innocent as Serpents?,” under “Final Thoughts.”

[44] “Capstone 2-8.”

[45] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 252 Kindle.

[46] Cohn and Moran, Why Are We Bad at Picking Good Leaders A Better Way to Evaluate Leadership Potential, 152.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 148, Kindle.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022), 64.

[51] Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?, 335.

[52] Ibid., 361.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid., 197.

[55] Lipinski and Crothers, Bullying in the Workplace, 295.

[56] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 148–49, Kindle.

[57] Schyns and Hansbrough, When Leadership Goes Wrong, 272.

[58] Lipinski and Crothers, Bullying in the Workplace, 297.

[59] Bill Eddy LCSW Esq, It’s All Your Fault at Work!: Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict People, 1st edition (High Conflict Institute Press, 2015) 88.

[60] Bill Eddy LCSW Esq, It’s All Your Fault at Work!: Managing Narcissists and Other High-Conflict People, 1st edition (High Conflict Institute Press, 2015) 95.

[61] Bill Eddy, BIFF: Quick Responses to High-Conflict People, Their Personal Attacks, Hostile Email and Social Media Meltdowns, Second edition (Scottsdale, Arizona: Unhooked Books, 2014) 15-17.

[62] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022), 74.

[63] O’Donnell, “Wise as Doves and Innocent as Serpents?,” under “Resources to Help.”

[64] “Therapists Can Be Warm, Helpful and Wise, but Not Neutral | Psychology Today,” accessed May 2, 2024, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-lies-and-conflict/202111/therapists-can-be-warm-helpful-and-wise-not-neutral.

[65] Ibid.

[66] “The Image I Reflect: Recognizing Power Differentials,” Cedarville University, accessed May 8, 2024, https://www.cedarville.edu/insights/post/the-image-i-reflect–recognizing-power-differentials.

[67] C. M. S. Admin, “The Christian Peacemaker Who Left a Trail of Trauma,” Christianity Today, November 16, 2021, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/11/judy-dabler-creative-conciliation-abuse-lapm-unfit-ministry/.

[68] Herrington, The Leader’s Journey, Chapter 6 (locations 1155–56), Kindle.

[69] Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures, 208, Kindle.

[70] Gary Namie, “2013 Instant Poll – D: The Timing & Results of Targets Confronting Bullies at Work,” Workplace Bullying Institute, accessed November 1, 2016, www.workplacebullying.org.

[71] Namie, “2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.”

[72] Bill Eddy, BIFF: Quick Responses to High-Conflict People, Their Personal Attacks, Hostile Email and Social Media Meltdowns, Second edition (Scottsdale, Arizona: Unhooked Books, 2014) 18.

[73] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 6.

[74] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 9–12.

[75] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 9.

[76] Exodus 1:15-2:2.

[77] 1 Samuel 20.

[78] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 10.

[79] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 11.

[80] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 11.

[81] Burns, Chapman, and Guthrie, Negotiating Ministry: The Politics of Working with People, 12.

[82] Astrauskaite, Kern, and Notelaers, “An Individual Psychology Approach to Underlying Factors of Workplace Bullying,” 229.

[83] Ciby and Raya, “Exploring Victims’ Experiences of Workplace Bullying: A Grounded Theory Approach,” 78.

[84] “Remembering What Repentance Looks Like,” The Dispatch (blog), accessed December 4, 2022, https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/frenchpress/remembering-what-repentance-looks-like/.

[85] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 43.

[86] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 41-42, Kindle.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Cohn and Moran, Why Are We Bad at Picking Good Leaders A Better Way to Evaluate Leadership Potential, 34.

[90] Graham Nicholls, Challenging Leaders: Preventing and Investigating Allegations of Pastoral Malpractice (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2023), location 51, Kindle.

[91] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 111.

[92] Schyns and Hansbrough, When Leadership Goes Wrong, 59.

[93] “Capstone 2-8.”

[94] Lipman-Blumen, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, 174, Kindle.

[95] Ludeman and Erlandson, “Coaching the Alpha Male,” 60.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Douglas, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse,” 319.

[98] Ibid., 320.

[99] Enroth, Churches That Abuse.

[100] “This Charming Psychopath,” under “A Survival Guide.”

[101] Hay, “The Toxic Mission Organisation: Fiction or Fact?” 4.

[102] Allender and Longman, Bold Love, 241.

[103] Friedman, A Failure of Nerve, Chapter 8 (locations 4488–89), Kindle.

[104] Chapman, White, and Myra, Rising Above a Toxic Workplace, 145.

[105] “‎The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill: Who Killed Mars Hill? On Apple Podcasts,” Apple Podcasts, accessed July 20, 2021, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/who-killed-mars-hill/id1569401963?i=1000526370742.

[106] “‎The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill: Who Killed Mars Hill? On Apple Podcasts,” Apple Podcasts, accessed July 20, 2021, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/who-killed-mars-hill/id1569401963?i=1000526370742.

[107] Scot McKnight, Laura Barringer, and Tish Harrison Warren, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale Momentum, 2020) 149.

[108] Morgan Lee, “My Larry Nassar Testimony Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than Forgiveness.,” ChristianityToday.com, accessed July 8, 2022, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html.

[109] Sutton, The No Asshole Rule, 33.

[110] O’Donnell, “Wise as Doves and Innocent as Serpents?,” under “Final Thoughts.”