Advertise on podcast: Pearls and Swine Site Podcast

The CEO was known to use people's words to turn on them. He would simply lie and justify and blame shift when exhorted. We were concerned that he would simply kick us off the mission then and there and we would be stuck half way around the world from our home. Our children were in their last two months of class time in the mission school. Yet the CEO said he wanted to hear why we were leaving. To us it was asking us to stick our necks out with the possibility of being chopped off.

The king sat down to his royal feast with some of his closest advisers. His power was felt by all who sat with him. Yet, the king knew that he was going to be betrayed by one of those advisers. His secret service had uncovered the plot. He knew an overthrow of his kingdom was at hand.

There have been numerous cases where leaders in the church—though not perfect in character or in leadership skill—have been rejected by followers who instead wish to be the leader. The motive behind the rebellion is not that the leader is disqualified from leadership but rather the follower arrogantly assumes he or she can do it better.

Praising abusive leaders, no matter how much good they have also done, can further traumatize those who have suffered under their leadership. When should we keep our mouths shut when speaking well of the dead?

“Susie” was employed as the Programming and Missions Director in a non-denominational church with 400 members. She served under an autocratic pastor. The lack of respect shown by the senior pastor created significant hurt. However, Susie only realized the significance of the emotional injury later.

As my friends and I discussed John 11, I was struck by verses 47 and 48. These couple sentences are so appropo for those who have faced abuse in any setting. The term "Crazy-Making" is often used to describe this infurtiating experience. Jesus has just raised his friend, Lazarus from the dead . . . And yet, this is what the chief priests and Pharisees said.

Truly toxic leadership always ends badly. This is a type of leadership distinguished by a lack of humility to see and respond to their own failings. Sure, there are "grey" leaders who might be too harsh or somewhere along the line of narcisissm, but they respond to confrontation with thoughtfulness and a willingness to work on their leadership skills. But toxic leadership does not possess this humility.

1st Corinthians 1 says so many things to leaders as well as subordinates in Christian organizations. It speaks of calling and of wisdom and of foolishness and of power and of weakness and of arrogance—all of it which are related to leadership and those who follow.

What makes a leader good is not that he simply rejects prevailing political approaches, speaks his mind, displays power, or brings wealth and fortune to an organization. However, what is fundamental to good leadership is someone who has skills, humility, and cares for the needs of others, particularly the vulnerable.

Those who suggest emotional or verbal abuse is not really abuse need to reconsider scripture.

In my study of toxic leadership over the years, I have found that many experts in their various fields want to give hope to their readers. They provide many excellent ideas on how to remain under a toxic leader while pursuing a flourishing ministry. I am going to suggest in this blog that they are usually for naught.

Janet's abusive pastor disregarded church protocol, manipulated his congregation, and exerted authority. She eventually sought healing and learned valuable lessons. She advises others to trust their instincts, uphold core values, seek support, and educate the church on abusive leadership.

To some Christians, the choice of whether to stay under a toxic leader in the home, workplace, or organization is not a question. They may consider leaving, but the go-to is a belief that God has called them to suffer for Christ’s sake. I assure them, their consciences are not bound by Scripture.

Clearly, according to a survey/study done in Sweden bad leadership is not under every rock. Only 42% of those surveyed don’t trust their company’s management team. Is the glass half full?

Like in domestic abuse research, there is debate as to the malleability of abusive people in leadership. I would guess that in most people's experience, there is little hope for such change.