Toxic Churches

[mkgal1]

I’ve been using the terms “toxic churches, toxic leaders and toxic organizations” for years and when I do I’m usually speaking about something very specific as opposed to just trying to criticize churches or organizations in general. I’ve done MS level studies in Organizational Leadership. I still have a couple of courses and a thesis paper to complete before receiving the degree. I continue to read in this area and it informs me in a lot of situations that I’ve looked at and observed over the years.

Jean Lipman-Blumen is probably the best known authority in promoting this term and the understanding of how it is used technically. Organizational Leadership is a discipline that uses scientific approaches and studies to draw conclusions in many areas but also includes the dynamic of how organizations function and how different leadership approaches and techniques work in different types of organization. Lipman-Blumen has written extensively in this area. A good shorter article that gives an overview of what Toxic Leadership is can be found HERE.

The short definition that Lipman-Blumen gives in the article that guides me is:

Toxic leaders are not garden-variety authoritarian bosses, nor undependable political leaders, nor overly strict parents, nor even difficult spouses about whom we all love to complain. Rather, toxic leaders are those individuals, who by dint of their destructive behaviors and dysfunctional personal qualities generate a serious and enduring poisonous effect on the individuals, families, organizations, communities, and even entire societies they lead.~Toxic Churches, Leadership, and Organizations - Bart's Barometer

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Cross reference this post.

That church I was going to definitely was toxic.

We used to have potluck dinners after every weekly service. I specifically remember the day I had one child in my lap and was feeding the other when my ex demanded that I get up and get him some more juice. Didn't even say please. Just ordered me to do it. I shot back, "When did you lose the use of your legs?" At that point a deacon rose, shot a glare at me, smiled at him, and got him the juice. Message, wives are servants to their husbands. Bad wife! Your husband is young and able-bodied, and you are busy with two children while he's not helping you at all, but you still had better do what he says to do, when he says to do it, if you want approval in this church! My ex had *fun* later, at home, rubbing it in my face that the deacon had smiled at him, but looked stern at me.

He also enjoyed it the day a lady from our church pulled him aside and whispered to him in confidence, "You really should speak to your wife about keeping the house cleaner." That woman didn't know, I could spend all day cleaning, and he'd come home and trash the place within an hour. He thought it was my duty to pick up after him. He wouldn't even so much as carry his own plate back to the kitchen, or put the cap back on the toothpaste, or flush the toilet, for that matter. That was for me to do, because I was the wife. In those days before remote control TV, he'd call me in from the kitchen to change the channel for him, or to adjust the controls on a fan he could reach if he'd roll over, but why should he when he can tell me to do it? With two small children and one on the way, it was just impossible for me to keep up. But people coming to the door blamed me, and only me, for the mess they saw.

Interestingly, I was curious and looked. That pastor I talked to, the one who was talking disfellowship because my ex was drinking but wasn't at all concerned that he was hitting me--he's still the pastor of that same church.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Subscribing

 

[mkgal1]

Something this all seems to hinge on (and you mentioned it as well, LBF) is the acceptance of the group (and the threat of being *un*accepted if you don't comply).

I wouldn't say I've experienced a "toxic" church.....but definitely "dysfunctional". I have to admit that there was an element of being in their version of the "cool" group by being in leadership that made it difficult to walk away.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think its a vague accusation used against something we don't feel like taking seriously. Was Jesus toxic to the religious status quo of His time?

 

[HannahT]

We have seen two toxic organizations fall this year, and sadly you see the wounding it had on their followers. ie: Gothard and Phillips

Its sad indeed.

 

[DZoolander]

I think its a vague accusation used against something we don't feel like taking seriously. Was Jesus toxic to the religious status quo of His time?

I think a difference has to be drawn between being challenging to the status quo in a manner that is necessary/beneficial to the group - and "challenging" the group in a manner that ultimately is destructive to it's adherents.

For example - you bring up Jesus. In a lot of ways - Christ/Christianity was sort of a cross between a cult and a reformer. Christianity is in many ways reformed Judaism in many ways similar to how all the protestant churches are reformed Catholicism.

...and cults aren't necessarily "toxic". Often they are - because most of the time cult leaders assemble them simply to bang everyone's wives and underage daughters - but they aren't *necessarily* that. I'm sure somewhere out there are some halfway decent communes where everyone is happy/peacefully living/etc. Whatever.

I think there's a huge difference between that - and say like the Westboro Baptist Church...where it's hard to see anyone (apart from the founders) that benefit from belonging to it,

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think a difference has to be drawn between being challenging to the status quo in a manner that is necessary/beneficial to the group - and "challenging" the group in a manner that ultimately is destructive to it's adherents.

For example - you bring up Jesus. In a lot of ways - Christ/Christianity was sort of a cross between a cult and a reformer. Christianity is in many ways reformed Judaism in many ways similar to how all the protestant churches are reformed Catholicism.

...and cults aren't necessarily "toxic". Often they are - because most of the time cult leaders assemble them simply to bang everyone's wives and underage daughters - but they aren't *necessarily* that. I'm sure somewhere out there are some halfway decent communes where everyone is happy/peacefully living/etc. Whatever.

I think there's a huge difference between that - and say like the Westboro Baptist Church...where it's hard to see anyone (apart from the founders) that benefit from belonging to it,

If you look at what they say they say they are praising God's will. They say it is God's will that blah blah blah happens, stuff that most people think is terrible-me included. How can that be wrong? Should we say God's will is wrong about things we don't like and okay about things we do like? I wouldn't know where to begin to defend them, but I don't think you can say they are wrong for saying they praise what God's will has happen. Maybe its like that Amy Grant song 'better than a hallelujah'. Job sort of argued with God when God was what I consider to be unfair to Job and God said, 'You have no business questioning Me and why I do what I do.' I think that is other places in the scripture to. Something about a pot questioning the potter. The Stoic philosophers said the same thing about aligning our will with God's, Zeus, and it was the same concept. I don't like Westboro or what they do, but they seem to have something right.

 

[akmom]

I guess there would need to be more detail to determine what's a toxic church. I've encountered individuals in churches who weren't quite right. But they didn't define the church. Sometimes they were even very active in the church. But that doesn't mean the majority agreed with them. What they [others in the church] didn't do was openly criticize, because that's kind of a delicate thing. Churches are institutions that accept everyone basically, so you run into a conundrum when certain personalities participate. You either criticize them and become a judgmental church. Or you don't, and you become a hypocritical church whose members set a bad example. Those are basically the two main criticisms of modern churches, right?

We once had an older church member who would pass out Bibles at community events and engage in the most inappropriate "preaching" with people. I mean, he would engage people in conversation, then interrogate them and quickly threaten them with hell if they didn't repent right there on the sidewalk. I had the *pleasure* of being invited to one of these events, which is when I first witnessed it. I thought, what the heck. Figured maybe I didn't know the whole story. Maybe he knew that person and had a history with them that made that conversation acceptable. But this kind of behavior persisted and was incredibly awkward. I had people ask me why he was doing this. I suspected (and suspect now) he was bipolar or had some related issue, because his behavior was abnormal. But I can't actually say that to someone, and undermine the very person I was supposed to be helping. So basically I just didn't come back!

Fast forward to another event, in which I was not involved, but encountered him doing. He was passing out inappropriate literature about Islam. It was very confrontational and dubious in accuracy, and I suspect he penned it himself. I confronted him about it and he basically accused me of being disrespectful to elders. So I approached my pastor. The look on his face was very sad, it was clear I wasn't the first person to say something, and he said, "We try to be supportive of the people in our church, and since the church isn't sponsoring him, there isn't really oversight. But I'll talk to him."

What can a church do? Kick him out? Make a scene, so people will just say look, another example of Christians who can't get along or agree? One thing I have noticed is that the church, being open to all, does indeed attract a lot of mental illness and personality disorders. These people need companionship and a place to serve also. Sometimes they outnumber the more level-headed members, because honestly, level-headed people don't usually *need* church to fulfill spiritual needs. Not if they have families and jobs and friends who provide that companionship and counsel for them. (Which is kind of why it bothers me when people say they don't need to go to church. They are kind of leaving a big hole in the makeup of a church.)

Is a church really toxic if it's full of chauvinists? Or is that just one component among many good-hearted, kind and generous people? And can a pastor really be held responsible for a deacon's perceived slight that he couldn't have possibly known about?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Fair question about the pastor not knowing about the deacon's action, but it wasn't just that one incident. The pastor and much of the congregation were well aware that my ex-husband was abusing me and was spending what little money he earned on drugs and alcohol. They were concerned about the drugs and alcohol because it was against church law to do those things, but hitting me.... well, I'm supposed to just let God deal with that instead of trying to "solve the problem my own way" by leaving him, or by getting a job myself. My place was in the home. They were not supportive of me, but condemnatory. The pastor himself had his moments on that score.

I thought for a while that the church I attend now might be toxic, but I have come to believe it's merely a little too right-wing for my comfort sometimes. I was uncomfortable with Republican literature being passed around during Sunday School classes, because I feel we go to church and Sunday School to learn about Jesus Christ, not to get on a political platform. I said something to the pastor about that, he agreed, and the campaigning during church time stopped.

Furthermore, it's one thing to call a behavior a sin because the Bible does. It's another to have a hateful attitude toward the people who commit that sin. How are we supposed to lead people to Christ with an attitude like that? One man sent me from the Sunday School classroom in tears because his words toward that particular sin were just *that* derogatory. At the time, I thought, "Well, that man and his wife are both really high up and active in this church. I'm sure everybody would rather see me offended than him, so they're going to let him slide and lecture ME about needing to be tolerant of HIS attitude." That turned out not to be true. One woman did say something to my husband about, "Aw, well, I guess she didn't realize he always talks like that," as if it was OK for him to be talking like that because he's him. But the pastor actually telephoned me to apologize, and he also had some stinging words for the teacher not speaking up when it happened. Eventually I learned that members of the church *are* working with that man on his attitude. They are aware that it's just as sinful of him to harbor that much hate as it is to indulge in what he's condemning. I don't know what anybody said to him, but the next time he saw me, his manner was like a whipped puppy. The fact that this problem is being dealt with tells me the church itself is not toxic.

I'll share this because in my opinion, it's hilarious. One thing about this man is that, when the congregation joins hands for the closing hymn at the end of services, he WILL NOT join hands with another man. He carries it that far. There were jokes made about how he would react to the Scriptures that say "Greet one another with a holy kiss," but what really made me laugh was when he was at a pew by himself at the end of one service, and it came to the closing hymn. The chief deacon joined him, and insisted on holding hands because he's going to have to get over that hangup. So there that man is, hand-in-hand with the chief deacon, and nobody else. Which is well outside his comfort zone, but you know, we are supposed to love each other. Love and sex are not the same thing.

I don't go for the "God's going to make you rich if you believe hard enough" kind of gospel, but my problem with Westboro is that they seem dangerously close to the Pharisee's attitude in Luke 18:9-14. They don't talk about their own sin, but come off as if they alone are righteous while everyone else in the world is beneath them.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

nm

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Thoughts? Comments?

One person that came to mind for me (and I know there's a lot of opinion about this) is Mark Driscoll. I've followed a lot of what's going on with him for a few years, and not just from the media - but from those who have accused him of various things, as well as his responses to those accusations. It's been interesting to see how he's treated various people - and this coming from the people involved directly (via their information on websites they run and various correspondence on those sites). But there's part of the definition that I don't think applies to him right now:

"serious and enduring poisonous effect"

Serious? Yes. Enduring? Right now, I don't know. he's apparently realised how he's affected a number of people, including his church, and he wants to be the leader he's supposed to be for them. So a lot remains to be seen when he returns to the Pastorate.

 

[akmom]

There's a lot more wrong with Westboro than that. They're making connections where none exist (blaming homosexuality for foreign wars) and delivering their message in purposefully obnoxious ways (picketing at random funerals). Was it also homosexuality that prompted our nation's involvement in World Wars I and II, or the Korean War? We've lost people to war for a long time now. Who are they to say that today's wars are punishment for homosexuality?

(The answer, I think, is the connections made by a mentally disturbed man. Looking at his professional and personal history as a lawyer, it doesn't sound like he was always this angry or tacky. Old friends and acquaintances describe a very different man. Which makes me wonder if the whole thing wasn't precipitated by Alzheimer's or some other serious mental illness later in life. I mean, even if his views changed, his understanding of people and ability to influence them as a civil rights lawyer would not have changed. He was effective in his (legal) work back then, but grossly ineffective in his (religious) work now. Tell me how a person who knew what it took to influence people suddenly loses that ability. That reeks of mental decline.)

So the role of the church, then, would be to draw from scripture in terms of how to behave and evangelize, instead of following the whims of a deranged man. Picketing at funerals certainly isn't how Paul spread the gospel, or how Jesus confronted people.

 

[rick357]

Cross reference this post.

That church I was going to definitely was toxic.

We used to have potluck dinners after every weekly service. I specifically remember the day I had one child in my lap and was feeding the other when my ex demanded that I get up and get him some more juice. Didn't even say please. Just ordered me to do it. I shot back, "When did you lose the use of your legs?" At that point a deacon rose, shot a glare at me, smiled at him, and got him the juice. Message, wives are servants to their husbands. Bad wife! Your husband is young and able-bodied, and you are busy with two children while he's not helping you at all, but you still had better do what he says to do, when he says to do it, if you want approval in this church! My ex had *fun* later, at home, rubbing it in my face that the deacon had smiled at him, but looked stern at me.

He also enjoyed it the day a lady from our church pulled him aside and whispered to him in confidence, "You really should speak to your wife about keeping the house cleaner." That woman didn't know, I could spend all day cleaning, and he'd come home and trash the place within an hour. He thought it was my duty to pick up after him. He wouldn't even so much as carry his own plate back to the kitchen, or put the cap back on the toothpaste, or flush the toilet, for that matter. That was for me to do, because I was the wife. In those days before remote control TV, he'd call me in from the kitchen to change the channel for him, or to adjust the controls on a fan he could reach if he'd roll over, but why should he when he can tell me to do it? With two small children and one on the way, it was just impossible for me to keep up. But people coming to the door blamed me, and only me, for the mess they saw.

Interestingly, I was curious and looked. That pastor I talked to, the one who was talking disfellowship because my ex was drinking but wasn't at all concerned that he was hitting me--he's still the pastor of that same church.

Sorry that happened to you...how unscriptual.Those type always forget the husband is to be as christ who is our comfort, bears our burdens, and gives us rest.....why do they think Sara didnt think it robbery to call Abraham lord.....because his plan was to give and do more for her than she could imagine. And that is toxic when anyone or any organization uses God to use you for themselves

 

[jsimms615]

Unfortunately I was on a church staff with a very toxic leader. Not only did he have poor leadership skills, but had a lot of control issues. I can remember it having a very negative effect on my faith at the time.

 

[DZoolander]

Westboro does one thing right and that one thing is huge. They praise God for God's will. Whatever else you say about them, their will is aligned with God's and that makes them as right as God's will when it comes to substance. Tone is another matter. I'm amused so many Christians hate on Westboro while they eat up the health, wealth and prosperity nonsense peddled by other well known Christian pastors.

I agree for the most part (especially on the aligning themselves with the wealth, health and prosperity garbage). I also do think it's odd when many mainstream Christians hate on Westboro - because I don't see a great deal of distinction between what most churches teach w/respect to sexual sin and what Westboro rails on about.

To AKMom's point - they do (at least compared to most Christians) jump the shark when it comes to drawing lines of causality between things like wars and homosexuality. That's a bizarre line of thought.. But - I think if you were to ask most Christians about the view that "God hates" - a HUGE percentage feel exactly the same. While they might take issue with tone - they agree on substance.

For myself, I think it's off base because I've always believed there's no hierarchy to sin. Unless you're an old school Catholic who believes in the various rings of hell (like this one is for the fornicators, this one is for the betrayers, etc etc etc) - sin is sin and all sin gets you the exact same reward. So - what does it really matter if you're a homosexual or just your garden variety liar? Your end result is the same...so to focus on one sin over the other really is just nonsense. What you put on your sign isn't really reflective of God's stand (meaning implying that there's more furor about one over another) - but rather yours.

So - it might be more fair to sit around with your signs saying "God hates your sin" - but whatever.

 

[rick357]

I agree for the most part (especially on the aligning themselves with the wealth, health and prosperity garbage). I also do think it's odd when many mainstream Christians hate on Westboro - because I don't see a great deal of distinction between what most churches teach w/respect to sexual sin and what Westboro rails on about.

To AKMom's point - they do (at least compared to most Christians) jump the shark when it comes to drawing lines of causality between things like wars and homosexuality. That's a bizarre line of thought.. But - I think if you were to ask most Christians about the view that "God hates f***" - a HUGE percentage feel exactly the same. While they might take issue with tone - they agree on substance.

For myself, I think it's off base because I've always believed there's no hierarchy to sin. Unless you're an old school Catholic who believes in the various rings of hell (like this one is for the fornicators, this one is for the betrayers, etc etc etc) - sin is sin and all sin gets you the exact same reward. So - what does it really matter if you're a homosexual or just your garden variety liar? Your end result is the same...so to focus on one sin over the other really is just nonsense.

So - it might be more fair to sit around with your signs saying "God hates your sin" - but whatever.

You are correct in one sin is equal to anouther...but we are told to honor all men...and to give our answers with grace....so we tell them of the gospel....if they repent and turn to God we do all we can to streangthen them in faith...that they may walk as a new creation in christ.

That is how we are to act....but if a murderer says this inclination is how I was born it is how God made me so you must accept me this way...then we do not accept that....but one who is struggling to walk in faith and overcome sin...with all our heart we help.
As to some who choose to be hatefull toward the world and "call down fire from heaven" as the lord said they dont know what spirit they are of

 

[DZoolander]

Actually, most gay people I know don't care about your acceptance of them. They figure you can sit at home and seethe about their sinful ways, talk about it in church all you like, stand on a street corner and tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. They're pretty much cool with that.

What they don't want, however, are your religious beliefs being legislated and relegating them to second class citizenship status

 

[rick357]

Actually, most gay people I know don't care about your acceptance of them. They figure you can sit at home and seethe about their sinful ways, talk about it in church all you like, stand on a street corner and tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. They're pretty much cool with that.

What they don't want, however, are your religious beliefs being legislated and relegating them to second class citizenship status

I would never treat anyone as second class...I would not speak about them in a negative light with anyone...also I would and do honor them as being made in Gods image every bit as much as me...and hold my own sin in the same status as thier own...so your post holds no bearing on my actions or person

 

[mkgal1]

As to some who choose to be hateful toward the world and "call down fire from heaven" as the lord said they don't know what spirit they are of

I agree. If you asked them, I'd be willing to bet that they believe wholeheartedly that God is leading them.

There's a social psychologist (Philip Zimbardo) that studied evil and what leads "good people" to do "bad" things. One of the things he's concluded is that people that believe they're doing "right" or are operating under the belief that "God wants them" to do certain things (IOW....that their motive is "for God" or "for good")....will typically be led to do the most heinous things without conscience (suicide bombers, for an extreme example or dividing a family with gossip, for a more tame example).

I loved a Bible study that I did a few years ago by Chip Ingram (Diabolical). He divided up characteristics (based on John 10:10) things that are of God compared to things that are of our enemy. The verse alone says Christ came to bring life.....our enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy....so that's not arguable. He defined things more by explaining our enemies tactics (because, based on 2 Corinthians 2:11, being unaware is how we are ensnared).