When Strong Leadership Becomes Dangerous (Part 1)

Listen to this article (BETA)

Preparing the reader…

Your progress: Not started

Mark Complete Start Over Reset History

▶ Listen

“Not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
~1 Peter 5:3 (BSB)

There are few things more heartbreaking than watching a faithful church slowly lose its joy—not because it abandoned sound doctrine, embraced false teaching, or suffered financial scandal or moral failure, but because the people of God gradually became afraid of one of their own leaders.

Over the past decade, several highly visible ministries have experienced painful public collapses. Although each situation is unique and must be judged on its own facts, the remarkable similarity between them should cause every pastor and elder to pause. The churches differed in denomination, structure, location, and personality. Yet the descriptions repeated themselves with striking consistency. Harsh. Domineering. Intimidating. Contentious. Bullying. Controlling. Ungentle. Proud. Unwilling to receive correction. Those words are not merely descriptions of difficult personalities. They describe deeply spiritual problems.

Perhaps even more sobering is that many of these ministries were marked by excellent theology, faithful preaching, organizational effectiveness, and significant numerical growth. They did many things well. Yet beneath the visible success, something was quietly poisoning the culture from within.

This article is not written to criticize fallen leaders. It is written to help faithful shepherds recognize the biblical pattern before it reaches their own churches.

The Pattern Is Bigger Than One Man

The recent situations involving Burk Parsons, Mark Driscoll, and Steve Timmis differ in many important respects. They should never be treated as identical stories. Nevertheless, they share one unmistakable theme. In each case, the primary concerns were not centered on doctrinal orthodoxy but on the consistent manner in which people were treated. The issue was shepherding.

That observation should immediately arrest our attention because Scripture repeatedly places the character of a shepherd above the gifts of a leader. A man may preach brilliantly, cast compelling vision, build an effective organization, defend sound doctrine, and influence thousands of people. Yet if he consistently fails to reflect the gentleness, humility, patience, and love of Christ toward those entrusted to his care, something profoundly biblical has been lost.

Paul does not instruct Timothy to appoint the most gifted communicator or the strongest visionary. He instructs him to appoint men whose lives visibly reflect the character of Christ. “An overseer, then, must be above reproach… self-controlled… respectable… hospitable… gentle… not quarrelsome…” (1 Timothy 3:2–3, BSB).

Likewise, Titus is instructed that an elder “must not be arrogant or quick-tempered…” (Titus 1:7, BSB). Peter speaks even more directly: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is among you… not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3, BSB). These are not optional leadership preferences. They are biblical qualifications.

Case One: Burk Parsons

Regardless of where one ultimately lands regarding every detail of the judicial proceedings involving Burk Parsons, the public findings centered on one repeated concern: the manner in which people were treated. The Judicial Commission of the Central Florida Presbytery unanimously found him guilty on charges that included being “harsh, ungentle, and unkind,” exercising domineering leadership by “lording it over others,” and creating an atmosphere in which those under his care were intimidated, bullied, or afraid. The Commission also concluded that there was insufficient evidence of repentance at that time and indefinitely suspended him from the office of teaching elder pending satisfactory evidence of repentance.¹

Notice what makes this significant. The findings did not center on theological error. They centered upon pastoral character.

That distinction matters.

Churches often assume that if doctrine is sound, leadership must also be healthy. Scripture never makes that assumption. In fact, Paul consistently joins sound doctrine with godly character because one without the other eventually damages Christ’s Church. Orthodoxy without Christlike shepherding is not the biblical standard. God requires both.

Case Two: Mark Driscoll

Mars Hill Church demonstrated that extraordinary growth can conceal unhealthy leadership for a surprisingly long time. The church exercised remarkable influence through church planting, conferences, books, and thousands gathering for worship every week. From the outside, many assumed that such visible fruit must indicate healthy leadership. Yet the eventual investigation reached a different conclusion.

After an extensive inquiry involving approximately one thousand hours of investigation, interviews with more than fifty individuals, and hundreds of pages of documentation, the Board of Overseers concluded that Mark Driscoll had, at times, been guilty of arrogance, responding to conflict with a quick temper and harsh speech, and leading staff and elders in a domineering manner. Importantly, the Board also stated that he had not been charged with immorality, illegality, or heresy. Most of the concerns involved attitudes and behaviors reflecting a domineering style of leadership.²

That observation deserves careful consideration. The issue was not doctrinal orthodoxy. The issue was shepherding.

One of the greatest temptations facing every elder board is to confuse fruitfulness with faithfulness. Visible success is never God’s final measurement. Jesus did not say the world would recognize His disciples primarily by their attendance, influence, giving, or organizational effectiveness. He said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35, BSB). Love remains Christ’s visible evidence of authentic discipleship.

Case Three: Steve Timmis

The review commissioned by Acts 29 concerning Steve Timmis revealed another recurring pattern that should concern every elder board. While affirming many years of faithful service and significant ministry fruit, the review concluded that a pattern of relational leadership had developed in which people increasingly found it difficult to disagree honestly or speak freely. Fear gradually displaced trust. Individuals became more cautious than candid. Healthy disagreement diminished because people no longer felt emotionally safe expressing concerns.³

When that happens, a church loses something far more valuable than organizational harmony. It loses biblical fellowship.

Paul commands believers to “speak the truth to one another” (Ephesians 4:25, BSB).

James exhorts Christians to “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16, BSB).

Proverbs reminds us that “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6, BSB).

None of those commands can flourish where fear governs relationships. Fear silences truth, and truth withheld eventually becomes deception. A church may continue functioning efficiently for years while quietly losing the very openness and mutual trust that Christ intended to characterize His body.

What Scripture Calls This

Modern leadership literature often describes these patterns using terms such as “toxic leadership,” “coercive leadership,” “authoritarian leadership,” “bullying,” or “narcissism.” Those terms may describe observable behaviors, but Scripture speaks more deeply because it addresses the heart from which those behaviors arise.

One of the recurring figures in the book of Proverbs is the scoffer, the mocker. The scoffer is not simply someone with a difficult personality. He is a person who persistently resists correction because pride has hardened his heart. Proverbs warns, “Rebuke a mocker, and he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8, BSB). Later it observes, “A mocker does not love to be reproved; he will not consult the wise” (Proverbs 15:12, BSB). Solomon then makes an astonishing statement: “Drive out the mocker, and conflict will depart; even quarreling and insults will cease.” (Proverbs 22:10, BSB).

Scripture does not teach that every domineering leader should automatically be classified as a biblical scoffer. Such conclusions require careful discernment, humility, and patience. Nevertheless, God’s Word repeatedly warns that persistent pride, resistance to correction, contentiousness, harsh treatment of others, and an unwillingness to receive loving rebuke are not merely unfortunate leadership styles. They are spiritual conditions that place both the leader and those under his care in danger.

James provides a striking contrast. “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peace-loving, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and sincere” (James 3:17, BSB). Likewise, Paul reminds Timothy that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, and patient when wronged” (2 Timothy 2:24, BSB). These passages do not describe weakness. They describe the character of Christ Himself. Every shepherd is called to grow into that likeness.

How Churches Miss It

One of the greatest tragedies in situations like these is that they almost never appear suddenly. They emerge gradually, often so gradually that those closest to them scarcely notice the change. A staff member quietly leaves. Another grows emotionally exhausted. A volunteer who once served joyfully becomes increasingly guarded. Honest conversations become less frequent. People begin choosing their words more carefully, not because they have become wiser, but because they have become afraid. An elder notices occasional tension and assumes it is merely a personality conflict. Over time the church slowly adjusts itself around one difficult leader.

By then, what should have been addressed while it was still small has become normalized.

This is one of the reasons patterns are so important. Individual events can be misunderstood. Isolated conflicts can be exaggerated. Every leader has difficult days, makes poor decisions, and occasionally speaks unwisely. Faithful shepherds should never be condemned because of one imperfect moment.

Patterns are different. Patterns tell the truth.

When independent people who have little influence over one another consistently describe the same experiences over an extended period of time, wise shepherds should become curious. The goal is not to presume guilt but to pursue understanding, quickly. Wisdom asks whether these accounts reveal a common thread that deserves careful investigation. One complaint may be mistaken. Ten independent stories describing the same pattern should never be ignored.

Personality Assessments are Helpful—but Not Sufficient

In my own work coaching leaders and studying human behavior, I have found the DISC model to be an extremely valuable observational tool. Its value, however, is frequently misunderstood. DISC does not identify sin. It identifies predictable behavioral tendencies and, with them, predictable temptations.

For example, individuals with strong Dominant tendencies frequently become leaders because they possess remarkable strengths. They initiate change, make difficult decisions, assume responsibility, solve problems quickly, and move organizations forward. Those are genuine gifts that should be appreciated rather than feared.

Like every God-given strength, however, those gifts carry corresponding temptations if they are not continually surrendered to the sanctifying work of Christ. Confidence may become arrogance. Decisiveness may become control. Directness may become harshness. Courage may become intimidation. None of those outcomes is inevitable, nor are they unique to one personality style—though high Dominant personalities show them more frequently. Every personality possesses its own characteristic distortions. A high Influencing personality may drift toward approval-seeking or manipulation. A high Supportive personality may avoid necessary confrontation. A high Conscientious personality may become overly critical or perfectionistic.

The issue is never personality—though much can be gleaned from it. The issue is always the heart.

DISC helps us understand behavioral tendencies. Scripture explains why those tendencies exist and how they are transformed. Personality explains how we naturally respond. The gospel explains how Christ progressively changes those responses into His own likeness. Healthy leadership is never the result of possessing the “right” personality. It is the result of a personality increasingly governed by the Holy Spirit.

The Responsibility of Elders

One lesson quietly emerges from nearly every significant leadership failure in recent years. The greatest question is often not, “Why did that leader behave this way?” The more searching question is, “Why did those responsible for shepherding him wait so long to intervene?” That question is not intended to assign blame. It is intended to remind every elder of the solemn stewardship Christ has entrusted to him.

When Paul gathered the Ephesian elders for what would become his final meeting with them, he gave a command that deserves careful attention. “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28, BSB).

Notice the order. First yourselves. Then the flock.

Before elders are called to watch over others, they are commanded to watch over their own hearts, attitudes, and leadership. Only then are they equipped to care faithfully for the church entrusted to them. The church does not belong to its pastors. It does not belong to its elders. It does not belong to its denomination. It belongs to Christ, who purchased it with His own blood.

That reality elevates the seriousness of shepherding beyond organizational leadership. Elders are not merely protecting an institution. They are caring for people whose eternal value was demonstrated at Calvary. That responsibility requires courage, humility, wisdom, and a willingness to ask difficult questions while problems are still small rather than after years of accumulated damage.

Our Calling

Several years ago I wrote a book called Who’s Killing Your Church? because I had watched this pattern repeat itself too many times personally and in counseling. I took no pleasure in writing it. My hope was not to criticize leaders but to help churches recognize destructive patterns while there was still time to correct them. Sadly, the years since its publication have produced additional highly visible examples that have only strengthened my conviction that this conversation is both necessary and overdue.

That should not lead us to despair. It should lead us to vigilance. The answer is not suspicion. The answer is biblical shepherding. Because the shepherds are sheep, too.

The Church does not need weaker leaders. It needs leaders who increasingly resemble the Jesus. It needs shepherds who are courageous enough to confront sin, humble enough to receive correction, strong enough to protect the flock, and gentle enough that people are never afraid to tell them the truth.

An Even Bigger Issue…

The evidence strongly suggests that the high-profile senior pastors are only the visible tip of a much larger problem.

What we do not presently have is a reliable national study telling us, “X percent of associate pastors, executive pastors, ministry directors, worship leaders, administrators, or other mid-level church leaders are harsh, controlling, or domineering.” Church research has concentrated far more heavily on senior pastors, congregational conflict, burnout, sexual misconduct, and forced terminations than on abusive supervision throughout the entire church staff structure.

That absence of data should not be confused with an absence of the problem. The broader workplace data is sobering.

The 2024 Workplace Bullying Institute survey found that approximately one-third of respondents reported having been bullied at work. Its research has consistently found that supervisors and managers are the most frequent perpetrators. In its 2021 national survey, 65 percent of identified bullies were bosses. A large 2024 study from the United Kingdom similarly found that line managers were the most commonly identified perpetrators of workplace bullying and harassment, named in 53.6 percent of reported cases.

That matters because the word boss does not mean only the chief executive.

It includes the department head, regional director, assistant manager, shift supervisor, project leader, and every other person with enough delegated authority to affect someone’s assignment, reputation, opportunity, schedule, evaluation, or continued employment.

Translated into church life, it includes:

• executive pastors
• associate pastors
• campus pastors
• ministry directors
• worship pastors
• youth pastors
• children’s ministry directors
• administrators
• department supervisors
• elders overseeing staff
• influential volunteers who function as supervisors

A person does not need to be the “top dog” to make life miserable for everyone beneath him. He only needs enough authority, enough credibility with the senior leader, and insufficient accountability.

Christian Organizations are Not Exempt

Research on workplace mobbing in Christian organizations has concluded that bullying and coordinated mistreatment do occur in Christian ministry settings and are frequently spiritualized. Harmful conduct may be reframed as protecting the ministry, defending unity, honoring authority, submitting to leadership, showing loyalty, or refusing to participate in gossip.

That spiritual language can make the church workplace more dangerous than an ordinary workplace.

In a corporation, an employee may say, “My supervisor is controlling.”

In a church, the supervisor may reply, “You are resisting the vision God gave us.”

In a corporation, an employee may question a decision.

In a church, he may be accused of division, rebellion, disloyalty, or failure to submit to spiritual authority.

The ordinary workplace bully has organizational authority. The church bully may claim divine authority in addition to organizational authority. That does not merely silence people. It can confuse their consciences.

Conflict Research Also PointsToward Leadership Behavior

A major Faith Communities Today report on Episcopal congregations found that conflict over a priest’s leadership style was not only among the most common sources of congregational conflict but was the source most likely to become seriously disruptive. The same research found that even moderate conflict over leadership style weakened congregational health.

That particular study focused primarily on priests rather than every layer of the staff. But it confirms something central to Who’s Killing Your Church?: the way a leader leads is not peripheral to church health. It is one of its governing realities. AS I often say, as the leader goes, so goes the organization. In church, as the sr pastor goes, so goes the congregation.

And once we move below the senior pastor, detection becomes harder.

A senior pastor is watched by elders, the congregation, denominational bodies, and often the public. A ministry director may be watched only by the executive pastor who values his results. An associate pastor may have substantial authority over five or ten staff members while remaining almost invisible to the elder board. A worship leader may create fear, humiliation, favoritism, and constant turnover among volunteers while appearing talented, passionate, and effective from the congregation’s seats.

The harm can remain contained within one department for years.

The Hidden Middle May be the Most Protected Layer

The senior pastor’s behavior eventually affects enough people that the pattern may become visible. Mid-level leaders can often survive much longer because their damage is interpreted as a localized personnel problem…

One person leaves the worship ministry.

Another resigns from the youth staff.

A volunteer stops serving.

An administrative assistant transfers departments.

A subordinate becomes quiet during meetings.

A capable person is described as “not a team player.”

Because every departure is handled separately, no one asks whether the same leader stands at the center of all of them. This is precisely how a pattern remains hidden. And mid-level leaders often possess a particularly powerful form of protection: they make the senior leader’s life easier.

They execute.

They enforce.

They confront people the senior pastor does not want to confront.

They produce results.

They carry responsibility.

They keep problems away from the top.

A senior leader may therefore experience the person as loyal, competent, decisive, and indispensable, while the people below him experience the same person as harsh, intimidating, dismissive, controlling, and unsafe.

Both reports may be sincere because the leader treats upward very differently from how he treats downward. That is one of the most important warning signs elders must understand.

The Inference is Reasonable

We cannot responsibly say that every high-profile case represents exactly one hundred or one thousand hidden cases. There is no church-wide dataset establishing that ratio. But the inference that unreported lower-level cases greatly outnumber public senior-pastor scandals is entirely reasonable.

Public scandals require several unusual conditions: multiple complainants must speak, someone must document the behavior, an authority must investigate, the leader must be sufficiently prominent to attract reporting, and the findings must become public. Most local ministry conflicts never pass through even one of those gates.

Consider the numerical structure alone. A large church may have one senior pastor but ten, twenty, or fifty people exercising delegated leadership. Across thousands of churches, the number of mid-level leaders vastly exceeds the number of nationally prominent senior pastors. Even if destructive behavior occurred at the same rate at every level, the actual number of lower-level cases would necessarily be much greater.

Then add the lower visibility, weaker reporting systems, fear of retaliation, spiritualized language, and the frequent absence of professional human-resources structures. The real number could be enormous. We simply do not yet know how enormous.

The goal of this article is not to expose another fallen leader. It is to help faithful shepherds recognize these patterns early enough that another church never has to endure them. My prayer is that pastors and elders will examine their own hearts first, listen carefully to those entrusted to their care, and cultivate cultures where truth and love remain inseparable because both reflect the character of Christ.

May God grant every shepherd the humility to recognize unhealthy patterns while they are still small, the wisdom to distinguish isolated events from consistent fruit, and the courage to lead in a manner worthy of Jesus—the Chief Shepherd—who loved His Church and gave Himself for her.

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood”

(Acts 20:28, BSB).

[Part 2 and Part 3 of this article will cover recognizing this behavior and shepherding the Shepherd.]