At this year’s Equippers Shout Conference, I heard Danny Guglielmucci speak honestly into the area of unsafe leadership. He named what many are living through. The pain of unsafe leadership is real, and the confusion it leaves in its wake is often profound.
Over the past couple of months, I have been having many conversations with church leaders from different denominations who are wanting their churches to be healthy churches. Some, however, are navigating the aftermath of unsafe leadership, while others are emerging from unhealthy leadership that lacked clarity, sustainability, or grace.
So, is there a difference? And how do we distinguish between unsafe, unhealthy, and healthy leadership cultures?
We need language and clarity to help leaders and congregations discern what is healthy, what is not, and what needs to change.
Unsafe leadership is marked by control, guilt, and manipulation. It often spiritualises loyalty, creates narratives of heroes and villains, and demands alignment with the “right side” of a loyalty divide. There may be a veneer of accountability, but real challenge is resisted, especially from within.
Unhealthy leadership is not abusive, but it is often unclear, inconsistent, or emotionally enmeshed. Leaders may fail to listen well, becoming defensive or dismissive. Expectations are assumed, boundaries are blurred, and team culture is built more on personality than purpose. People may be well-meaning, but systems are lacking, and outcomes are foggy.
Healthy leadership, by contrast, brings clarity without coercion. Leaders are accountable, not just impressive. Communication is honest, feedback is welcomed, and people can say yes or no without fear of exclusion. Roles are clear and sustainable. Vision is shared and Kingdom-centred. The people are mobilised in alignment with their calling, not just out of competency; and definitely not out of pressure or guilt.
We need clarity here. Not so we can label churches or leaders, but so we can name the reality and move toward healing. (See the diagram below).
Of course, leadership culture is rarely just one thing. It is often a combination, with some aspects working well and others needing attention. The key is to identify where unsafe practices or dynamics may be present and take steps to address them; where leadership or culture feels unhelpful or underdeveloped, to strengthen and realign them; and where healthy patterns are present, to build on them and intentionally reproduce them in others.
One of the challenges in recovering from unsafe leadership is that, in trying to avoid past issues of control, some end up swinging too far the other way. The pain of living through unsafe leadership can cause people to experience any form of expectation as if it is manipulation, or clarity and faith as control and domination, when they are not. These reactions are understandable, but they also need to be tended to and healed if they are all to move forward in health.
If we are to become the kind of communities Jesus intended — full of grace and truth — we must be brave enough to unmask what is unsafe, grow through what is unhealthy, and pursue what is truly healthy.
Getting this right matters. We cannot grow thriving churches without cultivating safe and healthy leadership cultures.
In my next post, I’ll explore how church cultures can be understood along a spectrum — from unsafe to healthy, and ultimately thriving.
If you would like a free Healthy Church Checklist or would value support for your leadership team or church context, feel free to reach out.
📩 Email us at: admin@thrivingchurcheshq.com
Leadership Culture Overview: Unsafe – Unhealthy – Healthy
| THEME | UNSAFE | UNHEALTHY | HEALTHY |
| Expectations | Used for guilt or control. Made to feel guilty if not submitting blindly. | Vague or inconsistent | Clear, shared, and sustainable |
| Measurement | Obedience without feedback. Everything requires high commitment. | Lacks evaluation or alignment | Measures Kingdom outcomes. Reflection is encouraged. |
| Accountability | Superficial accountability. Looks accountable but resists challenge | Avoids feedback; feels unsafe | Mutual, gracious, and consistent. Leaders reviewed and can be respectfully questioned. |
| Role Clarity | Guilt or fear used to pressure involvement. Roles unclear. | Blurry roles and boundaryless | Defined, agreed roles with consent. Roles match calling, gifts, and strengths. |
| Commitment | Loyalty demanded; disloyalty punished. | Commitment expected without shared ownership | Flows from shared vision and trust |
| Communication | Disagreement discouraged. Strong or dominating language used. | Inconsistent, unclear, or informal. Assumptions dominate. | Transparent with feedback loops |
| Volunteering | Saying no has relational cost. People “blacklisted” if not compliant. | No clarity. Leads to burnout or confusion. Poor systems. | Honoured freedom to opt in or out |
| Conflict & Feedback | Raising issues is risky. Raise a problem and you become the problem. Genuine apology is rare. | Avoided or deflected | Addressed with safety and respect |
| Spiritual Climate | Disagreement is spiritualised as rebellion. "Covering" language masks control. | Confusion disguised as piety. Spiritualises dysfunction. | People invited into faith and spiritual formation, not pressured |
| Narrative | Polarises people into sides, heroes and villains. Full story never shared to maintain loyalty. | Unclear values or boundaries. Insider-outsider dynamic not addressed. | Loyalty to Christ and mission, not personalities. Differences accepted. |
| Relational Style | Counterfeit kindness. Tone sounds caring but controlling. Dominance spiritualised as “authority”. | Inconsistent, overly accommodating, and unclear boundaries. | Kind and strong. Humble and honest. Congruent and consistent. |
