A Model of Spiritually Abusive Language

If you could watch in slow motion and analyze how abusers manipulate, it would be enlightening. But when you are smack dab in a spiritually manipulative situation, sometimes the abuse happens so quickly that you don’t know what hit you. Every once in a while you catch a frozen glimpse of spiritual abuse in action. When it's in writing, it's easier to analyze. When it's in writing, it is inscribed in cement. You can take your time and actually see how the abuser is abusing.

The blog comments below (in bolded type) - from a few web sites I’ve been following - serve as freeze-frame examples of typical spiritually abusive techniques, so I thought I’d use them as an analytical tool. (My observations are in green type.)


The following comments were posted on a blog that tries to shed light on questionable practices in a large, influential church in Florida. Below the first set of comments are comments from a blog giving the story of a member hurt by a church/Bible college fiefdom in Canada.

In the first case, a blogger pointed out suspect practices and was kicked out of church. I am not so much concerned with the case itself as with the language used in these blog comments.

The writers of the comments may have no clue that the arguments they use are right out of the spiritual abuse playbook. They may think they are doing service to God. In any case, the arguments are a handy tool for those interested in examining the topic of spiritual abuse because they reflect so many spiritually abusive tactics, all in one place:

Well, there you go again, attacking an honest God-fearing, God-anointed, and God-appointed minister of the Gospel.

Notice the characterizing of what is said in opposition to a church leader as an “attack.” This is common with spiritual abusers and their helpers. The leader elicits sympathy by characterizing criticism as an attack. By drawing followers into a circle-the-wagons mentality, the persecution complex these leaders often exhibit can spread to the whole congregation.. Soon, it’s not just the leader, but the whole group that feels "under attack." (See Rick Ross, 10 signs regarding people in a relationship with a potentially unsafe group leader)
Also, the writer assumes without question that ministers are automatically “God-appointed.” We are to believe this without hesitation because title alone is what gives a church leader authority.
The commenter implies that ministers should never be contradicted, and this is an indication of authoritarianism, where position alone equals authority and authority is not to be questioned. Click here for a discussion on authoritarianism in the church. Also check out cult expert Rick Ross’s list of what makes an unsafe group leader. Look at the first two items especially.


Yes, I now know your argument quite well and have read enough of your other posts to have the clear picture of you as somebody that just wants to spread fear and doubt

When abusive leaders or their followers are confronted with legitimate questions about their actions, they quickly turn to ad hominem. They will start listing your faults so that you will be too busy defending yourself to remember what you were saying about their actions.
Abusive pastors and their henchmen also like to pretend they can know your heart and motives. By pretending this, they wrap themselves in a robe of power and mystery.


and not accept the fact that God is in control and has the ultimate authority over all church matters. If God is giving Dr. ___________ such a message to seminary students there must be a reason for it, such as the real existence of antagonism and dissent based on an uncooperative spirit


Simply delivering a sermon does not mean God is behind it. Abusers want you to believe that the leader is a spokesman for God at all times.
Uncooperative spirit, critical spirit, unteachable spirit: these are all names that spiritual abusers call those who stand up to abuse. We have seen this many times in various cases of abuse


that determines to undermine God's will and disrupt His work by focusing on trivial things.


Undermining the pastor’s will is equated to undermining God’s will in abusive churches.


In a world of many unsaved people that need the Gospel, where there are diseases, famines, natural disasters, abortions, and unspeakable crimes, do you think that God is concerned about the size of the office suite that our Pastor has?


God has the number of hairs on our head counted. He cares about every bird that falls. He cares about everything. He especially cares about those who are prey to the powerful. Supporters of abusive pastors like to divert attention AWAY from abusive behavior.
Uncovering and Facing Spiritual Abuse by Barnabas Ministry lists several ways supporters do this. Look especially at the section called Diverting Attention. In this case, the commenter took one portion of the blogger’s concerns and magnified it out of proportion, then tried to knock down that “straw man” argument, among other tactics.


Do you truly believe that God would consider it wrong for a pastor to warn future pastors about the high probability of enduring persecution?


Many abusive pastors will contact the new pastor of an expelled victim to slander him or give a negative report. Here, the supporter excuses this behavior at the same time charging persecution. Here is the very favorite P word, “persecution.” Spiritual abusers and their Yes-men resort to this charge constantly when facing scrutiny. Anything that might call them to account is automatically labeled “persecution.” Check out Persecution Complex in the article Abusive Churches by Pat Zukeran


In 2 Timothy 3:12 Paul wrote, "Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution." I believe this verse proves that Dr. __________ is on the right track and in God's will,


Using this verse in a such a twisted way upholds a common fallacy: Cats are soft. My slipper is soft. My slipper must be a cat. That is the logic used here. The Bible says godly people suffer persecution. The abusive pastor suffers “persecution.” Therefore, the abusive pastor is godly. Invalid syllogysm.


for he is obviously facing persecution. It's very dismaying to know that it's coming from within the church and that it has no substantial basis on which to defend itself. Oh, go ahead, call me naive and gullible again for thinking that way. If believing in the Bible and trusting in God's sovereignty is naive and gullible, I'll be happy to be those things.


Two manipulative tactics here. One, becoming the "suffering servant," defenders of abusive groups portray themselves as suffering, or hardworking or unloved. Supporters view their abusive pastors in that way and present them that way. It is an attempt to elicit sympathy and support for their leader. Another common attribute of spiritually abusive churches is scripture twisting. Torturing the scriptures to support your view, and especially to negate someone else’s view, can seem noble and holy, but it is a dreadful thing to do with scripture. Check out the article, Twisting Scriptures a sample chapter from Mary Alice Chrnalogar’s book Twisted Scriptures from the site Stop Spiritual Abuse.



Don't you think that questioning the man of God and hence, God's wisdom and providence, fall into the category of dangerous ground?


This question alone reeks of spiritually abusive practice. First, the writer assumes the abusive pastor is a man of God and the blogger isn’t. Second, the writer deifies the pastor by equating questioning him to questioning God. Third, the writer includes a veiled threat: You’re on dangerous ground questioning the pastor.


It reminds me of the phrase, "play with fire and get burned." Who are we to question our Almighty God who, as I said before, could and would bring about change if He deemed it necessary?


Everything that happens, even spiritual abuse, must be God’s will because if it wasn’t, He would change it. Misuse of logic. Under this principle, God must wish for elderly women to get mugged and African babies to starve, simply because it happens and God is in charge of everything.


Your complaints and those of your band of anonymous supporters are based on things that wouldn't be seen by looking at the big picture.


Another spiritual abuse tactic is to let victims know that they don’t have the big picture like the abuser does. They must trust in their abusive leader to have the correct view of things. (See p. 113 of Ken Blue’s Healing Spiritual Abuse)


They especially wouldn't be seen if we had our focus on the up-look and not on what's around us. As Hebrews 12:2 suggests, we need to keep our focus on Jesus! That's the main point!


While no one would dispute that the focus should be on Jesus, many would disagree on where the distraction is coming from. “Move along, don’t look too closely. The problem is YOU.” That is a common ploy of spiritually abusive leaders. It’s called “turning the tables”) See Rest Ministries’ article on Characteristics of Spiritual Abuse: Manipulation and read the “Turning the Tables” section.


If and when we wander away from that, we will certainly stumble and yield to the devil.


Confronting abuse in the church is now equated to “yielding to the devil.” One hallmark of spiritually abusive groups is a preoccupation with Satan and his work, according to Ron Enroth in this article on Apologetics Index.


Getting stressed out about the size of our Pastor's house and how he acquired land is not the result of staying focused on Jesus.


If you’re focused on Jesus you won’t care about corruption in the church, I guess. You can only do one: Focus on Jesus or question corrupt practices. You can’t do both. This is called “false dichotomy” and is another logical fallacy.


Neither is complaining about what he says about his church when preaching to other groups. Pastors have been known to use examples in their sermons. That is all he is doing. Perhaps, sad as it may in fact be, there is truth in what he says. Maybe our church has gotten more legalistic and needs to amend its ways. On his mission trips, the Apostle Paul certainly talked to one church about the issues and ways of other churches. It's obviously not wrong for a pastor to refer to his church when preaching elsewhere.


Deliberately mischaracterizing the statements of another is dishonest. The blogger was not complaining that the pastor addressed another church or used examples. Here, the dishonest characterization is used to shame the blogger. Using shame to silence critics is a hallmark of abusive churches and cults. (See the Watchman Expositor’s Elements of Spiritual Abuse.)



If there had been computers and blogs in Old Testament times, I think people would have complained about Joshua and his command to march around the walls of Jericho for seven days!


That some people in the past might have complained about righteous biblical leaders says nothing about whether a current leader is right or wrong, abusive or healthy. The attempt to condemn those who bring concerns about present abuse and compare them to murmurers in Old Testament times is a common abusive tactic. (See Scripture Twisting in Manipulation on Rest Ministries web site.) Whistleblowers are sometimes charged with "undermining the pastor," "Absalom syndrome," or "Jezebel syndrome."


There must have been some serious murmuring and doubt on display. Good thing it didn't stop Joshua. Moses encountered plenty of friction from his followers, yet he was still blessed by God and able to do great things!


Equating the authority of Moses to pastors is another common manipulative technique used by spiritual abusers. Moses was called to lead the Israelites, and God gave miracles through him to stamp His approval on him. Abusive leaders today often want to dress themselves in the authority of Moses without any sign of God’s approval. (See the Authoritarianism section in the article The Bible and Spiritual Abuse.)



Let's keep our focus on Jesus


No one on the blog was saying to stop looking on Jesus. I can certainly see the Pharisees telling Jesus to stop overturning tables and “Focus on God.” Again, this is simply a call for the blogger to stop looking at troubles and voicing concerns. Move on. Look the other way. It’s not godly to pay attention. (See Stephen Martin’s The Heresy of Mind Control, p. 92 in a section called Creating Guilt to Suppress Thought. To access the book you must click on the link at the bottom of Martin's page where it says: To read more about this subject ….)


and not allow circumstantial things to bother us and slow us down in our quest to bring honor to Him and be more like Him! Let's pray for our pastor


Another false dichotomy. The commenter suggests you can’t bring up concerns with the church and pray for the pastor at the same time. Who says the blogger isn’t already praying for the pastor?


and offer encouragement,
If corruption is involved, encouragement is not what the blogger should be doing,


help, and a positive attitude that promotes unity


another common manipulative technique seen in spiritually abusive situations is to equate unity with going along with the abuser’s agenda. Oppose the abuser and you are causing “disunity.” See the Group Leveraging section of Manipulation on Rest Ministries.


and preparation to achieve things for God and His Kingdom!


Purifying the church from abusive or corrupting influences and authoritarianism might very well be achieving things for God. Abusive pastors believe that the only godly achievements are those done for the glory of pastor or group. See Narcissism in the Pulpit.


Another blog I’ve been following more recently deals with spiritually abusive behavior at a church and Bible college in Canada. Comments defending abuse and abusers are very telling and many fit right into the same patterns mentioned in the first part of this post. Others reveal techniques not mentioned above. Again, the comments from the blog are in bolded type; my comments are in green.

You can't leave people alone can you? The Bible has allot to say about people like you.(gossips busybodies, etc.)

Here, you see the technique of “turning the tables,” pointing to the sins or crimes of the victim rather than dealing with the abuse as a topic. Notice the “gossip” charge, such a common charge used in abusive churches against those raising questions and issues.

The (church) must be doing something Great for the LORD. Because that the only reason Satan would be attacking the Church and it's leadership. this hard.

It's just Sad to see all these so called "Christians" leading the attack. I think Laura And all her Supporters will hang their heads in Shame at the judgment.

Another faulty syllogism. The commenter believes that the church is being attacked by Satan. (See "Common Threads", The second item is an increased emphasis on the role of demons in Ron Enroth's "Voices from the Fringe") 
The commenter states it as fact that Satan is attacking this particular church. He does not allow any other possibility to explain the discomfort of the leadership.  Then, he posits that because Satan is attacking the church it is proof that the church is doing great things for God.  
   Although all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, it doesn’t follow that all who suffer persecution are living godly in Christ Jesus. Further, there is a threat at the end: If you support the victim, you will be shamed at the Judgment.

It was never about her telling her "story"
it was about her getting back at her father.
she's not reaching out, she's lashing out.
It all makes sense now.

Spiritual abusers and their henchmen often impute motives onto victims to explain away honest questions regarding abusive leadership. “Revenge” is one motive of many. Bitterness is another common motive. Anger another. Rather than a true evaluation of the behavior of leadership, something that a healthy church would initiate after hearing of dissatisfaction among the faithful, abusers turn outward and invent motives to justify the continued abuse.

If everything you said against (the church) were true, you are still GRAVELY WRONG in your attitude and wisdom in handling it. You have every rite to take all your DEFINATE PROOF to be heard by the deacons                   

Sometimes spiritual abusers detour around the issue itself and attack the means of bringing matters up for consideration. The abuser will claim that victims didn’t go in an orderly fashion along all the steps of Matthew 18, or that they didn’t do A, B or C. Often, victims do try to confront a leader personally but get nowhere. When victims are told to “see the elders,” frequently the elders are spiritual snipers, bouncers, or personal body guards of the pastor and not functioning in a true elder role in a church. Their job is to make sure that no unpleasantness comes before the big cheese.
    When a sincere member comes with his list of questions, he quickly is made into a villain or sent on a longer detour or told to pray about the matter. He won’t be allowed to advance along the Matthew 18 route or any other route.    Later, when he tries to “tell it to the church” because he has been deflected a number of times from the proper paths, he is accused of going about things the wrong way.
    Sometimes, the pastor will meet with the victim but only in a room bulging with yes-men supporters who will come down like a hammer on the head of anyone bringing to the light of day questionable, unbiblical or unethical behaviors of the leadership.
    Frequently, victims who have watched as others are deflected or crushed, know that it is fruitless to even attempt a personal encounter with the pastor because the system is set up to prevent accountability. These victims learn vicariously that they cannot engage the non-engageable and they thus slink out or try other equally fruitless methods.
    After being ejected, deflected or rejected by church leadership, victims are further insulted by being blamed for going about things the wrong way!
                                   
Sounds like you have an issue with submission

    Of all the techniques spiritual abusers use, blaming the victim for being “unsubmissive” is one of the most ironic. Christians are to submit one to another, and to submit to secular authorities rather than cause trouble in the empire. But spiritual abusers turn these passages into a peons-will-submit-to-the-high-pastor command. Rarely is the pastor in submission to anyone other than himself.
    Sometimes, he will surround himself with sychophants whose positions and income depend on his pleasure and who cannot hold him accountable without endangering their livelihood.
    Occasionally, he will purposely use men too afraid to oppose him when he is unbiblical or unethical, though they do not depend on him financially. They know the power he holds and have seen him destroy others. They are not about to speak up and bring his wrath on their own heads. 
       So these abusive pastors are largely lone rangers, accountable to no one, yet they accuse their victims of being unsubmissive. They can get away with it because most of their victims ARE the submissive, humble kind who don’t speak up until they absolutely must. Often, they have served and served and served, sacrificially and at great cost, with very little thank or reward except for occasional scraps of flattery. So a charge of being unsubmissive hurts them deeply, and the pastor knows it.

bitter people anonymously gathering in large masses on the web, hiding behind their own presumptuous little hurt feelings trying to salve their stinky consciences.

The bitterness charge is so common that there are few abusive church leaders who don’t use this word in describing their victims. No one wants to be called bitter, so it’s an effective label. It is like the bully who kicks the kid with glasses, and when he cries in pain calls him a “crybaby.” It is a thin membrane between church-inflicted pain and bitterness, and pain can indeed become bitterness under the right conditions. You will find many anti-Christian web sites started by those damaged in abusive churches. So those using broad brushes can inflict more pain by deliberately confusing the two concepts.

One thing abusive church leaders hate is anonymity of those who expose their practices. Abusers sometimes go to great lengths to expose anonymous critics. The Internet helps churches call to account malevolent leaders who, in an earlier day, would have been able to maim and destroy families without any check at all on their abuses. You can see how this new element of constraint irritates would-be dictators by comments such as those above. Characterizing members who have been trampled as presumptuous and trivializing their victims’ reaction to spiritual tyranny as “hurt feelings” shows a pitiable lack of empathy so characteristic of abusive church leaders, especially those suffering from NPD.

The methods in these comments are used to shame and humiliate, to divert attention from the leader and onto the questioner, to confuse and silence critics with convoluted logic. These methods are common. You will see them in most spiritually abusive churches and groups. At the very least, this exercise gets you more familiar with many great sources on spiritual abuse.

Are you covering for a spiritually abusive pastor?

Signs you may be covering for a pastor who abuses the flock spiritually:

1. You've noticed a pattern of people leaving the fellowship, but you hesitate to ask your pastor about it and don't like to delve into the reasons behind the exits.
2. You've seen your pastor act in retribution for slights or criticism by removing people from ministries, publicly or privately shaming them or refusing to listen to them.
3. You excuse your pastor's wrong behavior: He's young (or he's old), he doesn't understand the people who are unhappy, he has a little trouble relating to people, he'll grow out of it, I'm probably not seeing the whole picture, God will show him his weaknesses and he'll handle things better soon, no pastor is perfect in every way, he's such a good preacher that we can overlook the other parts of his calling.
4. You find yourself blaming victims. You justify harsh behavior by your pastor by focusing on the sins or weaknesses of those who are shamed or shunned or criticized or punished.
5. You feel that to protect the name of Christ in your community you need to keep secret the alarming behavior by your pastor or leaders in the church.
6. You feel it's your duty to think the best of your pastor, no matter what charges are brought against him (but you don't extend the same courtesy to those who feel they've been abused or harmed).
7. You feel it's okay for your pastor to build up your church by criticising other churches with "inferior" doctrines or practices, but it's not okay for anyone to question decisions by church leaders if it looks like criticism.
8. You enjoy being flattered by your pastor and seek to please him often. You spend a lot of time in church flattering and seeking approval from your pastor.
9. You are frequently in fear of being criticized by your pastor or having your ministry in the church taken away.
10. You've seen your pastor flatter those he can use and then later turn on them or ignore them.
11. You would feel uncomfortable asking to see financial records of the church, and you are willing to just assume that they are being used in a godly manner.
12. You feel constant pressure to help more in church or to give more, or both.
13. Going to church often seems like a burden, but you don't want anyone to know you feel that way.
14. You have criticized other churches or individuals with your pastor.
15. You like the feeling of being in the "inner circle," and you sometimes feel you have the pastor's confidence in a way no one else does.
16. You often feel a little bit superior to Christians who don't witness as much as you, or who don't practice their faith as well as you, or who don't emphasize certain doctrines as much as you do.
17. You feel that no one quite understands the scriptures, delivers sermons or reaches out to the weak and poor like your pastor does.
18. You spend much time defending your pastor, either in your own mind or to others
19. You don't like to admit it, but you often spend more time thinking about your pastor or leaders than you do about God (whether positively, negatively or both).
20. You are exhausted.

If many of these items speak to you, it might be a good idea to evaluate what your role in your church really is. Are you providing a constant stream of "narcissistic supply" for your pastor? Is your main role to make him look good? Do you equate making him look good with powerful ministry in your community? You can serve many years believing you are doing good in your church by covering spiritual abuse for your leader, while really doing great harm. Check out the signs of spiritual abuse. If they look familiar, and you feel you may have had a hand in perpetuating it, all is not lost.
You can recognize the harm and turn from it, even if it's been a long time coming.

On Milieu Control and the Georgia Baptist blog ban

From Under Much Grace blog, I found this tidbit from a post called Lifton's Mind Control 101:

Most simply stated, “Milieu Control” is the control of an environment by controlling the information and activities within the environment.

Pertaining to manipulative and closed groups, this involves control of communication and generation of acceptable information to be disseminated among the membership.

Ultimately, the group seeks to control the thought environment of individual members, and it is this internal milieu control that produces the isolation from society at large.

The cognitive dissonance [uncomfortable feeling] produced by the incongruent messages received from the outside creates the natural desire to withdraw or filter information that does not coincide with information within the group.

It’s too draining and stressful to constantly try to reckon conflicting worldviews, so isolationism seen in closed systems of thought is often a necessary adaptation. Healthy people do filter information, but in closed systems, the group dictates what sources of information are restricted in an effort to maintain compliance and limit dissent.

Now, having just read this about mind control, take a look at what the Georgia Southern Baptists have decided to try
For background on the blog ban, see Wartburg Watch

Blame and Detachment

Now two years away from our experience with spiritual abuse, I still find myself with residual effects. Some of these involve blame, both for myself and for our pastor. I blame our pastor for running into the ground a church that was full of sincere, joyful couples. I blame him for using the willingness of others to serve for his own purposes. I blame him for sending into darkness and confusion a young man who was devoted to him. I sometimes blame him for my children's cynicism. I blame myself for ignoring so many red flags. I wanted to believe a vision that was false. I hoped for revival in our church and believed that the verse-by-verse preaching our pastor offered was the key to that. I continued to defend him in the face of just and honest criticism. I blame myself for that and for not being careful. I blame myself for condemning others in order to see him in the best light and to believe in a false vision.

I also find myself detached from our current church, afraid to make any serious friendships or commitments. I overreact against sentimentalism. I don't have the ardor for the gospel I once had but I know that the lack of feeling is a protective mechanism. I would rather not feel than feel wrongly. I know the Bible says it's good to rejoice when the gospel is preached "in pretense or in truth" but rejoicing in pretense is out of the question. I feel that since so much emphasis before was placed on sharing the gospel (as a way to bolster our elitist view that WE share the gospel while all those other, worldly churches don't) I have no deep inclination to try to "win souls" or "share the gospel" or "get the word out." It's not that I don't want to see people "saved." I just want to go about it in a way that pleases God, and if that means quietly right now, it will be quietly.

New Book on Spiritual Abuse

Interview with Dr. Margaret Jones, author of Not of My Making: Bullying, Scapegoating and Misconduct available through Amazon

Not of My Making is a new, self-published book on Jones’ effort to grapple with several abusive situations, including church abuse. Jones endured childhood abuse and neglect, along with spiritual abuse in two churches, but despite such devastating situations, she obtained her Ph D, became a therapist and runs a family business, Pluck Press.

Here is a recent interview with Dr. Jones:

1. On the Pluck Press site, there is a little motto that says, “From survivor to thriver.” Are you thriving now?

Yes. I have become more of the person I was always meant to be. I am the piece of iron thrust into the fire. I am now stronger, more confident and more accepting of who I am. I make no apologies for freely expressing my emotions. I like that I am a passionate, intelligent and well educated person with strong opinions.

2. What made you decide to write a book about your experiences? Wouldn’t it have been easier just to bury all the bad feelings and go on?

I tried to bury my pain and forget what happened. In my book you will notice that I stopped therapy a couple of times because talking appeared to increase my agony. The pain of silence, however, was greater. My anxiety and self-harming behaviors increased. If I allowed my adversaries to silence me, I would have paid for it with my life. Writing and marketing Not of My Making has aided my recovery and helped me move on.

3. Your journal seems to have played a big part in your life and in your recovery. Would you recommend journaling to others in an abusive situation?

I encourage my therapy and coaching clients to write about their experiences. Some refuse because they fear others in their household will read it and use it as a weapon against them. Others don’t like to write. For them writing is more like an English grammar assignment. But whenever I have a client who likes to write, I suggest they journal about their experiences.

4. It sounds like you started your journal at quite a young age. At what age are your earliest entries?

I started keeping a journal when I was sixteen years old after watching a movie about Anne Frank. I was lonely and the journal became my only friend. I usually wrote when something was upsetting me. So you will find very few of the good times in my life recorded in my journal. While raising my children my journal writing morphed into letters to my husband and the therapist I had at the time. I started keeping a journal again when I started therapy again. Unable to talk about what had happened at church; I would write in my journal and share it with my therapist each week. I used that material to write Not of My Making.

5. You have three subheaders for your book – bullying, scapegoating and misconduct. What is the difference between those behaviors? Why did you choose those three to describe what happened to you?

The subheads are designed to make it easier for people who are interested in abuse to find my book. In Not of My Making I recount how my classmates ridiculed me and excluded me from all events including my junior and senior proms. As an adult this pattern repeated itself at the churches I attended. During church conflicts I became a convenient scapegoat. By blaming me, people were able to divert attention from the issues I raised and push through their own agendas with little or no scrutiny. Clergy in their efforts to “help” and/or silence me broke some basic principles of professional ethics such as confidentiality.

6. How common do you think spiritual abuse is in churches today?

As common as bullying is in schools. It is part of human nature to seek power and dominance. Unless there are structures in place to prevent it, wherever people congregate you will get bullying including churches. The problem is made worst when church leaders attempt to hide conflict. People are then able to mistreat others without fear of being reprimanded.

7. Did your husband or family play any role in your recovery from spiritual abuse?

My husband was supportive during the conflict with the Unitarian Universalist churches. When the conflict occurred at the Lutheran church he just wanted me to stop going to church. “They are all corrupt,” he would tell me. He doesn’t understand why I attend church. It is easy to forget he has also been hurt by the spiritual abuse. As a result he won’t have anything to do with religion. My eldest sister and her daughter on the other hand understood why I wanted to remain churched. Their phone calls and letters were helped me get through it.

8. You have been a victim of many kinds of abuse. Is it possible to state which was the worst and why?

Abuse is abuse. Regardless of what form it takes, the injury from it is pretty much the same. Of the three dechurchings Immanuel was the worst. They not only attacked me but my entire life, my family, my home, everything I valued and was proud of. I was also in a more vulnerable place. I was still recovering from my previous dechurchings and I was grieving the loss of my foster son. My adversaries did not see my grief as legitimate.

9. Were there intimations of church abuse before you actually began to realize what was happening? What were the first clues something was not quite right in either of your church experiences?

At the Unitarian churches I was completely taken by surprise. I truly believed UUs were tolerant and would sit down to rationally discuss things. I didn’t realize I was being bullied until I saw Stossel’s show on school bullying. I began to get worried at Immanuel when they put me on a pedestal for taking in a Sudanese Lost Boy. My therapist thought I was over reacting. He was wrong. Now I pay more attention to my own perceptions. I worry less about being nice or rational. I trust my gut.

10. Do people even today try to turn the tables and blame you for your own abuse? If so, what is your response when that happens?

No one blames me for my childhood sexual abuse and neglect by my parents. However, there are some people who believe you can’t trust survivors around children. It is like you have the mark of Cain on you. As for my dechurchings, some people don’t understand why I didn’t leave the abusive situations sooner. These people usually don’t see the value in attending church or they have a need to believe it can’t happen to them because they think they are smarter and more capable than me. I believe it can happen to you no matter who you are.

11. Do you think your understanding of God was damaged because of what happened to you? Have you deliberately tried to keep numb so that you won’t be hurt again? Or have you managed to arrive at a healthy understanding of God and his place in your life?

My understanding of God was damaged by the sexual abuse, parental neglect and bullying in school. God, it appeared to me, wasn’t doing a good job of protecting me. I left the Catholic Church and became an atheist. I began making my way back to church once I overcame depression. I started attending the Unitarian Universalist Church because I thought they were more tolerant than other denominations. Although I would eventually learn how narrow and intolerant they really were, I do not regret the time I was a member. Unitarian Universalism allowed me to explore other faith traditions and nurtured my spiritual seeking. When I wasn’t politically liberal enough and began reading Marcus Borg’s books on Jesus they no longer had a place for me. UUs were going in the opposite direction. While they were embracing neopaganism I was rediscovering Christianity.
My experience at Immanuel Lutheran strengthened my faith rather than destroyed it. I finally realized that so much of what I was searching for – love, acceptance, and safety – were to be found in God. The concept of sin actually freed me from years of guilt I felt over having been raped. I finally understood it was my rapist’s sin, not mine.

12. What would you recommend for someone who begins to suspect their church could be abusive, but they aren’t sure?

Trust their perceptions and pay attention. Are there procedures in place for reporting problems? What happens when there is a conflict? Does someone get blamed for it and pushed out of the church? Are people gossiped about? Does the minister participate in that gossip? Does the minister or leadership share authority and invite everyone’s participation in church life or are some people excluded? Are the teachings consistent with classic Christianity? Are people trying to walk the talk or are they mainly interested in coffee hour?

Can't Talk Rule or Don't Talk Rule

Various sources on spiritual abuse warn about the Can't Talk rule (or the Don't Talk rule) in abusive groups. In spiritually manipulative churches, pastors don't usually come right out and tell you not to talk about certain issues. (Especially concerns in the church.) They are much more subtle.

They might hint at "the enemy" who incites people to gossip, or they may denounce weak Christians who whisper. They might blast the motives of anyone who brings a legitimate issue to the leadership, condemning them as self-centered, divisive or lazy.
They might emphasize grumbling and complaining as among the gravest of sins. They might compare those who bring up church issues to scoffers in Moses' time -- implying that if you dare mention a weakness of the church you are similar to those ungrateful Israelites that the good Moses ( read: church leader) had to put up with.

They might tell you to "get in line with the mission," "submit to authority," or "stop dividing the flock," shaming someone who brings honest questions  -- in order to deflect scrutiny from themselves.
Some might tell you that you are not in harmony with "the vision or mission" of the church, which often is just a high-sounding way of saying that the leader's views are beyond question, and accountability is not the business of a mere layperson.

By whatever means available, abusive pastors will shut down discussion and prevent accountability for suspect practices. The unspoken "don't talk" rule makes this easy. Anyone who dares raise an issue to the light of day will be shut down, preached against, shunned, mistreated or shamed, either by open means or subtle means.

Perhaps some have left the church, and you wish to know why. Maybe the pastor has preached something that doesn't line up with scripture. Maybe someone has been kicked out of church or removed from a ministry. Perhaps these uncomfortable practices have been increasing. Maybe the finances are not open to public view; or business meetings are closed -- or nonexistent. Perhaps teachers or musicians have complained about mistreatment and you are not sure who to believe. A Sunday school teacher suddenly leaves or is moved elsewhere without any explanation. An elder resigns. A spouse or older child disappears and no one dares ask about it.

Those living under a Can't Talk or Don't Talk rule know not to ask questions. They have been manipulated into remaining silent, even though their active conscience urges them to speak up. The reluctance to speak up is often disguised as virtue. You're not a grumbler. You're not a troublemaker. It's someone else's place to ask questions, not yours. You're just a humble nobody.
So the pastor or leader remains accountable to no one. He can do what he likes without opposition, no matter how questionable, unorthodox, ungodly -- or in some cases, illegal.

If this describes the mechanism in place at your church, make sure to do a little research into spiritual abuse and see if other signs might not also be present in your group. The Can't Talk rule is an unspoken rule meant to stifle and hide anything that challenges the control of a leader or that has the potential to put a leader in a bad light. It is often the tip of the iceberg.

Image Consciousness

One sign of spiritual abuse, according to David Henke of Watchman Ministries, is image consciousness. (Item no. 2 on his list)

When I first saw this item on the checklist, I thought, well our group isn't image conscious. We don't advertise, we keep a low profile, we don't dress up or have new, flashy ministries.

So, at first, when I saw this item, I thought it was one of the few you couldn't check off concerning our group. Then I looked at it again and saw that Henke isn't talking about group image so much as individual image. Suddenly, the red flags popped up.

Our group, on an individual basis, was extremely image conscious. I would not want to park anywhere near a casino for fear the pastor might draw the wrong conclusion should he drive by, or anyone in the church, or anyone who knew me, for that matter.

I was afraid to buy wine vinegar at the grocery store for the same reason. It looks like a bottle of wine. (Though I didn't and don't believe alcohol was wrong, I do not drink for reasons other than religion.) How could I bring down the name of Christ by looking like a hypocrite?

I was constantly thinking, What would the pastor or his wife think of me if they saw me doing this or that? What if I had too many items in my shopping cart and I looked extravagant? What if my clothes look too expensive? Am I being Christlike by serving roast when others can only afford Mac N Cheese?

In short, image was everything. Or at least it was a much bigger deal than I realized until I was out of the group. It wasn't Christ's expectations; it was the pastor's, and the idea that since I was representing Christ to the world, I had to be perfect. Trying to avoid all appearances of evil is a full-time job.

I am pretty much free from this now. I park in front of bars and casinos if convenient. I don't detour around the liquor aisle. I don't pay attention much to what I'm wearing. I am free!

Here's what Henke has to say on the subject:
Jesus was not "image conscious." He was willing to associate with wine drinkers, cheating tax collectors and even prostitutes. He accused the legalistic Pharisees of "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9) and likened their showy, hypocritical outward rightousness to "whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27).

Neither was He paranoid. His ministry was conspicuously open to the public. When He was on trial (John 18) He was asked about His teachings and His reply was, "Why askest thou me?" Jesus pointed out that He always taught in public, and never in secret, so why not ask His disciples. He had nothing to hide.

Jesus did not fear to criticize the religious leaders or their faulty doctrines (e.g. Matthew 15:1-9; 23:1-39, etc.). And when confronted with criticism or with treacherous questions designed to discredit Him, His response was never to simply demand silence or only positive recognition from His accusers. Rather, He gave answers - scriptural and reasonable answers - to their objections (e.g. Luke 7:36-47; Matthew 19:3-9).