Thank you, David Hayward |
One does not have to be part of a
spiritually abusive denomination or religious movement to encounter
spiritually abusive behavior. Many reading this post will have had
nothing to do with a church that follows set practices that advocate
a formal, abusive “authority-submission structure.” However, I
suspect that many people identify with the problem. Many people have
thought much better of their religious leaders, only to be
disappointed by them. Sometimes that is a failing in the system that
a group follows, and sometimes, it is just a failing in individuals.
Whatever the source, the unanticipated process of disappointment can be deeply painful if not psychologically traumatic. Most people expect their religious leaders to be safe for them emotionally, one of the few people in the world who will be fair with them and will act in their best interests. The rude awakening of a church member as their minister throws them under the bus for the benefit of the group or for the convenience of the clergy destroys trust and creates confusion.
Whatever the source, the unanticipated process of disappointment can be deeply painful if not psychologically traumatic. Most people expect their religious leaders to be safe for them emotionally, one of the few people in the world who will be fair with them and will act in their best interests. The rude awakening of a church member as their minister throws them under the bus for the benefit of the group or for the convenience of the clergy destroys trust and creates confusion.
This discussion will be limited to the
religious leader who does act on behalf of a high demand, spiritually
abusive system, even though the same kind of disappointment can
easily apply to an individual minister or leader who resorts to less
than admirable behavior when feeling personally threatened by a
church member.
Just How Deep Goes the Rabbit Hole?
As explored in the previous post, many
ministers learn that the virtue of the end that the group seeks or
that which benefits the group outweighs any other consideration,
including the best interests of any individual member of the group.
And as mentioned many times before in this discussion, that virtuous
end and group objective justifies any means necessary and any
personal cost. When ministers act unethically, disregard the
legitimate, basic needs of church members, or harm members, they
believe that their actions are necessary and beneficial for the
group. They believe that their actions exemplify sacrifice, virtue,
if not martyrdom for the cause, and they believe that they are
accomplishing God's will for them, even though it is uncomfortable –
something they see as part of the burden of leadership. Everything
must be sacrificed to preserve the lofty cause, including a few of
their lambs.
I struggled terribly with this
question. My pastor and a few of the elders were very good, kind,
and compassionate with me while I met the demands of the group. When
I started advocating for abused women within the church, and when
other conflicts arose about which I spoke frankly and honestly with
leadership, everything seemed to change, including the ethics of the
ministers. It became obvious that they were willing to lie to
protect one another, and they were willing to ignore injustice and
injury. In some cases, they facilitated and promoted injury to those
whom the group identified as rebellious or unsubmissive, stopping at
nothing to secure what they identified as a mandatory “submission.”
My presumptions about the ethical code
that I believed we shared proved quite wrong. These men were willing
to lie and exact cruel punishment to secure compliance with members
and resisted accountability. They were not who and what they
professed to be, a perception that they promoted publicly. On the
surface, they were all compassionate, humble and self-sacrificing
servants, but behind closed doors, they could be ravenous, proud, and
self-serving. I could not reckon how they could behave with such
great virtue in one circumstance and with such prideful malice in
another, believing that their actions were virtue. I also trusted
them implicitly which made the process much more difficult. And I
loved them and believed that they loved me. I thought so much better
of them.
That conflict and my disappointment
posed another dilemma for me as a Christian. I knew that I would
ultimately have to move through this experience. I would have to
confront these men in some way, knowing well by that point that they
were deeply uncomfortable with confrontation. By then, I also knew
that unless I fell into line with the expectations of the pastor in
particular, my concerns were seemingly meaningless to them, caring
little about whether or not I was offended or even wounded. What
mattered more than anything was how my concerns weighed against the
god they'd made of the group itself.
It also became obvious that they
believed this so strongly that, with great personal ease, they cursed
me with destruction for leaving the church against their wishes. A
few weeks later, the pastor and his wife stood on the steps of the
church, weeping over the demise that they believed would befall my
friends and their children because they also chose to leave. Not
only were they willing to lie and ignore harm, they were willing to
threaten us with death and demise for leaving? It seemed highly
unlikely that they would repent if they were capable of pronouncing
curses, even on children whom they said would die – for leaving a
church to find a new one to attend??? I would have to release them
to God, even though I felt that they owed me a debt of repentance
that I would clearly never get from them. I would have to look to
God for comfort and would have to release them to Him. That was not
an easy process at all.
The Phenomenon of Doubling
To understand the behavior of people
within a spiritually abusive system, one must consider the nature of
the system and the dynamics that govern it. We are creatures who are
idealistic, and thought reform is a system of ideological totalism.
The system by way of its leader(s) uses lofty beliefs to motivate
willing followers to remain confined within a closed, authoritarian
structure – a system of hegemony that dominates. All participants,
including the leaders, must live to validate and prove the belief
system at any cost because the system is believed to define ultimate
truth. The leaders in the group become God's spokesmen, and in the
process of defending ultimate truth, they see themselves as those who
live above the regular rules because of their lofty purpose. They
must be willing to do anything necessary to preserve truth and the
system that promises to redeem mankind and society. Sometimes they
are called to do some unpleasant things in order to preserve the
greater good. Within such a system, even the leaders feel conflict,
because the system doesn't work perfectly and it does require a heavy
hand of control. What can leaders do with the stress created by
conflict?
The system only appears to hold all of
the answers for humanity, but in reality, it falls short of its
promises. To avoid the pain of doubt, a person must make a choice to
seek the truth or their own comfort through confirmation bias or
wishful thinking, taking in only information that reinforces what
they want to believe is true about the system. One cannot remain
comfortably and functionally within the system and entertain doubt at
the same time, so the individual must develop a coping strategy for
dealing with doubt. In order to do that, the person must suppress
their own doubts and personality traits (along with their sense of
ethics) in order to merge with the group. At some point, and ever so
subtly, they turn off their own better judgment and hand their
critical thinking over to the group (which is self-preserving).
Early in the process, they may notice
the ethical discomfort, but after hundreds of individual little
choices to trust the group instead of themselves, they lull their
ethics and sense of personal responsibility into a coma. They set
themselves aside in order to serve the lofty purpose and the system
that preserves the purpose. They “double”
themselves in order to do it, and it becomes a matter of
their own psychological survival. They become a different version of
themselves – a double – one that fits in with the group. They
don't sell their soul to the devil for personal gain, but they sell
their soul to the group in the name of virtue, believing that it's
the best and wisest thing that they could possibly do.
Though I don't introduce it here for
pejorative punch, perhaps one of the best examples of this process
can be understood by considering the doctors in Nazi Germany. Robert
Lifton who wrote about ideological totalism sought to understand this
process of doubling and wrote a book about the phenomenon called The
Nazi Doctors. War required survival, and in order to heal the
nation, killing became a necessary means to that end, rationalizing
the need to kill. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary
actions. Necessity demands it.
Lifton states in The
Nazi Doctors:
A Nazi doctor could thus avoid a war in which his life would really be threatened (that on the Russian front) but participate in a claimed moral equivalent of war in which he faced no such danger... He could experience a psychological equivalent of war, at moments feel himself "on the battlefield of the race war." On this and many other issues, partial conviction could combine with rationalization (pg. 431).
As a warrior in God's effort to defend
the truth, through the doubled self, religious leaders eventually
find it easy to justify most any action. Threat to the greater good
and the survival of either the group or its truth becomes more
important than following an ethical code, and one truth or virtue
becomes pitted against another. In a competition, the greater good
of the group must win over commitment to honor, truth, trust, and
care. In order to survive themselves, the leader stops considering
problematic things like honor and truth, because they will not be
able to survive the guilt that they feel if they allow themselves to
entertain such ideas.
They become resigned to the group's
moral judgement, and the greatest sin is the sin of failing to
submit to the system. It happens spontaneously, though in
the beginning, the leader has to have moments of personal choice when
the pangs of conscience catch them. The sale of their integrity
comes in a million little moments, long before they started rolling
on their own church members. By the time my pastors and elders
started telling parents that their children would die if they left
the church without their blessing, their internal systems had been
remachined by the group and was well oiled through frequent use. By
that time, you're dealing with their double, and they reinterpret any
friction or discomfort they encounter as suffering for the sake of
righteousness or persecution from those who hate the truth by hating
the system.
Moving On
At some point in the process of your
own healing from spiritual abuse, you will have to deal with the
issue of releasing those who hurt you. In your mind they brutally
betrayed your trust. In their mind, you committed the gravest of
sins by sinning against the system, and they believe that they
behaved admirably in the best interests of the system. When you've
gained some healing and distance from the painful process, consider
that the people in leadership in such groups are far more trapped
than you ever were. They remain slaves to a system that they likely
don't even recognize as a slave master, requiring them to do things
that they once may have never dreamed of doing. As leaders who
professed and propagated the belief system, leaving the group means
admitting what they did and that the system they promoted was flawed.
Few will be able to do it, and they have little incentive to do so.
Another element of this pondering how
they could have done what they did involves some frustration and
anger that I had with God. I became angry that he allowed such
systems to continue to exist. What I soon realized was that I wanted
God to eliminate all of the Pharisees in Christianity. Eventually, I
had to accept that God left the Pharisees right where they were, just
as He did on the earth nearly 2000 years ago. Jesus walked the earth
and confronted the Pharisee, those wolves who wore sheep's clothing,
deceiving the innocent. He left them remain. He left their system
of religious abuse intact if not thriving. He focused on the good
and upon those who were willing to walk away from the Pharisee in
order to hear and follow Him. The Petry
Family sought out others to help them realize justice within the
system and Mars Hill Church, but injustice continues to prevail for
them. Though everyone who walks away from a high demand group
realizes a personal victory by getting out, many will never see true
justice in terms of what happens within their group. It is a good
thing to desire, but it is not probable.
The group and its leaders
have little incentive to pursue justice, and they may not have the
ability to do it. And for them, it may not be a personal issue
anymore. They're to be pitied.
Tomorrow's Question:
What
if you work for your church?