In then next few days, I will feature a
post written by a university professor who left Evangelicalism
because of how poorly the Church responded to his needs. He references the similar plight of a population of
people within the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) network of
churches as an example of his frustration with his own matter of concern. Prior to
diving into his contribution here, I wanted to focus back on how
spiritual abuse works using the example of recent events and problems concerning SGM. The misuse and abuse of authority through
rigid systems allows a fleeting virtuous end to justify ever more
questionable and unethical means. Soon, the individual that the
system was meant to aid them finds themselves crushed by it instead, and the system blackmails the individual by claiming to
govern their eternal fate.
For many years, several parents and
families endeavored to engage their church leaders to adequately and
appropriately attend to the needs of all of those who were ill
affected what emerged as a pattern of of both physical and sexual
abuse that insulated abusers. When these change agents failed, they
filed a class action civil lawsuit against SGM leaders for decades of
unreported child physical and sexual abuse, attempts to cover up
these cases, and for the pain and shame suffered by those who were
manipulated to remain silent.
Much of this was accomplished by
browbeating parents of the victims (like
parents “Noel” and “Grizzly”) with charges of
“unforgiveness” because they didn't want their children near
their abusers anymore... Or for protesting abusers who were allowed
to remain church nursery workers... Or through pressuring parents
and victims through various other means including the signing of
tediously long “covenant” contracts. (Spiritual
Sounding Board and the Wartburg
Watch have both done a very good job of following the case, and I
also recommend this
Religion Dispatches article about the “culture of abuse” for
more info and background. Websites such as SGM
Survivors also chronicle the years of struggle that these former
members continue to endure.)
Though the civil case was amended and
is still ongoing, when the judge hearing the case decided that not
all of the listed plaintiffs could
participate because of the expiration of the criminal statute of
limitations for sex abuse in the state where the case was filed,
friends of SGM's CJ Mahaney came out with bold
statements of support for him. (Note that the civil suit also
included residents of States that did allow for prosecution of past
child abuse and that the case also concerned the harm suffered due to
heavy handed measures used to silence the victims.) From my
perspective, it seems that the High Priests of Complementarianism
whom some call the “Calvinistas” threw these victims along with
the gravity of the problem “under the bus” of “taking
dominion,” using the judge's decision as such an opportunity. They also alleged that
the matter was moot and resolved when the matter has not been resolved remotely.
One
of my first thoughts was that of all people,
these educated men should understand well that “Legal does not
equal moral.” We hear them contend for this principle
constantly, urging for churches to “reform” the Christian people,
though such things force us to consider just what kind of reform
they're really talking about. It brought to my mind District
Attorney Michael
Ramsey's strong charge to Michael Pearl on Anderson
Cooper's daytime show that Pearl may not be legally responsible
for the growing number of child
deaths associated with his corporal punishment guidelines, but he
most definitely has abandoned his moral duties. How sad to see men
like Al Mohler and Don Carson in particular behave more like Michael
Pearl supporters, showing what seems to me like blatant disregard
for these victims (specific people as opposed to the abstract idea of
a group) and for the gravity of the issue of concealed, facilitated
and protected pedophilia in Christian churches (run by someone they
know). Their response also reminds me of those who doubt the
multitudes of consistent reports of abuse with strikingly common
features across decades from survivors of the Roloff-style
teen homes operated by Independent Fundamental Baptists. But as
Mohler has noted
well himself in days past, “Christians
bear a particular responsibility to be watchful for confirmation bias
and its effects.”
Because of great criticism, statements
made on the Together for the Gospel
site, the Gospel Coalition
website, and on their related Facebook pages, the statements of these
high priests were first moved to another location online, then
altered, and then – they disappeared. On at least one of these
sites, if you follow the original link, you'll find yourself at a
post explaining why Mahaney has recently withdrawn as a participant
from an upcoming conference hosted by the group. (Follow embedded
links in this
post at Emotional Abuse and Your Faith for more info.)
Like DA Ramsey, another former
prosecutor stepped forward to issue a very similar charge to those
“circled wagons” in an almost bizarre show of support to attempt
to exonerate Mahaney. “Boz” Tchividjian of Godly
Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment (GRACE) made a
specific
public statement about the matter and later advanced a petition
against abuse in the Church (which I proudly signed).
[If you have not already done so,
please link here to learn more about and sign A
Public Statement Concerning Sexual Abuse in the Church of Jesus
Christ.] What really shocked me recently was the
reporting of all this by World
Magazine which is heavily funded by Baptists (and likely beholden
to defend men like Mohler). ABP
News has also faithfully reported on these matters, but tends to
advocate more specifically for the abused because of the nature of
the different venue.
The Significance of Spiritual Abuse
These developments concerning SGM
aren't actually the primary purpose of this posting. I wish to focus
on these events and responses as something of an example of unfolding
spiritual abuse and how it works.
Sources already sited here have noted
the “culture of abuse” and the “culture of silence”
that contribute to the problem. I would also like to draw attention
to the other powerful influences that Philip
Zimbardo notes, specifically the difficulty of exiting these
types of situations with ease and grace, as well as the social
factors that unduly influence most people when subjected to these
social pressures (weapons of influence), tricks
of logic/propaganda techniques, and emotional
blackmail when caught in the middle of these situations.
I prefer looking at these “cultures”
through the lens of Lifton's
Criteria to define the heavy handed authoritarian tactics used by
these groups, but I believe that David
Henke's model condenses things a bit more for the sake of
aspiring towards brevity. As a Christian, I think of these traits as
the predictable pattern of what the Apostle Paul called the “works
of the flesh” as they manifest within a legalistic, high demand
religious system – even within doctrinally sound ones. Our
actions don't necessarily reflect our aspirations. Theses
models endeavor to take the subjectivity of human behavior and
qualify it well so as to make it as objective as possible,
objectively identifying those common traits that are noted in high
demand, closed and isolated religious groups.
Enduring in the sidebar of this site is
the short version of what constitutes the characteristics of
Spiritual Abuse. Think of these qualities as the anatomy
or structure of spiritual abuse for a moment, and then I'd like to
look at some examples of how this anatomy “fleshes out” in
function: the physiology (how the anatomy works) using
this example of the troubles at SGM.
The “Anatomy” of Spiritual Abuse
The reader can explore more on their
own at the Watchman
Fellowship website, but the basic traits of a spiritually abusive
system include
- Authoritarianism
- Over-emphasis on authority through a rigid system of hierarchy exemplifies a spiritually abusive system. Leaders are never subject to the same standards, however. Hierarchy provides leaders the means by which they establish themselves as the sole source of truth and restrains individuals from thinking about the veracity of their information and edicts. These systems generally downplay authoritarianism with new members, but one quickly learns about the demanded submission imperative when they violate these often unwritten rules of the group, the “hidden curriculum.” They are required to then suffer the consequences that hierarchy demands.
- Image Consciousness
- Preoccupation with maintaining an appearance of righteousness. Unrealistic standards give the illusion that the group is superior than other groups and is therefore more special to God. Paranoia about the public image of the group because of their unrealistic demands as well as secrecy stem from this extraordinary concern with maintaining this perception of superior spiritual status.
- Suppression of Criticism
- Control of information and communication, in concert with the punishment of doubt or dissent. Not only are members taught to reject sources of information that challenge group dogma, systems within groups control social interaction to discourage discussion of doubts. Compliance brings reward and dissent brings punishment which begins with negative reinforcement and leads to direct punishment, shunning, and denial of personhood through rejection by God Himself, for group leadership speaks directly for God.
- Perfectionism
- Demand of an unrealistically high standard of purity and perfection from followers, but leaders are usually exempt from the same standard. The perfectionism reinforces the sense of elitism and dovetails with image consciousness.
- Lack of Balance
- Primary, intense focus on more minor concerns and points of doctrine at the expense of or to the exclusion of other essential doctrines. This special focus also helps distinguish the group from others, feeding elitism and exclusivity. For the Christian, a focus on the message of God's loving kindness towards us through Jesus' atonement and following the Law of Love through the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a central message should supersede pet concerns like prosperity, gender issues, proper submission to authority, etc., or even formulaic or strategic approaches to achieve a particular outcome. A Christian group generally should not become too unbalanced if they hold all people including leaders within the group to the standard of loving enemy and neighbor, treating others in the same manner that individuals would like to be treated themselves. The lack of balance created by “hobby-horse” concerns promotes disregard of the individual in favor of the special cause as well as the special nature of the group and its public image.
The “Physiology” of Spiritual
Abuse:
Good Ole' Boy Network Support of
Mahaney as an Example
We've reviewed how David Henke
qualifies “Spiritual Abuse,” so lets now see how it plays out in
some recent writings that emerged from Mahaney's high level support
base, those men affiliated with hierarchical complementarianism.
They received great criticism for posting their open statement in
support of Mahaney. It first appeared on Facebook, was moved to
Together for the Gospel, was altered,
was removed. . . manifesting the privilege of spiritually abusive
authority figures, afforded to them by their office as well as the
entitlement that comes with acting as “God's mouthpiece.” I
should need to connect very few dots pertaining to what has already
been noted here.
 |
| h/t to Hannah Thomas |
From the first days of hinting that the
matter would be significant and public through to this unfolding
public relations nightmare over recent months for Mahaney and
Company, consider just a few of these articles which have come to my
attention. They primarily concern hierarchy (authoritarianism) and
image consciousness of these men and the mindsets that they follow.
- Should I Stay or Should I Go? (written by Albert Mohler, appearing on the Ligonier website hosted by R.C. Sproul [Sr.] – Read Tom Rich's response HERE.)
- Pastors, Don't Let Your People Resign into Thin Air (written by Bobby Jamieson whose bio is noted in secondary information HERE, appearing on the 9Marks website hosted by Mark Dever)
- Why New Testament Polity is Prescriptive (also written by Jamieson, ibid.)
- Should We Stop Saying, “The Church Hurt Me”? (written by Thabiti Anyabwile [former assistant pastor at Mark Dever's church], appearing on the Gospel Coalition website – Read Hannah Thomas' response HERE.)
I could not help but to think of these
matters concerning SGM as something of a very obvious playing out of
spiritual abuse. I don't intend to go through them point by point,
for I think that with just a brief reading, most people can
appreciate the statement that they make.
Let me reiterate: I'm troubled that
these pastor-leaders' chose to use this matter to express devotion to
their friend as opposed to creating an opportunity to address the
needs of the most tender of lambs, a common subject here on this
site. There is also the other serious problem that Boz Tchividjian
addressed well: that of the issue of the physical and sexual abuse
of children itself and the facilitation/protection/justification of
abusers within Evangelical churches. Within these issues alone, I
see how this cadre has manifested every one of Henke's spiritual
abuse criteria and characteristics.
Their absurd focus on gender and sex as
a non-optional consequence demanded by doctrine creates the milieu
that fostered the problem and fed into the paranoia over the nature
of the subject itself. When every facet of your religion has been
saturated with concerns about sex, and when spiritual matters are
likened
to the sex act itself, it creates a powder keg for such problems.
Religion becomes a sexual preoccupation and encourages prescribed
sexuality within a system that entitles men with a God-awarded of
sovereignty over women and children.
I have no way of knowing whether the
SGM problems directly prompted the writing of the above noted
articles that soon followed. Did these men sit back and contemplate
what should be done to contain unruly members in their churches
because of the complaints and dissent? Did they wish to send such an
authoritarian-sounding message to their readers and followers, not
realizing how terrible it might seem to a physical abuse victim? I
don't know. I do find it troubling, however. For them, the timing
proves terrible.
Consistent with the high demand
Shepherding
Discipleship Movement which birthed Mahaney's church system when
it was called “People of Destiny,” these writings establishe
several imperatives quite well:
- church members must submit to mistreatment from a pastor or leadership
- they are duty bound to endure it as part of their own purification
- they may not rightfully discuss matters with anyone but those directly involved
- they cannot leave unless they do so only because of specific doctrinal problems
- issues of behavior are not justifiable grounds for leaving (including how adequately the church responds to abuse or whether the leadership has abused the member)
- leaving for reasons other than doctrinal disagreement burdens church members with the presumption that they departed to escape merited consequences
Using some tricks
of logic, the group reduces all issues of praxis to the same
level, whether one feels slighted over a misunderstanding concerning
a social matter or whether one's child has been molested. It
doesn't matter if your pastor demands that you put your child into
the care of the man who once sexually assaulted them, manipulating
you with threats of church discipline for unforgiveness if you don't
comply because you're concerned about your child's welfare. It
doesn't matter if leaders asked you to break civil laws by failing to
report physical abuse or whether you're punished with church
discipline and threatened with shunning for going to the civil
authorities to report the crime. After all, you probably signed a
covenant, and what kind of good church member backpedals on such a
commitment? (Read more HERE
about pressure to waive legal rights, use so-called “Christian
mediation,” programs, and forcing reconciliation when it may be
very inappropriate.)
Also from the old Shepherding Movement,
we hear the references in these articles that reinforce the idea that
leaving a church becomes a form of “spiritual adultery” and/or
sinful rebellion of a child against a parent because the leadership
believes that they are responsible for governing the sanctification
of the member through a misappropriation
of Hebrews
13:17. In the Old Testament, the worship of other Gods was
likened to a person committing adultery, so this is misused by
authoritarian pastors to convince their parishioners that going to a
church down the street is tantamount to having sex outside of
marriage. Dose this sound like the aberrant teachings of Watchman
Nee's group and their rigid
rules about where one attends church? Does it sound a bit like
the Roman Catholic assignment to a diocese, and the power of the
intermediary priest to proffer your connection to God? (The latter
may be a poor comparison, for I believe that the RCC has become much
more laissez-faire
than today's Calvinistas.) Concerning the parent
analogy, I personally had 1
Timothy 5:1 thrown at me as a rebuke for choosing to walk away
from my church for a host of reasons, even though I was under no discipline, formal or
otherwise.
Representing another bundle of logical
fallacies used to mislead the reader of the articles above, these
writings seem to assume that if one has made a choice to walk away
from membership at their local church, those who do so are presumed
to be walking away from the Christian faith, becoming apostate. It
represents the black and white thinking that is so characteristic of
spiritually abusive systems. They indicate the absence of room in
their “prescriptive polity” for the person who is still very much
a Christian and remains accountable to other believers while between
churches. Why the presumption that people could only possibly want
to leave because of trying to escape discipline, or perhaps they are
too superficial? This redirects us back to the necessity of their
paternalistic authority submission structure and the church
discipline imperative that has come to the forefront in too many
Protestant churches today. The answer to discord within these
fellowships seems to never be an issue of the health or effectiveness
of the leadership. Church discipline provides the perfect panacea
for every cause and concern, emphasizing the hyper-authoritarian
approach to maintaining a healthy church and the well-being of its
membership.
Perhaps what saddens me most,
particularly after establishing the sin of seeking out
a new church though these other writings, comes the rebuke that was
issued by the Gospel Coalition in “The Church Hurt Me”
piece.
On the heels of the cowardly act of
hiding their once boldly proclaimed statements, we learn that if you
go to your abuser leader and they turn you away without owning up to
justice, it is best for all to suck it up and shut up. Pray and
pound sand, instead, perhaps. That's definitely something one must
do to some extent when working through that element of the grief
process, but there is also the duty to talk about wrongdoing to
establish
justice. Is that not the first step in the process of discipline
and a function of justice? Forgiveness never requires us to forgo
justice when, as Christians, we have a duty
to pursue it. Leaders are held to an even higher standard of
accountability than their followers. Why have we seen none of that
fact in these writings or in the actions of these minsters? (This
previous blog series explores many aspects of these kinds of
complexities in the process of forgiveness in much greater depth.)
Whether your church didn't think you
were ready to teach a Sunday School class or whether you were grieved
and angry over your pastor's reprimand for feeling at odds about
having your daughter's molester over for a home Bible study, don't
say anything that might “sow discord.” Here we see the hints of
that “culture of silence” again, what Henke addresses with
several of his characteristics. Undergirding all of it, we again see
the demi-gods of the Calvinistas establishing and solidifying their
infallibility and their duty/right/privilege to speak ex cathedra
like it's a mitzvah. I do wonder, though, if Mr. Anyabwile who wrote
the piece was aware of these previous writings concerning the
Mohler/Ligonier and 9Marks procedure for finding a new church? He
writes, “Do realize that not every church
hurt you and people are not “all the same.” Find a local church
you can join. Start slow if you need to.” Perhaps he
should check in with his old boss. Maybe he missed a memo? I fear
for him that his friends might believe that he's encouraging a bit
too much antinomianism and that evil autonomy.
The potential of hierarchy to enslave
some and enthrone others, in concert with the paranoia concerning
public image and pet doctrines, manifests in not only the events
surrounding the SGM scandal, but notably in the reactions among
Mahaney's friends as well. How sad on so many levels.
Watch
for a new post or two, coming soon,
heralding
a guest post about nouthetic counseling
by
Dr. John Weaver from SUNY Binghamton
If you have not already done so,
please link here to learn more about and sign
