The Problem with the Word "Abuse"
As a society, we have paid a huge price for this. It has led to some rather ironic and even bizarre developments. The word "abuse" came to be regularly resorted to as both a ready weapon of accusation, and a proven shield of defense in our court systems. Lawyers worked hard to absolve their clients for murders committed on the basis of some childhood "abuse" they experienced, even while therapists persuaded young women that the real reason for their depression was that they were abused in a Satanic ritual as children, or perhaps sexually by their fathers. The "abuse fad" made many people a lot of money while ruining more than a few lives.
It also trivialized the real incidents of abuse, and made it
less likely that they would be taken seriously in the long run. In
any situation where the social pendulum swings too far in one direction,
backlash is inevitable, and in this case the backlash was soon underway.
The mid-1990s, witnessed scores of media reports telling of the horror
of people locked up or otherwise deprived of their rights, sometimes on
the flimsiest of so-called "evidence of abuse."
Unfortunately, many well-meaning Christians have contributed to this opposite extreme. These people have enthusiastically embraced the backlash to such an extent that anyone who bobs to the surface with a tale of abuse is automatically suspect in their eyes.
In the mid-1990s, nowhere was this backlash trend more evident than in the area of Spiritual Abuse. One reason for this is that Spiritual Abuse did not begin to be taken seriously as a problem until the backlash was already underway. So despite the fact that there were scores upon scores of carefully evaluated and documented cases -- that pastors across the country spent thousands of hours counseling its victims -- that it even had a long and widely-acknowledge history going back many centuries -- and despite the fact that Christians above all other people are called upon to "weep with those who weep" and to show the compassion of Christ, there are those who would dismiss all this talk about "Spiritual Abuse" -- along with all the books written about it -- because to them it sounds too much like the politically-correct, postmodernist-inspired "abuse fad" that they are reacting against.
At times even some Christian counselors write-off true victims of Spiritual
Abuse as being more victims of their own thin skin than anything else.
They dismiss the horrific accounts of these victims as being "too subjective"
to be reliable. In some Christian circles, it has become standard
operating procedure to automatically file the claims of Spiritual Abuse
under the heading of mere "perception of Spiritual Abuse."
It is most unfortunate that some have chosen to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is particularly unfortunate to see this among some evangelical "counter-cult" or "apologetics ministries" which, in the past, would have gladly cited Spiritual Abuse as a hallmark of cults. Now many of them are saying that it is too vague, or somehow undefinable, or they seek to discredit it in some other elusive way.
In my opinion, this is a very inappropriate course to take. The Bible itself is very clear on the existence of what the Spiritual Abuse literature has defined as the hallmarks of Spiritual Abuse: legalism, authoritarianism, spiritual intimidation, manipulation, excessive discipline, to name a few -- in short: the abuse of power in the context of Christian fellowship. The Bible does not mince words when it informs us that these signs are clear and identifiable. In addition: both church history and the history of Israel testify abundantly that all of these issues have been perennial problems ever since God began calling people to walk with Him.
Some of those who believe that they have been unfairly accused on this issue have publicly chosen to respond by making a very provocative statement: "Nobody has objectively defined what 'Spiritual Abuse' is," they say, "therefore no one can be guilty of something so ambiguous."
I am not seeking to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone.
I am simply seeking to answer the question, "What is Spiritual Abuse?"
Is it a sham label designed to be slapped on any Christian brother or sister
with whom we have an axe to grind? Or is it a real danger to the
The writings of the Old Testament prophets are filled with examples
and denunciations of Spiritual Abuse, but perhaps the clearest words ever
uttered by such a prophet on the subject of spiritual abuse are found in
Ezekiel chapter 34, where we read:
|The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of
man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them:
‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who
only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the
flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter
the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have
not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured.
You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You
have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because
there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for
all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and
on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and
no one searched or looked for them."
[Ezekiel 34:1-6, NIV]
When you think of the rulers of Israel, the people we think of today as "secular leaders" -- people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David and Solomon -- you are also thinking of the spiritual leaders of Israel. These people had a share in the writing of sacred Scripture. Some even occupied the office of prophet. There was no distinction between "secular" and "spiritual" in ancient Israel. In 2 Samuel 5:2 we learn that the Lord came to David and said, "You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler." David's rold as a shepherd or a spiritual guide was inseparable from his role as a ruler.
The metaphor of the shepherd as spiritual leader has been taken up so
completely in the Judaeo-Christian tradition that the New Testament simply
refers to spiritual leaders as "pastors," which originally meant "shepherds."
And based on this passage in Ezekiel, we can see that the problem of abusive
shepherds goes back literally thousands of years. Notice especially
|"You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally."|
Notice also that this prophecy was delivered during an era that was permeated with a sense of God's wrath. They were under the Law, with all its prohibitions and penalties. Even so, theirs was not to be a ministry of condemnation, harshness and brutality, but rather strengthening, healing and binding. For them, refusing to do so alone constituted spiritual abuse, according to Ezekiel.
As if it wasn't enough to merely neglect those spiritual duties, they went even further to oppress their people, for Ezekiel says, "You have ruled them harshly and brutally." These abusers were more interested in what they had to gain from ruling over others, than in being a spiritual benefit to others. For them, it wasn't about actually being shepherd or fulfilling a calling … according to Ezekiel, it was all about control.
But Ezekiel isn't finished denouncing the fruit of these shepherds' so-called ministry. He wants them to know -- and he wants us to know -- that both the neglect of the sheep, and the abuse of the sheep directly resulted in the wandering of the sheep. Verse 5 says, "So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals." That's what happens in spiritually abusive situations!
Verse 6 tells us: "My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill." Those who cannot bear up under the harsh treatment often simply wander away -- they can't take it anymore. One day they're there, the next day they're gone. And do the leaders care? Are they upset about this fact? Ezekiel says, "They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them."
When people leave spiritually abusive situations, and it is clear that they are not coming back, what do their leaders do? Do they go after them? Interestingly, the answer is usually "Yes!" When a Spiritual Abuse victim finally decides to quit putting up with the abuse and to leave his group, it is very common for him to get a phone call or a visit. And if the visit fails to result in the retention of the departing member, it is nevertheless usually cited as evidence that the group really cared. Now they feel they can say, "We tried."
But this contact is hardly ever to apologize for the abuse, nor is it even an attempt to reconcile differences. It is almost always a last-ditch effort to keep the person from leaving, and usually involves manipulation and threats similar to the type that the victim encountered in the group. People who leave quite literally "know too much." They can tell outsiders what it is really like in that supposedly super-spiritual group or church. So all the efforts to keep a person from leaving are almost always done to protect the spiritual abuser, not the supposedly "straying sheep." And when such efforts fail, then what? Most often in abusive groups that portray themselves as "evangelical," the person's departure is taken as a sign of at least possible (if not probable) reprobation (i.e., that the person is going to Hell), or that the person was "never really a Christian in the first place."
"Spiritual Abuse" does exist, according to the
Bible, and in this brief passage we can see some of the characteristics
that the current Spiritual Abuse literature ascribes to it. Ezekiel
was identifying a form of mistreatment which was spiritual in nature, because
it mistreated people by hindering their relationship with God. It
was (and is) characterized by oppression and neglect.
I feel the need to put what I write here in emphatic terms because Jesus Himself did. In His own time, Jesus confronted people who used their time-honored traditions as a cloak for spiritual abuse, and we see the same phenomenon today. There are groups and churches which claim that some special attribute which they have, or that their unique context or tradition, exempts them and their behavior from being classified as "Spiritual Abuse." Some have even said that the same behavior which might be considered abuse in other churches should not be construed as "abuse" among them! They are somehow different, and the normal criteria of Spiritual Abuse doesn't apply in their situation. … What a shocking notion, and how alien to the Scriptures!
The most common claims that spiritually abusive groups make is that they are so special in their spiritual giftedness, or so unique in their level of spiritual commitment, or so unusual in their circumstances, that it's only natural for less-gifted, less-committed people, or people less familiar with their special context, to draw incorrect conclusions, perhaps even out of resentment or jealousy. After all, if you're one of the elite, people will be jealous ... so the reasoning goes ... and will fail to understand our practices.
But Jesus also had to deal with a group of people who thought of themselves as special, as unique, as the elite. In Jesus's day, these people prided themselves on being separated from all the things in the world which could defile them spiritually according to God's Law. In fact, their very name was a continual reminder of this fact. They called themselves by a word which meant "separated ones," because they separated themselves by building a high wall of extracommandments around sin. In order to belong to them, the Bible itself wasn't enough. You had to go beyond the Bible! They were so determined not to get anywhere near sin that they went above and beyond the call! They were the super-dedicated, they were the truly spiritual, they were a cut above, they kept themselves clean by keeping themselves separated from even the potential of sin -- and that little word "separated" in their language was so important to them that they took it as their name. In their language, it was the word "Pharisee."
In Matthew chapter 23, Jesus exposes these Pharisees (and their friends)
with a mixture of biting irony and solemn warning.
|Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
"The teachers of the law [literally, scribes] and the Pharisees sit in
Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.
But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
[Matthew 23:1-3, NIV]
|"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your
guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
[Matthew 16:6, NIV]
|Then they understood that he was not telling
them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching
of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
[Matthew 16:12, NIV]
God does that every once in a while, you know. But how do we know that He's doing it in this case? Well, for one thing, what Jesus says in the very next verse would have made the sarcasm obvious to His audience, because He exposed the results of their teaching in verse 4: "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." That's what their teaching did. Surely Jesus could not have spoken positively about something that was so inherently oppressive!
Now it's true that the Law of Moses itself was, in the words of the Apostle Peter, "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear." (Acts 15:10, NIV) But Jesus is not talking specifically about the Law here, but rather about the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. And He's making a specific reference to the Jewish rabbinical practice of "binding and loosing."
In the time of Christ, Jewish rabbis enjoyed some degree of latitude in determining how stringently to apply the Law of Moses to specific cases. If a rabbi decided that the Law should be applied stringently, it was said that he "bound" the commandment, and the violator would have to pay the maximum penalty. If a rabbi decided that leniency was called for, then the rabbi would "loosen" the commandment. This is probably what happened in the case of the Virgin Mary, when she was found with child out-of-wedlock. The most stringent application of the Law would have called for her to be stoned as an adulteress. But the commandment to stone adulterers was apparently loosened in her case, on the request of her fiancee Joseph.
But the case of the Virgin Mary seems to have been relatively exceptional in ancient Israel. Because Jesus says that the Pharisees were much more inclined to "bind" the commandments, and make them heavier than they already were. "They tie up," Jesus says; or: "They bind" -- it's the same Greek word -- "heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders." And so quickly does Jesus mention this right after saying, "Do as they say, but not as they do," in verse 3, that it would have been obvious to the listener that Christ's words in verse 3 were ironic, designed for shock-value. They already knew very well what Jesus thought of the teaching of the Pharisees, because He had already told people what He thought of it in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. Here He wanted to get their attention.
But there is further evidence that Jesus was using ironic sarcasm in
verse 3, because in verse 13 of this chapter Jesus starts delivering seven
"woes" to the Pharisees, all of which center on the Pharisees' teaching,
either in how the Pharisees themselves do not obey it, or in how absurd
it was in the first place. (Verse 16):
|"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone
swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold
of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is
greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?"
[Matthew 23:16-17, NIV]
This is a very important point, because if Jesus meant for His words in verse 3 to be taken literally, then the case could be made that all Jesus really had against the Pharisees was their hypocrisy, and this would be a grave misunderstanding of Christ's attitude. But many people do make the mistake that the only real problem with the Pharisees was that they didn't practice what they preached. Their preaching was okay, these people think -- their simple problem was that they were hypocrites and didn't practice it.
I hope that I have shown that their preaching was not okay, because
their preaching merely taught people how to be legalists like them!
Jesus, of course, said it best :
|"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert …
|"… and when he becomes one, you make him twice
as much a son of hell as you are."
And this is what the Pharisees converted other people to: a doctrinal
position regarding attitudes toward God, themselves, and others.
This doctrinal position began with an attitude of authoritarianism:
|... Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."
[Matthew 23:1-2, NIV]
The scribes and Pharisees were very up-front about this. It was one of the first things you noticed about them -- they grasped for positions of authority. Imagine the arrogance that must have been involved in this presumption when Jesus says that they didn't even understand the things that were in the Law! To sit in the very seat of Moses!
The same is true of Spiritual Abusers today. One of the first things that Spiritual Abusers will tell you about themselves -- or their followers will tell you about them -- is that they have "special insight," "tremendous discernment," "great wisdom," "unique gifts," "spiritual power," or some other credential that gives them authority in what they say. Whenever you hear someone dwelling at length on what makes him -- or his leader -- special, or authoritative, that should be your first clue that you could very well be dealing with a Spiritual Abuser on the order of the Pharisees.
Authoritarianism is something which feeds on itself. The person
who assumes an attitude of authoritarianism is addicted to power.
He needs continual assurances that he is in control, and to get these assurances
he needs to exercise power at greater and greater levels. After
a while, it's no longer good enough when people jump on command -- now
they have to be sure to ask "How high" on the way up! Left to itself,
authoritarianism always snowballs into an environment of totalistic control.
|" … they love the place of honor at banquets
and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted
in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.'"
[Matthew 23:6-7, NIV]
One method Spiritual Abusers use to keep themselves in the limelight is to make sure that their disciples are always focused on what they have to say. One Spiritually Abusive group had a leader named Roy. Roy seemed to be a very humble person. But the funny thing was, whenever Roy was in the room, his followers never permitted him to be contradicted. So if anyone ever thought they were being mistreated by Roy, they also knew that no one in the room would ever back them up. And whenever Roy was out of the room, his followers would focus all of their conversation on things Roy had said. So Roy got the place of honor, he sat in the important seat, he owned the special title -- even if it wasn't always obvious, or he wasn't in the room, or his title was never actually mentioned. Being the leader, Roy was the elite of the elite!
As it was for the Pharisees of Christ's time, an elitist mentality eventually becomes an all-encompassing world-view within Spiritually Abusive groups today -- even groups which profess to be Christian. Such elitism has led not only to a separatist mentality, but to actual physical separation from friends and families, sometimes over many years. It is probably this behavior more than any other that makes Spiritually Abusive groups with Evangelical statements of faith difficult to distinguish from actual cults. And it should go without saying that such a distinction would be virtually meaningless to anyone who has lost a family member to a Spiritually Abusive group.
Go ahead -- you try to quibble with a parent who has not had
contact with his child for several years, and every time he send his kid
Christmas and birthday presents they come back to him marked "Return To
Sender." You try to explain to him how his child is not really
in a "cult," because the group has an evangelical statement of faith.
I can just hear him now: "Who cares what their statement of faith
is … I want my son back! … I want my daughter back!"
This is how the Pharisees were able to "tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, [without even] lift[ing] a finger to move them." People were afraid of them. They knew that these scribes and Pharisees had the power to make them the ultimate social outcasts, by having them put out of the synagogue. They knew that the Pharisees could even have a person stoned if they thought it necessary. Today's Spiritual Abusers may not be able to have a member executed, but some of their victims might have preferred physical death to the spiritual torture they have suffered.
Spiritually abusive groups wait for their recruits to become emotionally
attached to the group before they employ the heavy-handed tactic of threatening
the new member with expulsion. This is because they know such tactics
will not work until the prospect of being put out of the group is very
painful to the new member. But after the person gets settled in --
and preferrably to some extent isolated from the outside world -- it is
common experience for he or she to live under any number of disciplinary
threats, the ultimate being expulsion.
|"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cummin.
But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice,
mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting
the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a
[Matthew 23:23-24, NIV]
Jesus pointed out another form of manipulation that was used among the
Gentiles, and He commanded His disciples to never let it in His church.
In Luke's account we read:
|Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles
lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves
[Luke 22:25, NIV]
|"But you are not to be like that. Instead,
the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules
like the one who serves."
[Luke 22:26, NIV]
"Where else are you going to go," say the Spiritual Abusers, "to find
all this care? -- to find all this love? -- all this spiritual openness?
-- all this accountability? -- all this deep fellowship? … " These
are all just alternative ways of calling themselves "Benefactors."
The list goes on and on of all the ploys that Spiritual Abusers use to
further intimidate their followers by telling them that if they leave this
group -- "Gee, we just don't know what will become of you!" -- even
while making themselves out to be all-benevolent.
The Apostle Paul also faced similar treatment. His opponents tried everything from criticizing his public speaking ability, to accusing him of antinomianism -- "Let us do evil that good may come," was what they accused Paul of teaching.
To "guilt-trip" someone is simply a 20th century way of saying "to attack someone's conscience through accusation." Guilt-tripping goes beyond mere accusation by actively looking for sin where no actual evidence of sin exists. Guilt-tripping is the attitude which constantly looks for the speck in its brother's eye. And because there is rarely any actual evidence to back up the guilt-tripper's accusations, the most effective way to guilt-trip someone is an area in which it is difficult for the accused to produce evidence of innocence.
How could Jesus actually prove that He was not casting out demons by the power of Satan? He could reason with his accusers, and try to expose the fallacy in their thinking. But did He manage to persuade everybody? Obviously not, or they would not have crucified Him!
How could Paul actually prove that his motive for preaching the Gospel wasn't to give people an excuse to live a life of sin? Well, he could give a full exposition of the Gospel in the book of Romans -- but did this persuade his accusers? Obviously not, or they would not have seized him in the temple!
Guilt-trippers accuse us of things which are in the realm of the unseen. No one can actually see whether we have false motives, improper attitudes, some lust in our heart, or some hidden, unconfessed sin. But the guilt-tripper acts as though he does -- he pretends to know what's in our hearts. And by assuming an authoritarian posture, and by claiming elitist powers and abilities, Spiritual Abusers become the ultimate guilt-trippers.
One woman who was the victim of a Spiritually Abusive community said,
|"Community adults would decide what my sin was,
[and] then just lay into me … I wasn't allowed to speak to my father when
he phoned; they told me it was the Lord's will that I not speak with him.
… The way I was making beds looked ‘rebellious' to them, so I was
assigned to scrub the bathrooms. Each day I'd get yelled at and forced
to scrub them again."
[ By Hook or By Crook: How Cults Lure Christians, by Harold Bussell. (New York: McCracken Press, 1993), p. 52. Previously published as Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians, (Zondervan, 1983).]
Remember: it's really all about control. That's why they especially like to distort the Bible's teachings on how Christians are supposed to treat other people, because those can be used to produce more guilt, and achieve more control.
So when someone in his group complains of mistreatment, the Spiritual Abuser distorts the Bible's teaching on slander, and accuses his victim of committing it. When someone in his group becomes angry with the abusive treatment, the Spiritual Abuser accuses the victim of being a "spiritual murderer" -- after all: didn't Jesus say that anyone who was angry with his brother was guilty of murder? When someone asks why they are being deprived of the right to see their spouse or their children, the Spiritual Abuser answers, "Don't you realize that the Bible teaches you that you don't have any rights!" When a member dares to disagree with the leader, he is accused of violating the Biblical "unity of the Spirit."
One man's experience demonstrates the creativity of Spiritual Abusers
in distorting the teachings of Scripture. He said,
|"They pushed me into saying I lusted after my
little daughter ... Their idea was that only when you recognize your total
depravity can you let Jesus go to work."
[ By Hook or By Crook: How Cults Lure Christians, by Harold Bussell, p. 52.]
Many Spiritual Abusers interpret the words of the Apostle James in James
5:16 to be a universal requirement for all Christians to confess all their
sins … all the time … sometimes, to all the members of the group.
This inevitably leads to group humiliation sessions, which are commonplace
in Spiritually Abusive groups. Even if confession in a particular
groups isn't practiced openly, the person who hears the confession is almost
always someone higher up in the group hierarchy who will use that confession
against the person if they ever step out of line. As one victim said:
|"… at any future date, the overseer may drag
out this dirty laundry to discredit the disciple or make him feel guilty.
That happened to me when I was trying to explain my position. My
overseer blurted out, ‘I hate to bring this up, but …' And this was
done in a room full of people. My immediate reaction was to curl
up and shut up. I had nothing on her but she had a lot on me."
[ Churches That Abuse, by Ronald M. Enroth, pp. 106-107.]
|"Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise
men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others
you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town."
[Matthew 23:34, NIV]
The problem of Spiritual Abuse did not simply disappear with the founding of the Christian church. Not very long after the Day of Pentecost, a new generation of abusers rose up to take the seat of Moses. Just like the Pharisees before them, these people began making such special claims of authority for themselves that in 2 Corinthians chapters 11 and 12 the Apostle Paul sarcastically refers to them as "super-apostles." In order to lure people away from the teaching of the true apostles, they did everything from belittling Paul's speaking ability to coercing and intimidating the churches.
Although the problem of these "super-apostles" was all tangled up in
an important theological issue -- the doctrine of salvation by grace through
faith -- Paul also spent a great deal of time focusing on the negative
pastoral aspects of the Spiritual Abuse that these people were practicing.
In the process, Paul was even more explicit concerning the motives of these
Spiritual Abusers than the Lord Jesus Himself was about the Pharisees.
In 2 Corinthians 11:13 he calls them " … false apostles, deceitful workmen,
masquerading as apostles of Christ." In verse 20 he says their purpose
is to "enslave," to "exploit" and to "take advantage" of Christians.
But in his epistle to the Galatians, he drives this point home even harder.
There Paul discusses the false gospel that requires circumcision for salvation,
and in Galatians 2:4 he writes:
|This matter arose because some false brothers
had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus
and to make us slaves.
[Galatians 2:4, NIV]
|Before certain men came from James, he [i.e.,
the Apostle Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived,
he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he
was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Paul's portrayals of these abusers in both 2 Corinthians and Galatians parallels Christ's description of the Pharisees almost point-for-point. In Galatians 6:12-13, Paul clues us in on what these Spiritual Abusers had to gain from drawing Christians under their spell. He gives us three specific things: to impress others, to avoid persecution, and to gain bragging rights on account of the converts they could claim. These three marks of Spiritual Abuse are also much in evidence today.
But lest we think that Spiritual Abuse always has to be connected to
some incorrect theological position, the Third Epistle of John should serve
as a reminder to us that Spiritual Abuse can take place even when points
of orthodoxy are not in question. In 3 John verse 9 we read:
|I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves
to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will
call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us.
Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also
stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
[3 John 9-10]
And yet no particular false doctrine was in view. John does not even say that this person Diotrephes actually taught that he was somehow "first," or pre-eminent -- but simply said that Diotrephes loved to be first. And yet it was obvious that from this "love to be first" sprang all the authoritarianism, elitism, intimidation and excessive church discipline that is found in our current Spiritual Abuse literature. Diotrephes felt so threatened when members of his church wanted to invite Christians from other churches to visit, that he placed whoever sent out such invitations under so-called "church discipline." He kicked them out of the church!
All too many of us have no difficulty imagining the atmosphere of intimidation that is constantly generated by this kind of leader. We've been there. We've experienced it first-hand. It is no mere theory to us.
But others among us stand back, incredulous that anyone would tolerate
a Spiritually Abusive environment for very long. If someone remains
in such an obviously unscriptural situation for very long, these Christians
reason, there must be something defective in their Christian walk -- or
maybe they're not really Christians at all! But when people reason
this way, they forget the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:20, where he
said to the Corinthians:
|"In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves
you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward
or slaps you in the face."
[2 Corinthians 11:20]
The first area concerns the long-term effects that these groups have upon the people who leave them -- and they do have long-term effects, ranging from spiritual confusion to complete spiritual, emotional and psychological devastation. Fortunately, help is available. There are good books that I recommend and which are listed in the bibliography that I am making available.
But something which is much more helpful in the process of recovering from Spiritual Abuse cannot be found in a book; I'm referring to Christians who have had a similar experience, and have had to recover from it the same way that victims today do. These people are an invaluable resource in the recovery process. I would say that we need more of them, but that would mean that more people would have to suffer through Spiritual Abuse and recover from it in order to be such resource people, and nobody wants that.
But if you are already a Christian who has gone through this process,
I would encourage you to make yourself available to other victims.
One way to do this would be to advise a local Christian apologetics or
counter-cult ministry of your availability, because this is a place where
many Spiritual Abuse victims turn for help.
|"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You
yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."
[Matthew 23:13, NIV]
Legal Notice: The administration of this website was taken over about September, 2004 by Med Trans 1, Inc.. The content on this site was the work of the late Jan Groenveld, and as such, Med Trans 1, Inc. is not knowledgeable about the specific content presented on this website, nor is responsible for any inaccuracies that may be discovered.
We wish to be fair to all parties involved, and there is no intent whatsoever to present inaccurate in formation. Therefore, if any group or individual feels that information presented on this site is inaccurate, please contact us. If the information is proven to be inaccurate, it will be either changed or removed upon receipt of verifiable proof being supplied to us. Verifiable proof is defined as a disinterested source independent of your group such as newspaper, encyclopedia, public records and similar sources.
Any group or individual who wishes to supply a rebuttal to any information presented on this site may do so at any time. The length of the rebuttal is to be no more in length (number of words) than the article or material being rebutted. The rebuttal is to be within an e-mail and not as an attachment. E-Mails with attachments are automatically deleted unread due to the large number of virus attacks we received in the past.
Literature, books etc. mailed to us will be discarded unread unless we specifically requested the materials. Those who send mail that is abusive in nature or combative, will not receive a response from us. Nor will any article be debated or extensive discussions be engaged in regarding an article published.
Any problems with the website, please contact the webmaster