Spiritual Abuse Part 4, Structures

Spiritual AbuseSpiritual Abuse
Part 4: Structures
Presented by Bob Munson, ThD
Administrator, Bukal Life Care

Review: What is “spiritual abuse”?
2 definitions:
“misuse of a position of power, leadership, or
influence to further the selfish interests of
someone other than the individual who needs
help.”
“the manipulation and exploitation of others by
the misuse of spiritual privilege and power.”
The definitions recognize spiritual as greater than
simply supernatural, but includes Tillich's view
of spirit as power combined with meaning.

This presentation will focus on religious
institutions. That is NOT to say that all
spiritual abuse is religious. In fact, some of
the greatest abusers spiritually (combining
power with meaning to coerce and control)
are done by secular entities... such as gangs,
governments, and military/revolutionary
organizations. It is hard to imagine a human
organization that doesn't have the potential
for spiritual abuse.

Major Question
Many ask, “Can a 'good Christian church' be
spiritually abusive, or is it only “cults.”
The language is a bit loaded... What is a “good
Christian church”? What is a “cult”?
However, abusive leadership has been with the
Church from the beginning (III John) so it is
wise not to distance ourselves as Christians
from this problem.

Cults
When speaking of spiritual abuse, cults come
up, because of famous groups that we would
describe as cults that clearly abused (or still
abuse) their membership.
A problem we have is that there is no
completely agreed upon definition for “cult.”
The following slides will seek to come up with
a description that may not be universally
accepted, but is at least useful.

Common Ideas of Cults
Some like to describe cults as “little unpopular
religions.” It may be used ironically, but is still
often believed. This isn't that useful since all
religions typically start out small and
unpopular (almost by definition).
Additionally, Biblical scholars and theologians
often use the term cult in a very technical way
that may work for them, but is out of touch
with the common usage of the term.
So let's try two different views:

Common Ideas of Cults
1. Question of Orthodoxy. Some view religions
that diverge considerably from an orthodox
stance as being cults.
2. Question of Orthopraxy. Some view religions
that diverge considerably from a “normative”
understanding or appropriate religious
behavior as being cults.

Defining Cults
For the purposes of this presentation:
1. Question of Orthodoxy. Apply a test of
adherence or divergence from historical
Christian doctrine (Biblical standards and
early church creeds)
2. Question of (Power) Orthopraxy. Apply a test
of whether the group exercises power over its
membership in a way that meets a common
understanding of being abusive.

Review of Hallmarks of
Abusive Religious Systems

Authoritarian: Unconditional obedience to the
leadership.

Averse to Criticism: The person who dissents is a
problem to fix-- not the issue brought up.

Image Conscious: Protecting the reputation of the
leaders or church is more important than truth or
justice.

Perfectionistic: Individual worth is determined by
performance. No compassion for weakness/failure.

Unbalanced: Group distinguishes itself by
overemphasizing a minor theological point.

-From The Watchmen Fellowship

Defining Cults
One can develop quadrants. One axis
separates based on orthodoxy. The other
axis is based on orthopraxy (behaving in
a manner that is abusive (“cultic”))

Spiritual Abuse Part 4, Structures

First Quadrant: Healthy Church
Based on this chart, a religious group may be
orthodox doctrinally (from a historical
Christian perspective) and is not abusive in
its exercise of ecclesiastical power.
This could be described as a “Healthy Church.”

Second Quadrant: Non-Christian
Group/Religion
There are many groups who diverge
considerably from historical Christian
orthodoxy (some because they have no
Christian roots, some because they have
drifted away over time). Yet many are not
abusive (“cultic”) in their behavior.
These could be viewed simply as Non-
Christian Groups or Religions.

Third Quadrant: “Cult”
There are many groups who diverge
considerably from historical Christianity
(some having no roots in Christianity in the
first place), and are abusive in their exercise
of power over their memberships.
It is probably appropriate to call such a group a
“cult” (in the common use of the word).

Fourth Quadrant: “Unhealthy Church”
There are many groups who essentially
conform to historic Christian orthodoxy, but
practice abusive control over their
memberships.
While such a group might be considered to be
cultic in practice, it is probably more
appropriate to call it an “Unhealthy Church”
or “Unhealthy Group.”

The Ideal is a “Healthy Church”, but
what is the worst?

What is the worst? (from a Christian
perspective)
A. For the individual, the worst is a cult. It does
not provide a way to the truth, and abuses the
person.
B. For Christianity as a whole, the worst is an
Unhealthy Church. Because it is still
doctrinally Christian, it is hard to know how to
deal with it, and it gives a “black eye” to
Christianity as a whole in the way it treats its
members.

Structure
Some authoritarian groups (religious or
otherwise) are highly structured while
others have little structure.
The structure (or lack thereof) typically reflects
the personal style of the charismatic leader
(or subsequent leadership after the founder is
gone).
What both share is a lack of mechanism to
provide accountability or check-and-balance
for the leadership.

Structure
Some may be tempted to believe that a lack of
structure would give more freedom. However,
the lack of structure often forces greater
reliance on one or a few.
Even highly structured systems share this,
since critical structural features are missing to
limit abuse and work out grievances and
concerns in a healthy manner.

Theology and Structure
While the structure/culture of the group tends to
reflect the style of the leader, a certain
theology (for religious groups) or ideology (for
“non-religious” groups) develops of necessity
to support and justify the structure.

1. Minimization of the Theology of Mutuality.
The Bible describes the church as being
unified, and having specific roles. However, it
also speaks of mutuality. Love one another,
exhort one another, submit to one another,
encourage one another. Bear one another's
burdens. Submission, exhortation, and others
become one-directional... non-mutual.
Abusive groups give priority to roles and
deprioritize mutuality.

2. Minimization of the Doctrine of the
Priesthood of the Believer. The priesthood of
the believer suggests that each can approach
God directly, not through a human
intermediary. It also suggests that each
member may have access to divine truth, not
necessitating a human “prophet.” Abusive
groups emphasize the inadequacy of
members to have divine truth and grace
without divinely appointed leaders.

3. Minimization of the Doctrine of Personal
Stewardship. The Bible commends wise
usage of one's assets for self, family, others,
and God's work, recognizing that all things
are ultimately God's and gifts from God.
Abusive groups tend to confuse”all things are
God's” with “all things are the church's.” As
such, they tend to command and demand
what members are to do with their assets.

4. Doctrine of Particularism. Who goes to
heaven. Everyone? Most people? Few
people? Abusive groups, in extreme form,
may say that being a member of the group
makes heaven a POSSIBILITY... being out of
the group makes hell a CERTAINTY. In less
extreme cases, that group is “correct and
pure,” and those outside of the group are at
risk of curse or damnation.

So how do these theological characteristics
support the structure of spiritual abuse? First,
consider THREE ways a member can “vote”
in church:
-HAND (formal voting)
-WALLET (donating/withholding assets)
-FEET (staying or leaving)

HAND
While having no mechanism for voting takes
away the legality of voting, removal/reduction
of the theology of the priesthood of believers
takes away its logic. If access to divine
wisdom and blessing come from the
leadership, then polling of the membership
has no value and could, certainly, lead to
error.

WALLET
Reduction of the doctrine of personal
stewardship means that the church can and
should guide/command its members how to
use their resources. As such “voting with
one's wallet” is disobedient/sinful. It could be
a justification for removal from the group.

FEET
“Voting with one's feet” is a powerful method to
point out disagreement. However, if the group
teaches that doing so puts one's soul at risk
(particularism), that method is negated
(except when one is in the most desperate
circumstances).

Finally, giving priority of role over mutuality
completes the structural justification.
-Authority is limited to the role of leaders and
directed downward,
-Submission is limited to members and directed
upward.
-Exhortation is seen only in terms of authority
(from leaders over members) and submission
(of members to leaders).

NOTE
Often the structure (at least of highly organized
abusive groups) mimics a sort of degraded
military chain-of-command structure. It is
degraded since military structures provide
mechanisms for grievances and place
considerable limits on leaders to control
inappropriately (“unlawful orders” versus
“lawful orders”).

NOTE (cont)
Military structures tend to work well in crises,
but are rather inefficient and uncreative in
peacetime.
PERHAPS the tendency of many abusive
groups to heavily rely on war and conflict
metaphors is to justify, in part, their structure
and hide their limitations. Perhaps it also is
used to justify deprivations... necessary
sacrifices in spiritual battle.

Positive Structures
A healthy Christian church should:
Have a healthy attitude about power and
submission... setting up structures that
promote mutuality, not just role.
Have intentional structures in place to empower
members, and hold leaders accountable
internally.
Have a theology that recognizes God's unique
and valuable work in the lives of each
member, and builds structures based on that
theology.

References

Enroth, Ronald M. “Churches that Abuse.” Zondervan.

The Watchmen Fellowship

Zukeran, Patrick. “Abusive Churches: Leaving Them Behind
- A Biblical Perspective” www.probe.org.

Barker, Graham. “The Insidious Harm of Spiritual Abuse”
Alive Magazine

Lifton, Robert J. “Thought Reform and the Psychology of
Totalism.”

Martin, Stephen. “Wolves in Sheep's Clothing”
www.wellspringretreat.org.

Russell, Colleen. “Groups Identified as High-Demand or
Cults.” http://www.colleenrussellmft.com/

Spiritual Abuse Part 4, Structures

More Related Content

Spiritual Abuse Part 4, Structures