Spiritual Abuse (s/o Duggar fiasco, CC but all religions or lack thereof welcome)

[Katy]

So I got into it with a friend of a friend on FB.  He's a pastor from a denomination that doesn't believe in grad school, only in unacreddited ministry associate's degrees.  His focus was entirely on forgiveness.  Mine was forgiveness is one thing but refusing to acknowledge that molestation wasn't the only sin here, but it was compounded with a heaping pile of spiritual abuse too, abuse that is still going on.  The pastor saw ATI as a "lessor issue."  I saw it as pretty much the whole issue, or at least the issue that compounded and worsened a problem that should have been nipped in the bud immedietely.

 

I realized something pretty huge for me - I no longer believe in supporting denominations that don't require graduate theology degrees for their ministers.  I have sometimes previously gone to churches that taught that education made one less likely to have a relationship with God but more likely to have empty religion.  I currently think lack of education greatly increases the likelihood of spiritual abuse.  I do have some friends that were victims of spiritual abuse from denominations that DO require grad degrees so I realize it's not foolproof, but it does seem to be a major factor in reducing the likelihood that something so terribly doctrinally wrong will be systematically implemented by a whole denomination.

 

Then I realized I don't really have a good grasp on exactly how to define spiritual abuse.  I can recognize that twisting a bunch of bible verses or authority as a minister clearly out of context to have power and control over someone is abusive, but I'm not sure I know how to define it per se. 

 

I'm planning on diving into the Recovering Grace website to learn more about how ATI is abusive but if you have training or know of stories that are clear examples of how spiritual abuse can change a life, please share.  I think learning about spiritual abuse, recognizing, and preventing it is going to be my next spiritual project.  Thank you!

[Rosie_0801]

I think it comes down to the Myers Briggs Thinking v Feeling. Thinkers want and need the study. The feeling group won't. They both need different things, and therefore their priorities differ, as do the paths they each need to take.

 

 

Happily I don't have a lot of experience with spiritual abuse. The little bit I've seen in my family, I've been able to combat. In our situation, it looked like the teaching of horrendously shallow messages and blatant untruths. By blatant untruths, I'm not talking about theological differences of opinion, but along the lines of claiming to be Christian but believing Christian literature to be incorrect about who the Christian god is. If you can make sense of that, your brain needs ironing. :p

[PrincessMommy]

I think that spiritual abuse can happen even amongst educated clergy, so I agree that it isn't foolproof.  But I also think that any denomination that discourages higher education for anyone probably has a higher probability.

 

I think oversight (or denominational hierarchy) is another possible indicator.  Where it is lacking it seems that there are many more chances for problems... but again, it isn't going to be foolproof.  There is plenty of evidence of abuse amongst traditional denominational churches (don't want to pick on anyone particular by naming names).   Heck I know of plenty of independent churches that sought out some kind of oversight... or even made their own denomination, but then terrible things have come to light about spiritual abuse.

 

Good luck with your quest.  It honestly sounds like a very hard and painful topic to immerse yourself into.  It is not for the faint of heart, that's for sure.

[creekland]

Maybe I'll change my mind later, but I don't see spiritual abuse and education of clergy/pastors/whatever correlating at all.

 

We've been in many churches (different denominations) over the years with our moves, etc.  Those we've stayed with share our beliefs (or we share theirs might be more appropriate).  It doesn't matter to me how educated the minister is, but I definitely have a preference for one who has had a non-ministry job in his past (generally before becoming a pastor).  I feel they understand "life" far better than those who have only been schooled in ministry.  I feel the same way about politicians I vote for.  

 

Agreement on values comes first, but life experience is a close second for things that are important to me.  Degrees?  Not so much.  Some study should be there, sure, but exactly what's on the piece of paper is more or less meaningless.

[Chris in VA]

I would agree with you, OP, except I've seen how graduate programs can vary so much. An M.Div doesn't guarantee anything, really. That's because there is no standard body of information. Unlike mathematics or English, or nearly anything else, religion doesn't have a basic, foundational level that everyone learns--esp Christianity. I hate saying that, because I do believe there are basic and foundational interpretations that define Christianity, but it's no longer accepted that "believe this and you are Christian." So the schools of higher education are just spouting opinion. They don't agree on history, theology, Christology, really anything. Yes, there is agreement in some ways in some places, but there isn't even commonality across Christianity (or what is called Christianity) about who Christ is. So it follows that you are going to be educated according to the opinion of your group.

 

I am Episcopalian, and in order to be ordained as a priest, you have to have a Bachelor's degree and go to seminary for 3 years to get an M.Div. There are a few ways around it, but that's the basic way. There's also committees and discernment processes, and even a test (General Ordination Exams) to take. But there's seminaries that teach one thing and seminaries that teach something else. There's no standard. Even though the Episcopal Church "officially" teaches adherence to the Nicene and Apostles Creed and the 39 Articles, people are still allowed to not believe them. We have had bishops that don't believe them. I'm saying leaders don't have to follow the offical party line. There's plenty of room for opinion. It seems messed up to me. Just my opinion.

 

I'm not really sure what the definition of spiritual abuse is, but just wanted to share the above.

[FaithManor]

Maybe I'll change my mind later, but I don't see spiritual abuse and education of clergy/pastors/whatever correlating at all.

 

We've been in many churches (different denominations) over the years with our moves, etc.  Those we've stayed with share our beliefs (or we share theirs might be more appropriate).  It doesn't matter to me how educated the minister is, but I definitely have a preference for one who has had a non-ministry job in his past (generally before becoming a pastor).  I feel they understand "life" far better than those who have only been schooled in ministry.  I feel the same way about politicians I vote for.  

 

Agreement on values comes first, but life experience is a close second for things that are important to me.  Degrees?  Not so much.  Some study should be there, sure, but exactly what's on the piece of paper is more or less meaningless.

I agree that I don't think grad school is the issue. But, I will say that we are currently leaving a church in which the new pastor attended only "Bible School" and one without accreditation, and the glaring difference in his underpreparedness for shepherding a flock in addition to handling administrative situations is HUGE compared to the previous pastor who graduated with a bachelor's and then a master's from Asbury. Huge. Just huge. He has also brought in many special speakers, instructors from his Bible school as well as classmates, and all I can say is God help us all! I'm not kidding. It is that bad, and these guys are so under educated in matters of church history, world history, current events, science, Biblical languages, administration, you name it, that it is downright scary. As it turns out, the school will take anyone who says he has been called into the ministry, no academic achievement required. Zero. Not even a high school diploma or GED.

 

Having witnessed the gap, the huge maw between pastors with degrees from tried and true colleges and seminaries vs. unaccredited Bible institute, we are fleeing back to our previous denomination where the standards for becoming a pastor are much, much higher.

[creekland]

I agree that I don't think grad school is the issue. But, I will say that we are currently leaving a church in which the new pastor attended only "Bible School" and one without accreditation, and the glaring difference in his underpreparedness for shepherding a flock in addition to handling administrative situations is HUGE compared to the previous pastor who graduated with a bachelor's and then a master's from Asbury. Huge. Just huge. He has also brought in many special speakers, instructors from his Bible school as well as classmates, and all I can say is God help us all! I'm not kidding. It is that bad, and these guys are so under educated in matters of church history, world history, current events, science, Biblical languages, administration, you name it, that it is downright scary. As it turns out, the school will take anyone who says he has been called into the ministry, no academic achievement required. Zero. Not even a high school diploma or GED.

 

Having witnessed the gap, the huge maw between pastors with degrees from tried and true colleges and seminaries vs. unaccredited Bible institute, we are fleeing back to our previous denomination where the standards for becoming a pastor are much, much higher.

 

That particular case would have us quickly leaving too, but it certainly doesn't mean all out there without a higher level degree are similar or that some who have higher level degrees don't have their fair share of "huh?" incidents.  We've seen both.

 

We look at individuals, not papers they bring with them.

 

[MyThreeSons]

Slight tangent here:

 

I have a friend who is a pastor. He did his undergrad at BJU  -- accounting or business or something like that -- he was a CPA before becoming a pastor. He then went to a seminary for his MDiv and is now an ordained pastor (minister?) in the Presbyterian church. At no time did his education include any training about such things as being a mandatory reporter for abuse cases. He graduated from seminary about three years ago. 

[bettyandbob]

I don't think its the lack of degrees that is a problem. It's more the disdain for education. And the discouragement of anyone getting an education. That is something you are more likely to find in a denomination which doesn't require a degree for the pastor.

 

When people are ignorant you have control.

[FaithManor]

That particular case would have us quickly leaving too, but it certainly doesn't mean all out there without a higher level degree are similar or that some who have higher level degrees don't have their fair share of "huh?" incidents.  We've seen both.

 

We look at individuals, not papers they bring with them.

 

I agree accept that I do believe that unaccredited Bible schools, having researched them due to this incident, do not provide enough academic instruction for proper ministerial preparedness. The coursework is quite light compared with accredited institutions. I think there does need to be a foundation, a basic foundation that needs to be in place. This has been an eye opening experience investigating the unaccredited institutions.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

I realized something pretty huge for me - I no longer believe in supporting denominations that don't require graduate theology degrees for their ministers.  I have sometimes previously gone to churches that taught that education made one less likely to have a relationship with God but more likely to have empty religion.  I currently think lack of education greatly increases the likelihood of spiritual abuse.  I do have some friends that were victims of spiritual abuse from denominations that DO require grad degrees so I realize it's not foolproof, but it does seem to be a major factor in reducing the likelihood that something so terribly doctrinally wrong will be systematically implemented by a whole denomination.

 

 

This attitude would give me pause no matter what we were talking about.  What are they saying?  That it's dangerous to have too much information and being well educated might make you question things too much?  Are they saying it's easier to control sheep who don't ask too many questions?  That sound ridiculous and dangerous.

 

I don't have an opinion regarding what type of education a minister should have.  I just have a problem with a minister insisting that people not become educated.  I would find this line of reasoning suspicious. 

[bolt.]

Having well trained, prepared, dedicated, educated and spiritually mature people as church leaders and teachers has a lot of benefits. Seminary is often a part of that, and as a seminary grad, I known ministry is more nuanced and, just, well, better, than it would have been at the point when I graduated Bible college. People say, "When you graduate Bible college, you realize that it's amazing how much you know. When you graduate Seminary, you realize that it's amazing how little you know."

 

However I don't think there is a significant correlation between abusive tendencies and education level. Even lay-people with nothing more than a Sunday school education can use that to set themselves in a controlling position over others (even "just" their family members).

 

I suppose maybe there is some correlation in that power hungry people often hate/avoid school-like experiences: especially demanding ones like grad school.

 

An additional issue might be that some ministry prep schools might be explicitly talking about the potentiality (and immorality) of spiritual abuse. Going to two schools might increase the chances of experiencing and absorbing that message. However, I don't think it is only being talked about at grad schools. I teach about it as a Bible college prof.

 

As for the definition of spiritual abuse, it's not really about "twisting" Bible verses (it can be done with or without that) it's when religious ideas of any kind are used to establish and maintain a situation where one person controls another. (Spiritual abuse is recognized even by people who don't think the "god" in question is real or the religion is true.) It's basically an abuser "passing the buck" to "God."

 

Example: "God" gave this authority to "me" so "you" don't have a problem with "me" but with "him" if you don't like it. "You" are not free because "God" is watching and evaluating your sins against him/me. You might fool "me" resist me, reject me, escape me: but if you do, it's a sin, and "God" is on my side. "God" thinks what I think, wants what I want, expects what I expect: compliance is expected. Questioning is a sin.

[Greta]

I don't think its the lack of degrees that is a problem. It's more the disdain for education. And the discouragement of anyone getting an education. That is something you are more likely to find in a denomination which doesn't require a degree for the pastor.

 

When people are ignorant you have control.

This is exactly the point that I was going to make, except I would have done it in a much more rambly, ranting, emotional way. (I still have some baggage where this topic is concerned. Maybe more than "some".)

 

Opposition to education is not just a red flag. It's a gigantic waving red flag in flames.

[Mimm]

That particular case would have us quickly leaving too, but it certainly doesn't mean all out there without a higher level degree are similar or that some who have higher level degrees don't have their fair share of "huh?" incidents.  We've seen both.

 

We look at individuals, not papers they bring with them.

 

 

I would agree that a high level of quality education does not guarantee you a good pastor but I do think it's one of the necessary components.

 

ETA: And I'm a feeler so it has nothing to do with that. (INFP) ;)

[maize]

This is an interesting topic. In my church there is no professional clergy. The people who lead local congregations are asked to do so on a volunteer basis for a limited term, typically about three years. On the one hand lack of training can sometimes be problematic. On the other I see a lot of benefit from the variety of talents an experience different individuals bring to the job. Since terms are limited no one person is in a position of authority for long (at the local level anyway).

[Greta]

Katy, this is an important question you have raised, and while I have no formal training or education on this topic whatsoever, I did grow up in a spiritually abusive sect. If I can manage a calm and rational response, I will share some of my experiences and thoughts with you. But it will have to wait until later today, as I am going to attend my healthy, normal, mainstream church this morning. :)

 

Hugs,

G.

[Joanne]

I'm a deconverted person; former Christian. I have a graduate degree from a seminary, and I attended seminary with M. Div. and Doctorate students. I attended a variety of chuches (but primarily Presbyterian USA) churches ages 0-early 40.

 

I think that being the official leader of a church requires not only theological training, but psychological, business, non profit, industrial/business psychology, AND a significant part of the education needs to be inclusive rather than denominational. I think that in most cases, this is only achieved with advanced degrees. Anything less begins to devalue the profession and the members.

[Pam in CT]

Katy, I am also coming at some of these same issues, from the vantage point of a different faith tradition (Judaism).  While the Duggar fiasco is sooooo far from my usual world (I've never watched the show in my life) I'm finding myself really, really troubled by it.

 

The language is different within our community -- the term 'spiritual abuse' is not generally used, and 'sin' concepts are different, and 'redemption/forgiveness' concepts are I think substantially different.  But similar problems exist, and some similar big-picture context surrounds, and specific-episode responses to them exist.  

 

 

I've actually never thought about clergy training as a factor.... Some Jewish strands have established graduate programs with ordination programs.  Others do not -- candidates study closely with an older rabbi in a sort of apprenticeship.  I have to think about this some more.

 

 

Whether or not the form of clergy education is a factor, I definitely concur that a general disdain or fear of higher education for community members is a factor...

 

 

I don't think its the lack of degrees that is a problem. It's more the disdain for education. And the discouragement of anyone getting an education. That is something you are more likely to find in a denomination which doesn't require a degree for the pastor.

When people are ignorant you have control.

... and when there's a pattern of girls' education specifically being limited to an even greater degree than boys', that is a further red flag for me (for reasons below).

 

The issue of whether clergy accountability is IMO huge.  If clergy power is in practice absolute  -- where, for example, clergy guidance about whether to go/not go to civil authorities, or avail/not avail of secular counseling programs etc is taken by community members as binding -- the risks of coverup of one episode / creation of the likelihood of subsequent episodes are exponentially higher.

 

Another issue that I've been struggling with for some time within my own faith tradition, and which the Duggar fiasco has really triggered for me, is very gender specific: the extent to which the bigger picture faith context affirms or denies girls' and women's ownership of their own bodies... which is closely linked to faith-specific teachings on the one hand but also has some common patterns that span traditions... a context in which girls' virginity is considered a matter for the father / family honor, a context in which 'licked cupcakes' are damaged goods, a context in which wives are expected to be sexually available to their husbands... all of which some version exists in some versions of Judaism as well... I think creates a blurring of boundaries, where girls do not get a message that they have full agency over their bodies, and boys also get a message that men have a kind of non-reciprocal standing over at least some aspects of women's bodies...

 

(that dry humping clip!!!   :ack2:  A person who does that on camera, does it, period... and what kind of lessons about female bodily integrity would boys or girls who grow up witnessing that kind of interaction between their parents possibly end up with???)

 

 

... and I also think the extent to which a community really isolates itself from the larger world, so that young people within have limited access to other perspectives... provides an environment substantially more able and likely to be able to maintain ongoing coverup should its leadership go that way... since other paths are not modeled or available.   

 

 

Eh, I'm making myself all wrought up again.  I need to step away for a bit... good luck as you try to sort through.  Aside from recoveringgrace, Arctic Mama made a link over on the other thread that I plan to come back to.  There are some fine resources coming out of the LDS feminist community as well.

[J-rap]

However I don't think there is a significant correlation between abusive tendencies and education level. Even lay-people with nothing more than a Sunday school education can use that to set themselves in a controlling position over others (even "just" their family members).

 

 

 

I agree with this. 

 

I personally value a pastor who is highly educated.  I prefer to hear messages based on a lot of research and language translation explanation and historical understanding of what was going on during the day that a particular Scripture was written, etc.  All of this can make such a difference in how the message is interpreted and understood.

 

That said, I do personally know of spiritual leaders who have an instinctive common sense and wisdom, and who do not have all the education.  Some of them have a great ability to interact with youth and the elderly, in particular.

[Ravin]

Spiritual abuse is not limited to Christian denominations. It seems to me that the education of clergy is probably one factor, but so is the structure of the denomination. In particular, one with strong notions of hierarchy and doctrine but a lack of checks on the power of leadership, perhaps?

 

I have a friend who, while she is an athiest herself, attends church with her devout husband and has friends in that church (Church of Christ is the denom.) She knows of two women who were asked to leave their congregations so that their abusers could continue to attend services. For some reason the abusers' spiritual healing was deemed the more important and the women were shunted to the side. I find this appalling.

 

There are other ways of doing things than what we've seen play out. Take the Catholic church. They could have used internal discipline to permanently remove priests caught in bad acts from contact with potential victims rather than simply moving them to different parishes. 

 

The problem with identifying spiritual abuse is: who decides? There is a very strong element of rights of the family in matters of religion in U.S. law and jurisprudence. That coupled with a lack of rights for children independent of their parents ("best interests" determinations against parental preferences  vs. First Amendment and substantive due process rights...that "best interests" determination has to hold up under the highest level of review on appeal of strict scrutiny), means that without very clear physical, mental, and emotional harm sufficient to meet the compelling interest standard, a court can't take a kid from parents over religion.

 

U.S. parents have the right to teach their children their religious beliefs. Even if those beliefs look whackadoodle or harmful to those on the outside. The line is drawn where the parents' actions/conduct is abusive whether their motivations are religious or not. When discussing spiritual abuse, we talk about the harms of indoctrination into a particular worldview. That's all in the realm of ideas and speech, no matter how deeply it impacts people. The law isn't concerned with spiritual well-being. If it was, it might go after ATI families for teaching their daughters they are responsible for the virtue of the men around them. It might also go after athiests for depriving their children of religion. Government has to stay out of it because of the Establishment Clause.

 

The court can (attempt to) restrain parents from using religion as a tool to alienate the children from one parent in a custody battle. The court can tell parents "we don't care that your religion says spare the rod, spoil the child, you can't beat your kid with a rod" if they've gotten civilized enough to bar parents from using corporal punishment on religiously-neutral grounds.

 

[liber]

Wartburg Watch and Spiritual Sounding board are the two blogs/fourms I go to see what spiritually abusive trends are trendind at the moment.

[sassenach]

I don't have time to elaborate, but I disagree that spiritual abuse related to education. I just don't think that it's a biblical conclusion. I've seen the Lord call and train pastors in a variety of ways. However, I do agree that any denomination that forbids or devalues education is a red flag. Honestly, there are just so many red flags with ATI and similar denoms, I just don't understand how people don't see it. It's maddening.

[PeachyDoodle]

I'm not sure it's as simple as a degree or even a hierarchical structure. My sister and I have had long conversations about the (seminary-educated, mainline denomination) pastor of the church our parents (and dh and I, reluctantly, for the moment) attend. People here fall all over themselves to rearrange their lives based on whatever he advocates -- religiously, politically, what have you. This weekend it was a diatribe about how all couples with kids are basically sinning by worshiping their kids, and they need to take a weekend at least once a year and go away by themselves, no kids, because your wife (this was directed at men) is #2 in your life, after God, and kids are #3. Nothing abusive about that, per se, but I guarantee you at least a dozen couples are planning a getaway as we speak.

 

My sister says, "If I'd known that all it takes to get people to do whatever you tell them to do was a seminary degree, I'd have gone there instead of law school."

 

Fact is, pastors/ministers/religious leaders have ENORMOUS influence over those in their care. At what point that influence crosses the line into abuse, it's hard to say. I think education is extremely important for pastors, but for reasons of preventing abuse, I think limiting the office to those who demonstrate an understanding of its authority and a commitment to wielding it carefully is the best place to start. Easier said than done, for sure.

[Ravin]

I don't have time to elaborate, but I disagree that spiritual abuse related to education. I just don't think that it's a biblical conclusion. I've seen the Lord call and train pastors in a variety of ways. However, I do agree that any denomination that forbids or devalues education is a red flag. Honestly, there are just so many red flags with ATI and similar denoms, I just don't understand how people don't see it. It's maddening.

Part of the problem is that plenty of people are drawn to clergy roles for the power it gives them over others. They might not frame it that way themselves, but it's what happens. The longer education process can help weed out those "called" by their own desire to control others.

 

So can having a church structure that doesn't put too much emphasis on top-down individual leadership. Various churches and denominations have checks in place--others don't.

[LucyStoner]

I know someone who fits the classic pattern for sociopathy. He's very magnetic but extremely dangerous emotionally. He wanted to become an Episcopalian priest. The bishop here disabused him of that notion and called every other diocese he might go through. There do need to be safeguards in place.

[bettyandbob]

My boss at one of my jobs is a pastor. He teaches graduate level courses in general counseling at a university affiliated with his denomination. Previously, he taught seminary courses elsewhere. He stopped teaching at the previous place when he surveyed a class and learned 1) a significant number didn't believe and 2) the majority planned to make church work a lucrative career.

[kroe1]

I doubt no one could correlate pastor abuse with education any more than one could correlate child abuse with education. Although, I have never seen statistics.

 

Personally, I think you have learned a bigger lesson, and that is never battle on Facebook.

[Katy]

Wow.  Thanks, everyone for responding.

 

This attitude would give me pause no matter what we were talking about.  What are they saying?  That it's dangerous to have too much information and being well educated might make you question things too much?  Are they saying it's easier to control sheep who don't ask too many questions?  That sound ridiculous and dangerous.

 

I don't have an opinion regarding what type of education a minister should have.  I just have a problem with a minister insisting that people not become educated.  I would find this line of reasoning suspicious. 

 

The main pastor I am thinking of wasn't insisting that no one become educated, in fact he paid for his own children to go to college at a really good state university.  I have heard this sort of sentiment more from Charismatic or Pentacostal sorts of churches- perhaps it is a matter of being a thinker vs a feeler.  But basically the sentiment was a lot of pastors can stand up at the front of a group of people and give a dry and boring sermon that still serves a congregation's need to feel that they did their duty to go to church that week.  Those people tend to be highly educated.  Others can be more or less new believers with little education, but God can call them to preach, and as long as they are seeking God every week their sermons are challenging and exciting and life changing.  And yes, perhaps these churches are drawn more to leaders who are charismatic and manipulative to the exclusion of sound theology that's backed up by solid reasoning.   And those sorts of churches might easily go off the rails into developed theology that becomes abusive.

 

As for the definition of spiritual abuse, it's not really about "twisting" Bible verses (it can be done with or without that) it's when religious ideas of any kind are used to establish and maintain a situation where one person controls another. (Spiritual abuse is recognized even by people who don't think the "god" in question is real or the religion is true.) It's basically an abuser "passing the buck" to "God."

Example: "God" gave this authority to "me" so "you" don't have a problem with "me" but with "him" if you don't like it. "You" are not free because "God" is watching and evaluating your sins against him/me. You might fool "me" resist me, reject me, escape me: but if you do, it's a sin, and "God" is on my side. "God" thinks what I think, wants what I want, expects what I expect: compliance is expected. Questioning is a sin.

 

Great definition.  Thanks.

 

... and when there's a pattern of girls' education specifically being limited to an even greater degree than boys', that is a further red flag for me (for reasons below).

 

The issue of whether clergy accountability is IMO huge.  If clergy power is in practice absolute  -- where, for example, clergy guidance about whether to go/not go to civil authorities, or avail/not avail of secular counseling programs etc is taken by community members as binding -- the risks of coverup of one episode / creation of the likelihood of subsequent episodes are exponentially higher.

 

Another issue that I've been struggling with for some time within my own faith tradition, and which the Duggar fiasco has really triggered for me, is very gender specific: the extent to which the bigger picture faith context affirms or denies girls' and women's ownership of their own bodies... which is closely linked to faith-specific teachings on the one hand but also has some common patterns that span traditions... a context in which girls' virginity is considered a matter for the father / family honor, a context in which 'licked cupcakes' are damaged goods, a context in which wives are expected to be sexually available to their husbands... all of which some version exists in some versions of Judaism as well... I think creates a blurring of boundaries, where girls do not get a message that they have full agency over their bodies, and boys also get a message that men have a kind of non-reciprocal standing over at least some aspects of women's bodies...

 

(that dry humping clip!!!   :ack2:  A person who does that on camera, does it, period... and what kind of lessons about female bodily integrity would boys or girls who grow up witnessing that kind of interaction between their parents possibly end up with???)

 

 

... and I also think the extent to which a community really isolates itself from the larger world, so that young people within have limited access to other perspectives... provides an environment substantially more able and likely to be able to maintain ongoing coverup should its leadership go that way... since other paths are not modeled or available.   

 

 

Eh, I'm making myself all wrought up again.  I need to step away for a bit... good luck as you try to sort through.  Aside from recoveringgrace, Arctic Mama made a link over on the other thread that I plan to come back to.  There are some fine resources coming out of the LDS feminist community as well.

Interesting perspectives.  I'll check out those links, thank you!

 

 

...I have a friend who, while she is an athiest herself, attends church with her devout husband and has friends in that church (Church of Christ is the denom.) She knows of two women who were asked to leave their congregations so that their abusers could continue to attend services. For some reason the abusers' spiritual healing was deemed the more important and the women were shunted to the side. I find this appalling.

 

There are other ways of doing things than what we've seen play out. Take the Catholic church. They could have used internal discipline to permanently remove priests caught in bad acts from contact with potential victims rather than simply moving them to different parishes. 

 

The problem with identifying spiritual abuse is: who decides? There is a very strong element of rights of the family in matters of religion in U.S. law and jurisprudence. That coupled with a lack of rights for children independent of their parents ("best interests" determinations against parental preferences  vs. First Amendment and substantive due process rights...that "best interests" determination has to hold up under the highest level of review on appeal of strict scrutiny), means that without very clear physical, mental, and emotional harm sufficient to meet the compelling interest standard, a court can't take a kid from parents over religion.

 

U.S. parents have the right to teach their children their religious beliefs. Even if those beliefs look whackadoodle or harmful to those on the outside. The line is drawn where the parents' actions/conduct is abusive whether their motivations are religious or not. When discussing spiritual abuse, we talk about the harms of indoctrination into a particular worldview. That's all in the realm of ideas and speech, no matter how deeply it impacts people. The law isn't concerned with spiritual well-being. If it was, it might go after ATI families for teaching their daughters they are responsible for the virtue of the men around them. It might also go after athiests for depriving their children of religion. Government has to stay out of it because of the Establishment Clause.

 

The court can (attempt to) restrain parents from using religion as a tool to alienate the children from one parent in a custody battle. The court can tell parents "we don't care that your religion says spare the rod, spoil the child, you can't beat your kid with a rod" if they've gotten civilized enough to bar parents from using corporal punishment on religiously-neutral grounds.

Asking abusers to leave rather than victims is on the same level of horrifying as what ATI does in my book.

 

And in the case of spiritual abuse, I don't think there can be a political answer.  There can be, for lack of a better way to put it, a sort of ethical zeitgeist change that might lead people to a different understanding, but you're right in that consititutionally there probably cannot be a political answer to this question unless we develop a more strong understanding of children's individual rights as opposed to the concept of children as property.

 

Wartburg Watch and Spiritual Sounding board are the two blogs/fourms I go to see what spiritually abusive trends are trendind at the moment.

 

Thanks, I'll check them out!

 

I don't have time to elaborate, but I disagree that spiritual abuse related to education. I just don't think that it's a biblical conclusion. I've seen the Lord call and train pastors in a variety of ways. However, I do agree that any denomination that forbids or devalues education is a red flag. Honestly, there are just so many red flags with ATI and similar denoms, I just don't understand how people don't see it. It's maddening.

 

When you have time to elaborate I'd love to hear the red flags that stood out to you.  I think this might be a matter of if you haven't been exposed to abuse you don't think through the consequences of some of what you hear about them.

 

...

My sister says, "If I'd known that all it takes to get people to do whatever you tell them to do was a seminary degree, I'd have gone there instead of law school."

 

Fact is, pastors/ministers/religious leaders have ENORMOUS influence over those in their care. At what point that influence crosses the line into abuse, it's hard to say. I think education is extremely important for pastors, but for reasons of preventing abuse, I think limiting the office to those who demonstrate an understanding of its authority and a commitment to wielding it carefully is the best place to start. Easier said than done, for sure.

 

Very interesting, esp the bolded.  Thank you.

 

 

My boss at one of my jobs is a pastor. He teaches graduate level courses in general counseling at a university affiliated with his denomination. Previously, he taught seminary courses elsewhere. He stopped teaching at the previous place when he surveyed a class and learned 1) a significant number didn't believe and 2) the majority planned to make church work a lucrative career.

 

That's sad.  Honestly I've wondered that about one of the pastors at my current mainline denominational church.  Not that he's made it a lucrative career as such, but that I think he thinks religion is mostly a force for good in the world, not evil, so even if he doesn't believe per se his work still makes the world better.  This is not something I could quote and prove, it's just a general sense I get from him from sermons which are always about biblical characters rather than God, and something else I can't put my finger on.

[Greta]

I've thought a lot about this today, and I don't know if this will be the least bit helpful, but I've thought of four primary ways that the sect that I grew up in created the kind of atmosphere that leads to abuse (spiritual and otherwise). I also debated whether or not to say which sect that was, but I've said it on these boards before so it's not a secret. I grew up Jehovah's Witness. This is not intended to be an anti-JW rant, and in fact I have tried to keep this general and delve into specifics only when necessary to explain, but I feel it's appropriate to be honest about that. Plus it's a whole lot easier to say JWs than it is to keep saying "the sect I grew up in."

 

I also don't put this forward as any kind of comprehensive list, it's just some points I noticed and remember. The list isn't perfect, because these things can overlap, and also because it's a matter of degree. A perfectly healthy church might have a characteristic I've listed here to a lesser degree. Where does one draw the line? How many characteristics have to be present before abuse is likely? I don't know. But those are important questions to ask.

 

 

1. Absolute Authority

 

I'm putting this first because it's probably the most important (without it, none of the others would even be an issue). But it's also rather difficult to explain and describe, so I ask forgiveness in advance for not doing a better job.

 

An abusive sect puts itself (its leadership) in the role of savior instead of Christ. No possibility of salvation exists outside of the sect, not even among other Christian churches, because faith in Christ is not what saves, faith in the organization is what saves.

 

Merely questioning their authority is seen as a challenge to it - you will be accused of having an "independent spirit" and will have disciplinary action brought against you. In some cases you may even be excommunicated (more on that below).

 

All churches, of course, offer their membership advice and guidance, and the laity has the freedom to accept or refuse it. Abusive sects don't merely advise or guide, they control. Decisions that any reasonably healthy adult should be able to make for herself, such as what kind of tv shows she wants to watch, get made by the leadership instead. Christian unity, which is healthy and good, gets twisted into uniformity, which is destructive and oppressive.

 

In abusive sects, pastors are given an inordinate amount of power over their flock. For example, they have the ability to disfellowship (excommunicate) someone from the sect, meaning that they have the power to convince your friends and family to never speak to you again, to cut off all ties with you and basically make you "dead" to them, and they don't even have to explain WHY they are doing this. Their authority is that final. They say it, it is done.

 

The anti-education thing can be one aspect of this too. Colleges can't be trusted. Only the sect can be trusted.

 

2. Fear

 

People who are terrified and/or furious are easier to manipulate and control than those who have peace and contentment. Abusive sects keep the membership constantly in fear: fear of God's wrath and therefore one's own destruction/damnation/hell, fear of some event such as armageddon, fear of outsiders who are perceived as a threat to the group. No matter how much you're doing, no matter how hard you are trying, it's not enough - the anxiety is palpable. The admonishments, scoldings, and warnings of danger will vastly outnumber the messages of support and encouragement.

 

 

3. Isolation

 

Abusive sects go to great lengths to separate their membership from society at large and from non-members. They strongly discourage or even forbid associating with people outside the sect - even if those people are your family. And this applies even to people who are the same general religion but not part of the particular sect. You may have to go to work or school with people outside the sect, but you can't participate in social events with them. No dinners with coworkers or movies with school friends. They may not even be allowed to set foot in another church for any reason whatsoever (my mom, for example, was not allowed to attend her sister's funeral). All of this is justified as "protection" from evil influences. In reality of course it's just that the leadership is terrified that the members will realize how much better off they'd be outside the sect!

 

The anti-education thing rears its ugly head again here. Getting a higher education means spending a lot of time around non-believers. Best be safe and avoid that!

 

 

4. Caste System

 

Abusive sects may have a caste system by which some people are superior and closer to God, and others are inferior and further from God. I guess one easy way to control a large group is to put some of them in charge of the others. In some sects, the castes might be defined by gender. Now I want to state for the record that I don't think there's anything wrong with having different gender roles if both roles are equally respected, valued, and appreciated. But when one is greater than and the other less than, when one is given power and authority over the other, that is a sure-fire recipe for abuse.

 

JWs do that with gender to an extent, but not to the same extent as other sects that I've heard of. They have another, unique, caste system: the "anointed class" (this is about 14,000 out of their 8-million members) and the "great crowd" which is everybody else. Only the anointed may partake of communion. Only the anointed will go to heaven. Only the anointed have Christ as their mediator (the "great crowd" has the anointed as their mediator). It's a way of putting people in their place, and it's far more effective than defining it by gender since it works on 99.99% of the group instead of just half.

 

(And regarding what I said above about questioning authority - people have been excommunicated for merely questioning this system and the Biblical (lack of) support for it. That tells me that this is a critically important way that they maintain control and authority, because they protect it at all costs.)

 

 

 

I can think of other problems, red flags, and signs of dysfunction. But everything else that I think of really can be put into one of those four categories. So I'm thinking that's about as straightforward as I can make it. I don't know if that will be of any help or interest to you, but it has been very interesting for me to think about this dynamic. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Little Nyssa]

I don't think that education has to do with abuse of spiritual power. The temptation to use spiritual power is very attractive and compelling no matter what kind of church you are a pastor of, or how you became a leader.

 

You might think that pride in your educational attainments might lead you to become a tyrant, but on the other hand higher education is supposed to also teach people to be reflective and self-examining and also to understand someone else's point of view.

I think the antidote is humility, and where do you learn or teach that? Self-examination might lead to it, or a deep faith, but Education or lack thereof isn't a guarantee either way.

[Maus]

Spiritual abuse doesn't have to involve clergy at all. It can be anyone who uses religion to control another person. Clergy are often in that position, but it can also be parents or spouses, etc. Since many religions have traditionally been patriarchal, it's more often fathers/husbands, but it certainly can be mothers.

I know he's fictional, but think Norman Bates and his mother.

 

 

ETA:  typo

[HS Mom in NC]

Here's my FB status on the issue from yesterday:

 

"Look, the whole ATI Bill Gothard thing is a cult. Don't be surprised when people like the Duggars who join or are raised in a cult make wrong decisions about how to handle these kinds of circumstances.

I'll be discussing with my church leadership tomorrow what the written policy (we haven't finished our church constitution yet) will be when sexual misconduct and/or crimes happen with leadership and/or church members.

I'll be asking:

1. What legal actions will be taken by leadership when they are made aware of these circumstances?
2. What counsel will leadership give each person involved in each of these circumstances?
3. What church discipline actions (for those of you who aren't church goers, that means kicking people out of the church and having nothing to do with them socially) will be taken against the perpetrators in each of these circumstances?
4. What licensed, professional resources will be made available or recommended to the victims, the perpetrators and everyone else involved in these circumstances?
5. What teaching/preaching will happen to address all of these issues?
6. What church policies will be made to insure children are protected from these and other dangerous situations?

You should ask yours too. I gave mine a heads up before we talk about it in person tomorrow. Mine agrees it needs to be discussed. That's the right attitude."

 

Today the pastor and I discussed the main points and he's currently looking at the current church constitution working on addressing these kinds of issues specifically in writing so everyone who considers joining knows exactly what will happen if it ever comes up.  He said he's adamant that any crimes be reported immediately to the proper legal authorities and professional, licensed psychological or psychiatric help be provided to everyone involved. He also said he has no problem with the idea of forgiveness but wants it clear that legal and Biblical consequences should be instituted whether a perpetrator claims repentance or not.  That includes not being around kids anymore and never being in a position of leadership again.

 

[PrincessMommy]

I don't think its the lack of degrees that is a problem. It's more the disdain for education. And the discouragement of anyone getting an education. That is something you are more likely to find in a denomination which doesn't require a degree for the pastor.

 

When people are ignorant you have control.

 

I think this is a good point. 

[MotherGoose]

I am making a generalization here, I am aware. However, in my observation, many churches or groups of people who accept pastors without a seminary education also lack a hiearchy to deal with problems with the pastor, making abuse of power or in other things more likely. In traditional denominations that require education, there are bishops and councils and such to go to if there's a problem. Without these things, the pastor ( and perhaps a small group of leaders who know him well) are the end of the line. I have a relative who decided he wanted to be a pastor, the church voted him in, and that was that. He did have a college degree, at least, but nothing spiritual. Nothing bad happened of which I am aware, but he eventually left the post. I used to be a social worker, and I dealt with more than one family in which the alleged abuser claimed he (was a man usually) was an "apostle" or a pastor or whatever (never with any education) and how on earth could I claim he did such a thing? That, and people also saying that they were Christian and so how could I think that has totally turned me off from anyone using "I'm a Christian, or I'm a pastor" as any sort of justification for anything. Everyt time, the people I dealt with in my job were guilty. If you truly follow Christ, you don't need to use it as justification. I am a Christian.

[creekland]

You might think that pride in your educational attainments might lead you to become a tyrant, but on the other hand higher education is supposed to also teach people to be reflective and self-examining and also to understand someone else's point of view.

 

 

I see more people in positions of high power (not necessarily religion) or with higher wealth who are tyrants often dismissing the "little people" because they obviously don't know anything or "don't know enough" to make their views worth considering.  If these types try to understand the other point of view, they do it disdainfully.

 

I try to combat that when possible and ignore or avoid those who feel that way when their mind is totally closed.

 

On the flip side one can get those who feel people get so educated they become "stupid."  They're not fun to be around either.

 

It's an interesting mix out there... which is why I still aim for judging individuals over "groups" and why I try my best (when I can) to "educate" both groups.

[MyThreeSons]

He also said he has no problem with the idea of forgiveness but wants it clear that legal and Biblical consequences should be instituted whether a perpetrator claims repentance or not.  That includes not being around kids anymore and never being in a position of leadership again.

 

A truly repentant abuser will welcome the forever consequences of never again being in a position where he can abuse. He would never be alone with a child -- at all. He and the church would make sure he is never in the presence (like a group function) of a child without another adult who knows his history being by his side. 

[Anne in CA]

I don't have time to elaborate, but I disagree that spiritual abuse related to education. I just don't think that it's a biblical conclusion. I've seen the Lord call and train pastors in a variety of ways. However, I do agree that any denomination that forbids or devalues education is a red flag. Honestly, there are just so many red flags with ATI and similar denoms, I just don't understand how people don't see it. It's maddening.

I think people don't see it because to a point people believe what they WANT to believe. That applies to all of us to some degree. There are beliefs I have had to give up over the years that were painful to give up because I was raised with them, and I believed that having them gave me moral superiority, but  I gave them up when I was confronted with evidence that they were not true. I think some people are not mentally flexible enough to ever change beliefs that make them feel good/ like a victim. They have one mindset and can't/ wont change.

[sunflowerlady]

I have head pastors claim that if you aren't right with the Pastor, you aren't right with God.

 

I have heard Pastors says that they are the authority and final say in the church.

 

I have heard Pastors be sarcastic and abusive from the pulpit.

 

I have heard Pastors preach against college in general unless it a Bible college (of their persuasion). Such college only prepares men for being Pastors of same type of churches and women are basically just send there to find a husband.  There are no serious or useful degrees for women at all.)

 

I have heard Pastors say that any type of secular counseling is sinful and can lead to disbelief and/or idolatry.

 

To me , this is all spiritual abuse and manipulation.  I don't know about how education of leaders fits in, but I have heard disdain for typical higher education.

 

 

 

[FaithManor]

I absolutely agree that education in and of itself does not equate to anything necessarily related to clergy abuse. However, I have seen a strong correlation between anti-education and spiritual abuse. As this is playing out now in the church we are leaving, the anti-education sentiment has come entirely from the pastor from the unaccredited bible school and his instructors and friends from the school and the anti-equcation part seems to be rooted in a desire to "keep people down" in order to make them more likely to fall to false doctrine/teaching.

 

I've never heard a pastor with degrees from well known accredited colleges and seminaries be so anti-education. I agree that properly educated pastors can also be abusers, but I've not seen the paradigm of education is bad for your spiritual health from the higher educated clergy we've encountered.

 

Doctrinally though, one thing is for certain, this guy was not taught a bit of theology, not one bit. It was all legalism and lifestyle stuff with the most absurd out of context scriptural defenses of the "do's and dont's" that has lead us to believe that churches would be very wise to place minimum theological training standards in their hiring practices. I predict this church will be closed within five years as more and more people are leaving.

 

18 months ago - 300 average attendance. Since January of this year, it's down to 150, and we aren't the only family leaving this summer. It looks like fall attendance will drop to 120. I think this trend will continue.

 

It is sad that they hired this person, and even sadder that he has managed to get some buddies from school to move here and become voted on thto the church board so he's protected from firing.

 

Just because this has been so painful, we are ready to head back to a more mainstream, progressive denomination based church with a hierarchy, established theology defended by conference leaders and bishops, and where eldership also requires training in order to attain lay clergy status.

[Pam in CT]

I am making a generalization here, I am aware. However, in my observation, many churches or groups of people who accept pastors without a seminary education also lack a hiearchy to deal with problems with the pastor, making abuse of power or in other things more likely. In traditional denominations that require education, there are bishops and councils and such to go to if there's a problem. Without these things, the pastor ( and perhaps a small group of leaders who know him well) are the end of the line. I have a relative who decided he wanted to be a pastor, the church voted him in, and that was that. He did have a college degree, at least, but nothing spiritual. Nothing bad happened of which I am aware, but he eventually left the post. I used to be a social worker, and I dealt with more than one family in which the alleged abuser claimed he (was a man usually) was an "apostle" or a pastor or whatever (never with any education) and how on earth could I claim he did such a thing? That, and people also saying that they were Christian and so how could I think that has totally turned me off from anyone using "I'm a Christian, or I'm a pastor" as any sort of justification for anything. Everyt time, the people I dealt with in my job were guilty. If you truly follow Christ, you don't need to use it as justification. I am a Christian.

This is a really interesting connection.

 

Within my faith tradition, a clergy member who had been ordained through one of the formal graduate programs and was subsequently found guilty of child abuse would lose his (/her, in those strands that accept female ordination) ordination.  Even if the event didn't reach the civil courts, were such a &*^%#!! monster clergy discovered by a synagogue board of directors, the board would definitely refer that kind of information to the ordaining body and the person would still lose his (/her) ordination.

 

Not all synagogues have governance structures that include boards with hiring/firing authority, and not all clergy go through formal graduate programs with ordaining bodies with "defrocking" authority.  (It's not actually called that, but in substance.)  But there is definitely a correlation between those synagogues whose clergy have gone through formal graduate school ordinations, and those synagogues with governance structures with hire/fire  authority and other forms of clergy accountability.

[Tap]

Ds just graduated with his BA in Pastoral Ministry and a BA in Bible/Theology.  I do not attend church but have spend many, many hours discussing both biblical and non-biblical topics with 4 different pastors I know.   1 is a lay pastor (degree in psychology), 1 is a student at about a BA level, 1 has a BA from a different denom (degree specific to that denom), and 1 has two Masters in faith related fields.   I do not have a degree or any education in faith related studies. 

 

To me:

 

Education, makes a huge difference in the students understanding of the word, understanding context of singular passages and forming personal decisions on passages with multiple interpretations.

 

Education has nothing to do with how that knowledge is put to use.  

 

 

 

One person can use the knowledge of a M.Div to truly try to understand the context of what singular passages mean, and to educate others with that knowledge.  This pastor is usually open to dialog on topics and has a give/take personality on the interpretation of passages. Their personal education/exposure/understanding of the Bible often changes and grows over their lifetime as they study different parts of the Bible, and thus their contextual understanding grows and changes. 

 

Another person can use that knowledge as power to try to educate people in false context.  They would use the argument "I know how to interpret the Bible because I have a M.Div....what do you have?"  They treat their education like it gives them some key to secret knowledge and if you follow them, they will tell you all those secrets too.   It isn't about what knowledge they have.....it is how they use it.

 

 

 

 

[Katy]

...

 

Another person can use that knowledge as power to try to educate people in false context.  They would use the argument "I know how to interpret the Bible because I have a M.Div....what do you have?"  They treat their education like it gives them some key to secret knowledge and if you follow them, they will tell you all those secrets too.   It isn't about what knowledge they have.....it is how they use it.

 

Interesting. I've never known someone with an advanced degree in theology who was that rigid in their thinking.

[Onceuponatime]

Interesting. I've never known someone with an advanced degree in theology who was that rigid in their thinking.

I have. It also matters where they got the degree.

[FO4UR]

I've seen both sides of this coin.  I'm a PW, and I have attended Master's level classes at a seminary myself.  I've sat under some great theologian-teachers.  I will say that an education is never a waste!  When looking for a pastor, I think an MDIV is a minimum requirement.  It helps that first round of weeding through resumes.  That said, I need to see much more than an MDIV!

 

 

There are those who use their degree as a weapon.  I absolutely have seen the "I have a degree so what do you peons know?" sort of thinking.  I've seen pastors use million-dollar-words from the pulpit to put on an appearance of knowing, when really what they were doing is drawing attention away from the lack of real biblical foundation for their own ideas.  What cracks me up is a when a pastor pulls out the Greek and Hebrew, and yet when you question further they really don't know Greek or Hebrew...they just looked up a word here or there...and so they REALLY don't know....but it sounds important.  In these cases, a little education is a dangerous thing.

 

 

I've also seen uneducated messes...blind leading the blind.

 

 

 

The only real protection against this sort of thing is to teach your dc how to study their own Bibles.  Teach them to question everything.  Teach them that questioning leads to knowledge and understanding.  Any leader who rejects honest questions is not leading anywhere you want to go.

 

 

Spiritual Abuse is using God's name to exert human control.  That can happen in any context.  A Classical Education is a great start in protecting against spiritual abuse!

 

 

 

 

 

[Cottonwood]

I've thought a lot about this today, and I don't know if this will be the least bit helpful, but I've thought of four primary ways that the sect that I grew up in created the kind of atmosphere that leads to abuse (spiritual and otherwise). I also debated whether or not to say which sect that was, but I've said it on these boards before so it's not a secret. I grew up Jehovah's Witness. This is not intended to be an anti-JW rant, and in fact I have tried to keep this general and delve into specifics only when necessary to explain, but I feel it's appropriate to be honest about that. Plus it's a whole lot easier to say JWs than it is to keep saying "the sect I grew up in."

 

I also don't put this forward as any kind of comprehensive list, it's just some points I noticed and remember. The list isn't perfect, because these things can overlap, and also because it's a matter of degree. A perfectly healthy church might have a characteristic I've listed here to a lesser degree. Where does one draw the line? How many characteristics have to be present before abuse is likely? I don't know. But those are important questions to ask.

 

 

1. Absolute Authority

 

I'm putting this first because it's probably the most important (without it, none of the others would even be an issue). But it's also rather difficult to explain and describe, so I ask forgiveness in advance for not doing a better job.

 

An abusive sect puts itself (its leadership) in the role of savior instead of Christ. No possibility of salvation exists outside of the sect, not even among other Christian churches, because faith in Christ is not what saves, faith in the organization is what saves.

 

Merely questioning their authority is seen as a challenge to it - you will be accused of having an "independent spirit" and will have disciplinary action brought against you. In some cases you may even be excommunicated (more on that below).

 

All churches, of course, offer their membership advice and guidance, and the laity has the freedom to accept or refuse it. Abusive sects don't merely advise or guide, they control. Decisions that any reasonably healthy adult should be able to make for herself, such as what kind of tv shows she wants to watch, get made by the leadership instead. Christian unity, which is healthy and good, gets twisted into uniformity, which is destructive and oppressive.

 

In abusive sects, pastors are given an inordinate amount of power over their flock. For example, they have the ability to disfellowship (excommunicate) someone from the sect, meaning that they have the power to convince your friends and family to never speak to you again, to cut off all ties with you and basically make you "dead" to them, and they don't even have to explain WHY they are doing this. Their authority is that final. They say it, it is done.

 

The anti-education thing can be one aspect of this too. Colleges can't be trusted. Only the sect can be trusted.

 

2. Fear

 

People who are terrified and/or furious are easier to manipulate and control than those who have peace and contentment. Abusive sects keep the membership constantly in fear: fear of God's wrath and therefore one's own destruction/damnation/hell, fear of some event such as armageddon, fear of outsiders who are perceived as a threat to the group. No matter how much you're doing, no matter how hard you are trying, it's not enough - the anxiety is palpable. The admonishments, scoldings, and warnings of danger will vastly outnumber the messages of support and encouragement.

 

 

3. Isolation

 

Abusive sects go to great lengths to separate their membership from society at large and from non-members. They strongly discourage or even forbid associating with people outside the sect - even if those people are your family. And this applies even to people who are the same general religion but not part of the particular sect. You may have to go to work or school with people outside the sect, but you can't participate in social events with them. No dinners with coworkers or movies with school friends. They may not even be allowed to set foot in another church for any reason whatsoever (my mom, for example, was not allowed to attend her sister's funeral). All of this is justified as "protection" from evil influences. In reality of course it's just that the leadership is terrified that the members will realize how much better off they'd be outside the sect!

 

The anti-education thing rears its ugly head again here. Getting a higher education means spending a lot of time around non-believers. Best be safe and avoid that!

 

 

4. Caste System

 

Abusive sects may have a caste system by which some people are superior and closer to God, and others are inferior and further from God. I guess one easy way to control a large group is to put some of them in charge of the others. In some sects, the castes might be defined by gender. Now I want to state for the record that I don't think there's anything wrong with having different gender roles if both roles are equally respected, valued, and appreciated. But when one is greater than and the other less than, when one is given power and authority over the other, that is a sure-fire recipe for abuse.

 

JWs do that with gender to an extent, but not to the same extent as other sects that I've heard of. They have another, unique, caste system: the "anointed class" (this is about 14,000 out of their 8-million members) and the "great crowd" which is everybody else. Only the anointed may partake of communion. Only the anointed will go to heaven. Only the anointed have Christ as their mediator (the "great crowd" has the anointed as their mediator). It's a way of putting people in their place, and it's far more effective than defining it by gender since it works on 99.99% of the group instead of just half.

 

(And regarding what I said above about questioning authority - people have been excommunicated for merely questioning this system and the Biblical (lack of) support for it. That tells me that this is a critically important way that they maintain control and authority, because they protect it at all costs.)

 

 

 

I can think of other problems, red flags, and signs of dysfunction. But everything else that I think of really can be put into one of those four categories. So I'm thinking that's about as straightforward as I can make it. I don't know if that will be of any help or interest to you, but it has been very interesting for me to think about this dynamic. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

I know you say you didn't mean this as an anti-Jw rant, and I didn't take it as such, but I do want to say..I know this is your perspective and seem to have experienced ..something? negative as JW?  Just a feeling I"m getting.  But there is so much inaccuracy about JWs in this post that it has my head spinning.  I am sympathetic to whatever you may have experienced (if I"m even correct about that), however for anyone else who will come across this post, I feel the need to say, about 90% of what is said here about JW is not at all true.  Being a JW is a 100% voluntary decision and there is no trying to control anyone the way you describe.  People do what they want.  People ask questions of all sorts when they have them.  Sure there are standards and beliefs, and if you don't agree with them, by all means join a religion you do agree with.  There is no need to try to keep 'members' around or control them because it's about your relationship with God as an individual.  The health of the JW's as an organization doesn't depend on member count and never has, so why exercise any control?  To what end?  We don't pass a collection plate or anything of that sort either.  Donations are completely voluntary.  So it's not about money.  It makes no sense to try to have any of the control issues you mention about.  It's about Bible education and not member count. .  People come and go, and people stay.  If you don't want to continue a bible education, then you stop getting it. You will probably stop coming at that point.  If you want to continue in your Bible education, you will keep coming.  ???  What I know to be true (been a JW for 42 yrs) is just not making any sense to whatever your experience must have been.  

 

And, everything you say under the "Isolation" section?  I'm married to a non-Jw that is in the Air Force.  I am treated with utmost love and support as  JW and so are my children.  HE is even treated lovingly, has JW buddies that are also in my congregation..HECK, he is out hunting with one now!  My parents are life-long JWs and love him more than me, we joke. I have non JW friends and family.  Not one person has discouraged any of these connections.  Since our beliefs are as bible based as possible, we try hard to treat everyone as the Bible says.  I have been in 5 congregations in 3 states, 5 cities as we have moved every few years and never been treated differently.  I'm just scratching my head about this post in it's entirety.  I don't even recognize a single JW or part of our belief system in the post at all.  I"m certainly not trying to change YOUR mind, but to any readers here........  I have to defend the inaccuracy..it's just so erroneous.  There is so much more..I just don't have time to address every line..

 

Again, GretaLynne, not a personal thing against you, just the info here.  Wishing you the best..........

[Greta]

 

 

 

Again, GretaLynne, not a personal thing against you, just the info here.  Wishing you the best..........

 

 

I appreciate that, candmforever. I certainly do not have anything personal against you or any JW either, just the teachings and practices of the organization.  

 

I am profoundly grateful that you have had (are having) a more positive experience being a JW than I did.  But I also know that my experience is far from unique.  It’s not even unusual.

 

Furthermore, everything that I have said here, with only one exception, I can back up with articles from the Watchtower magazine, the organization's own website, and passages from the books that the WBTS was publishing when I was growing up.

 

That one exception is the reasons that people get disfellowshipped, because of course they do not publish that information.  You can only learn that by talking to people who have been disfellowshipped, and of course you are not allowed to do that.  (FTR, I was never disfellowshipped because I was never baptized, so you are actually allowed to keep talking to me, and I hope that you will.)  You said that questioning is allowed, but I’m afraid you are quite mistaken.  People have been disfellowshipped for questioning why they could not take communion in light of John 6.  People have been disfellowshipped for questioning why the Society teaches that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem took place in 607 BC instead of 586 BC like every historian and archaeologist agrees.  People have been disfellowshipped for asking why the Society teaches that the great crowd is on earth when Revelation 7:9 and 19:1 says it is in heaven.  Sadly, their family and friends were probably under the mistaken impression that they were disfellowshipped for sexual sins, since the prevailing view is that this is the main reason people get disfellowshipped.  Your statement, “Sure there are standards and beliefs, and if you don't agree with them, by all means join a religion you do agree with,†is more telling than you realize.  If you don’t agree with EVERY minor point of doctrine, you have to leave!  In healthy Christian churches, you are allowed to have differences of perspective and opinion and interpretation without fear of banishment.  Again, this is the difference between unity and uniformity.

 

Furthermore, I would like to point out that while anyone is welcome to leave, very few are allowed to leave without tragically serious, life-altering consequences. My father is an “inactive†JW, my mom is still a JW.  My poor Dad is in desperate need of a healthy Christian community, but he cannot attend any other churches, because he has been told point blank that if he does this he will be disfellowshipped.  Note:  I am NOT saying he would be disfellowshipped if he tried convince my mom or any other active JW to leave and attend a church instead - he has no desire to do that!  He was told he would be disfellowshipped if HE attended church.  That would create problems in his marriage, and separate him from most of his extended family completely.  So he’s basically being held hostage.  He’s 67 years old and he can’t decide for himself what church he wants to attend without the JW organization wrecking his family life.  You said that the JW organization has no reason to want to control people.  So then why do they do things like this?

 

But I do owe one point of clarification.  JWs do NOT isolate their members to anywhere near the level that cults do.  JW’s are admonished to treat “worldly†people (this means anyone who is not a JW, whether Christian or not) with kindness, but also not to get too close.  

 

Awake! October 22, 1996

 

Since worldly people are existing as slaves of corruption, their company cannot bring you true happiness.

 

 

Watchtower February 15, 1995

 

"We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people. Perhaps it is a neighbor, a school friend, a workmate, or a business associate. We may reason, 'He respects the Witnesses, he leads a clean life, and we do talk about the truth occasionally.' Yet, the experience of others proves that in time we may even find ourselves preferring such worldly company to that of a spiritual brother or sister. What are some of the dangers of such a friendship?â€

 

 

Watchtower February 2013

 

"Our choice of associates. Of course, some contact with unbelievers — such as at school, at work, and when sharing in the ministry — is unavoidable. It is quite another matter, though, to socialize with them, even cultivating close friendships with them. Do we justify such association by saying that they have many good qualities? “Do not be misled,†warns the Bible. “Bad associations spoil useful habits.†(1 Cor. 15:33) Just as a small amount of pollution can contaminate clean water, friendship with those who do not practice godly devotion can contaminate our spirituality and lead us into adopting worldly viewpoints, dress, speech, and conduct.â€

 

 

I could come up with a thousand of these.  It was drilled into my head constantly that my “worldly†school friends were not friends at all, that they were under Satan’s control, and that they would lead me to eternal destruction if I spent time with them outside of school hours.  The JW half and non-JW half of my family do get together and they do love one another.  But there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that the JW’s keep the non-JW’s at arm’s length.  I’m glad that your family has a healthier dynamic!

 

I agree with you that the JW leadership doesn’t seem to be motivated by money.  But money is only one form of power. 

 

Lastly, I will just point out that being a JW is not a “100% voluntary decision†for people like me who were raised in it from birth.  For adult converts, yes.  For kids, NO.  Children are completely forbidden from attending other churches, reading materials from any other churches, or even spending time with non-JW Christians.  They cannot possibly make an informed decision under such circumstances.  They do not decide, they are compelled.

[Justified]

I am not sure one needs a graduate degree to figure out the problem. Spiritual abuse's root issue is called the wretched man syndrome. It's when you think you can live a holy life by putting yourself under a law system. Only laws of dos and don'ts can only end up driving you to do that which you don't want to do. Paul describes it Romans 7. If you are under grace, you are not under the law. Instead you live out of the love of Christ which is shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost when you believed.

 

It is not uncommon to find pornography, oversexualized marriage relationships, perversion and even suppressed homosexuality, child abuse and such when you are placed under a conservative view of marriage that promotes excessive amounts of children, shaming of sex talks, conservative clothing, suppressive female roles, and dominate male roles. The flesh is weak and what is told not to do all of sudden becomes aware of the desire to do and then bam you a dumb kid stumbling on child porn and completely becomes sucked in some insidious evil.

 

If one had been taught to mind the things of the Spirit instead of the law, well a child might have been more equipped to avoid such a disastrous trip down pornography mountain. The fact is a child getting access to pornography on the Internet can lead to broken and messed up view of sex and exploration. Here is a very interesting talk on the facts and reality that our children can be one click away from perversion. although I don't agree on the solution offered, it is eye opening.