6 Comments

Survey for Victims of Spiritual Abuse

Rarely do I post anything which asks something of my readers. This is an exception, and you’ll see why.

The letter below is from Dr. Barb Orlowski, an expert on spiritual abuse whose book is on my Resources page. Barb is a trustworthy and professional colleague. She is doing some research and needs input from folks who have experienced spiritual abuse. Her survey is 26 questions long. You can visit her site and find the survey: it’s the bottom link on the right-hand side. It leads to a Word document that you download and then email back to Barb.

I wouldn’t post this if I didn’t think that the results of Barb’s survey will help a lot of victims of spiritual abuse. Here’s her letter:

Request for Survey Participants 2013

Greetings!

You are invited to participate in a new survey regarding those who have experienced spiritual abuse in your home church or parachurch organization and how you recovered from it.

My initial doctoral research was to confirm how people recovered from the devastating effects of spiritual abuse. This new survey will seek to verify the numbers of people directly involved in harmful treatment of congregants by the behaviors of church leaders, as well as how those wounded have recovered.

Please consider being a part of this new study. Your responses will be kept in my file for my personal use. If needed, some pertinent comments may be selected to quote. But anonymity is assured and your name will not be linked with information you share about your experiences. Your input will be valued and added to the data regarding this topic. This information will help to better understand the issues.

Please check out my website: www.ChurchExiters.com and read the articles entitled: FAQ and What Spiritual Abuse Is and Is Not. With this description in mind, you can consider if you have had the life experience that this research is seeking to track.

As with the original study, ‘criteria for participants’ is important. It can be found on my website. This is to ensure that those who participate in this study are reasonably healed and will not be further harmed by doing this survey.

I was recently asked by a researcher in Australia if I could point them to statistics regarding how widespread spiritual abuse was. At this time, there does not appear to be very many studies that I can point people to, apart from my own. This is a motivator to request that people–who were not involved in the original study–take the time and be a part of this new research project.

This is my personal study. This time it will not be connected with a seminary or be for a degree program. This information will be added to my ongoing research in this area. You can be a part of it. Statistics and data assessed may eventually be available to bloggers who are keen on this topic.

I believe that we can all benefit from this intentional effort. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions.

Please let me know which blogsite/s informed you about this new study.

You can contact me through my website email: info@ChurchExiters.com
Thanks for your support and feedback in this venture.

– Barb
Barb Orlowski, D.Min.

Websites:

Book: Spiritual Abuse Recovery

11 Comments

Hard-Core Christian Patriarchy and Abuse

Two outstanding articles—really two of the best I’ve read in the last year—highlight the trouble with hard-line Christian Patriarchy.

The first article, “Let Us Prey,” appeared in Chicago magazine in December 2012. It is about the sex abuse scandals in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church (IFB), a movement which promotes complete male authority, complete female submission, and severe corporal discipline. When each italicized word is taken to its logical extreme, abuse abounds.

The second article, “Doug Phillips: The Big Scandal You Didn’t Hear About and Why It Matters,” appeared November 8 in the Huffington Post. Author Julie Ingersoll, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Florida, raises questions about the Quiverfull Movement and Phillips’s far-reaching empire in the aftermath of his resignation from Vision Forum (read his resignation letter here, prefaced by a blogger who has her own story to tell about Doug Phillips). My friend Julie Anne Smith over at Spiritual Sounding Board has written several posts about this latest scandal.

In case you’re unfamiliar with it, the Quiverfull Movement believes in biblical manhood and womanhood (whatever that means—the terms do not appear in the Bible), dominion theology, large families (the Duggars are part of this movement), and a quasi-religious hardcore patriotism which looks back to the Founding Fathers as Christian men of biblical principle (instead of humanist Deists, as most of them were). It encourages believers to act like men and women did in the 1700 and 1800s. I am not making this up. I used to subscribe to the Vision Forum catalogue and gladly bought their books and CDs when I was in my cult.

The closely-entwined IFB and Quiverfull groups have a troubling track record. My readers from Maine will be interested to know that Jack DeCoster, the former egg-baron from Turner, was/is a member of the IFB and donated large sums of money to the church. DeCoster’s well-documented abusive practices, use of migrant workers as slave labor, and the unsanitary and abysmal living conditions he forced his vulnerable employees to live in, are unfortunately reflections of a theology of sanctification through pain, dehumanization, and—let’s call it what it is—abuse, that certain congregations in the IFB subscribe to. Notice I say certain congregations. I dislike using a broad brush when considering the theology and practice of an entire denomination. Individual churches and people vary.

doug-phillips

Doug Phillips

I am not out to get Doug Phillips. I wish him well and hope that his worldview can change as he recognizes that his public theology and private life don’t jive. But if Phillips had not made himself the head of a movement, his fall into sin and his subsequent public resignation (a letter troubling for its qualifications, I might add) would concern few but his own family. However, when the self-anointed leader of a Christian movement—a movement which purports to follow the Bible more closely than other groups, promotes traditional family values, holds conferences and distributes films and literature about the sanctity of marriage and personal integrity—commits long-term marital infidelity, it should stop us cold.

Cold.

It should also cause us to question the basic assumptions of the group. This is the criteria of “livability” for worldview, by the way. A worldview only works if it is consistent, true, and livable.

Do I have to say it? Yes, I do. None of us is perfect. Each of us has blind spots in both doctrine and practice. There is grace for us when we sin. There is ample grace for Doug Phillips.

But a church—a church!—which claims to follow Jesus Christ must be held to biblical standards. And in the Bible it says “let not even a hint of sexual immorality be found among you.” It also says, “whatever you do to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done to me.”

The question we must ask ourselves as Christians is this: is the reason a movement is riddled with sex abuse scandals because of unfortunate coincidences and temporary lapses of judgment by its leaders, OR is it because the theology of the group is legalistic (meaning it is an external mask which fails to change the heart) and because it dehumanizes certain demographics of people, making them easy to abuse?

That was pretty wordy. Let’s try again: does the doctrine of the IFB and Quiverfull Movement create a climate of  hypocrisy and abuse?

I believe that it does.

The arrest of numerous leaders in the IFB–and Doug Phillips’s resignation from Vision Forum–should cause the members of the IFB and the Quiverfull Movement to question their doctrine which makes it easy for the powerful to abuse the vulnerable.

11 Comments

Only Baptists Go to Heaven

Photo by author.

Photo by author.

When I lived in Maine, I once saw a man leaning off the side of a railroad trestle, ready to jump. It was winter time and I knew if he plunged into the frigid water he would die. I ran over and said, “Don’t do it!”

He looked at me plaintively and said, “Nobody loves me. My life is not worth living.”

I held on to him tightly and said, “Yes it is. God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

“Yes,” he said.

“Are you a Christian or a Jew?”

“A Christian.”

“Me, too!” I said. “Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?”

“Protestant.”

“Me, too! What denomination?”

“Baptist.”

“Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

“Northern Baptist.”

“Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

“Northern Conservative Baptist.”

“Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”

“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”

“Me, too!” I said. “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

“Die, heretic!” I screamed, and pushed him off the bridge.*

Okay, so that didn’t really happen. But something more subtle did.

As a boy, when I read about the throne scene in Revelation 7, I got goose bumps. To think that every tongue, tribe, and nation would gather around the throne of God to worship and adore him made me ecstatic with joy. And despite all of their differences, that great multitude would have one overarching, transcendent, supernatural thing in common: they would all be Baptists.

You laugh. But that’s what I thought.

When my pastor cast aspersions on other Christian denominations, I soaked it up. It became clear to me that only Baptists—and more particularly, the 200,000 members of the Conservative Baptist Association—would make it to heaven. Our doctrine was so pure, so biblical, so New Testament and Apostolic, that all the other denominations were obviously following false teachers.

Before I went to college in Indiana, my pastor had me print off a list of churches within twenty miles of the school. We went through the list of 120 churches, crossing most of them off as undesirable based on name only. I never even visited them. Instead, I visited 20 specific churches in order to judge them and see why they were lost. I got a bulletin from each church—Methodist, Quaker, Presbyterian, Alliance, Brethren—and wrote down all the errors I observed or heard during the service. After two years of searching I ended up at a—you guessed it—Baptist church.

Can you relate?

This “tribal” mentality—to view my particular denomination as the only faithful remnant—helped groom my home church to drill down even further to the point that we finally believed that only the 75 members of our local church were truly following God. This made us a cult.

The Trouble with Christian Tribalism

Maybe you don’t limit the inhabitants of heaven to your particular denomination as I did. Maybe you enjoy your denominational liturgy and cultural distinctiveness without confusing those external trappings as salvific. Maybe you even appreciate aspects of other Christian denominations, engage in theological dialogue with other traditions, and have friends from other groups. Congratulations—you are very healthy.

But many Christians—like me—suffer an elitist mentality which believes that my group or denomination is more faithful, more pure, or more accurate than yours. This can cause us to impugn or mock other denominations.

Some scholars call this mentality “Christian tribalism,” where the culture, buzzwords, and particular liturgy of a denomination creates a subculture with tribal features. A “tribe” is a sociological term which refers to a culturally unique group of people outside of state affiliation and often knit together through corporate descent or kinship. These tribal groups also tend to view outsiders as either inferior or fear-inspiring. Representative of this outsider vs. insider mentality are the jokes.

Come on, now, we’ve all heard the jokes:

“My brother-in-law is an Episcopalian. They had a potluck dinner last Sunday. He said the caterer did a great job.”

“A Presbyterian is a person who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.”

“Catholics call evangelical Christians ‘happy-clappies,’ true. But everyone knows that Catholics don’t clap because they already have a drink in both hands.”

“You might be a Southern Baptist if you think that God’s presence is strongest in the back three pews.”

“How many Pentecostals does it take to change a light-bulb? Fifteen. One to unscrew it, four to catch it when it falls, and ten to pray against the spirit of darkness.”

Anthony Storro, Creative Commons

Anthony Storro, Creative Commons

“How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb? None. God has predestined whether it will be on or off.”

“Why don’t Independent Baptists believe in premarital sex? Because it might lead to dancing.”

“How many Plymouth Brethren does it take to change a light bulb? What do you mean, ‘change’?”

While these jokes seem harmless, they can represent a greater problem, which is to look down on anyone not affiliated with your own denomination.

The trouble with Christian tribalism is that it makes us susceptible to an elitist mentality which eschews Christian charity, focuses on externals rather than internals, and grooms us to follow cults of personality.

It is also unbiblical.

Paul excoriated the Corinthian Christians because they promoted divisions in the church based on cults of personality (1 Cor. 3:1-9). He also said that race is not a reason to create divisions (Ephesians 2:11-22), and James prohibited socioeconomic status as a distinguishing factor in the church (James 2:1-13).

Okay, you might say, I grant that the New Testament forbids elitism based on cults of personality, race, or wealth. But my tribal elitism is fine, because my denomination really does do church in the most biblical manner. We’re talking about doctrine here, not personality! And the [insert name of your denomination] interprets the Bible most accurately, otherwise I wouldn’t be a member of it.

That’s wonderful. Thanks for leading into my final point:

Mutually Exclusive Exclusiveness

We’ve talked about this before. Christian Tribalism commits a logical fallacy. When each denomination (or individual church) believes that it has the best handle on the truth of God, and all other denominations or churches have an inferior understanding of the Bible, this creates a climate of mutually exclusive exclusiveness. After all, if I think my denomination is most biblical, and you think that your denomination is most biblical, we can’t both be most biblical, right?

The trouble with this is that when someone gets badly burned by spiritual abuse at their particular church in their particular denomination, they may feel tempted to abandon the Christian faith altogether. They view their denomination as the only viable expression of Christianity in the first place, and when it hurts them, they abandon the faith.

Five Suggestions to Cure Christian Tribalism

  1. Ask yourself the questions: “According to the New Testament, what is the most basic level of understanding someone must have in order to be saved? Could someone outside of my own denomination meet this criteria?”
  2. Make friends with people from other denominations within the Christian tradition. Visit another church with the goal to observe and learn, not to critique and judge. Make an effort to participate in the worship, teaching, and outreach of that denomination before dismissing it. You can tell as much–or more–about a church by its ministry to the needy as by its Sunday service.
  3. Celebrate your denominational distinctiveness and have the charity to let other Christians celebrate theirs. Beneath the clutter, you still worship the same Jesus.
  4. Remember that the mission of the church is to joyfully glorify God by making him known among the nations and by making disciples who look like Jesus Christ. The mission of the church is not to parse itself into irrelevance.
  5. Ask yourself: What does Jesus mean when he asks the Father to make his followers “one”? Does this refer to external appearance (uniformity) or to the indwelling Spirit of God (unity)?

Conclusion

Christians will always evidence cultural differences—this is part of the beauty of the church universal. Hear me: I am not discouraging believers from preferring the doctrine or practices of a particular denomination. But if we let our differences stratify us into supposedly different levels of acceptability to God, those differences become divisive rather than beautiful. And in some extreme cases this divisiveness can lead to cultic behavior. I, for one, lived for 25 years in a Baptist Bible cult which mocked every other denomination and believed that almost every other professing believer was going to hell.

John Ott, Creative Commons

John Ott, Creative Commons

Remember the throne scene in Revelation 7? It is the very diversity of tribes, tongues, and nations which help to create the marvelous beauty of the kingdom of God. God is not building his kingdom only through your denomination. He’s not. Instead, he is creating his kingdom with individuals who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, have been saved by grace, and who are learning to love God and their neighbor with all their heart. This is the unity of which Jesus speaks in John 17 when he prays to the Father, “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

I once sat in a history class as the professor talked about the American denominational “family tree.” After a long discussion about the bewildering array of churches and doctrinal beliefs, the professor held up a piece of paper and tore it straight down the middle. It got our attention.

“The Kingdom of God is like torn paper,” he said. “It never tears evenly. See how ragged the torn edges are? There will be people missing from heaven who you would have thought would surely be there. And there will be plenty of people in heaven who might surprise you.”

Even the Baptists.

*I originally heard a story similar to this on Erwin Lutzer’s radio program. But it appears in so many forms on the Internet, I don’t know who to cite as the original creator. Anyone know?

5 Comments

Grace-Based vs. Shame-Based Families and Churches

families-where-grace-is-in-placeI have to confess that in my mission to confront spiritual abuse with grace and truth, I often write blog posts against aberrant doctrine or practices, rather than casting a vision for what God calls us to.

Is it true that the purest form of Christianity is to define ourselves by what we are not? Is the practice of negative theology—the fancy word for it is “apophatic” theology, which means “to deny”—the holiest and best way to approach faith? Most cults operate this way.

Or should Christians be defined by who we are—looking more and more like Jesus Christ?

In Families Where Grace is in Place, Jeff VanVonderen lays out two systems of living. One is a graceless system filled with shame and crooked messages. The other is grace-full. Since the New Testament says that we are saved “by grace” (Eph. 2:8), let’s spend some time casting a vision for what a grace-filled family and church should look like.

The following list is quoted and paraphrased from VanVonderen’s wonderful book. I commend it to you as an excellent template for how families and churches should function in grace.

Ten Signs of a Grace-Filled Family or Church

1.)  Out-loud affirming (vs. out-loud shaming). In grace-full families or churches, members are told they are loved and accepted, capable, valuable, and supported out loud. People are not mind readers. Verbalize praise and let people know that they are loved and accepted.

2.) People-oriented (vs. performance-oriented). People are valued because of who they are, not because of what they do. Each person is made in the image of God and therefore has infinite value and worth. In grace-full families and churches, people are separated from their actions. If someone misbehaves, you can say, “I don’t like how you are acting,” rather than “I don’t like you.” Let them know that you like them, but that the behavior needs to change. Subtle distinctions make a world of difference.

3.) Out-loud rules and expectations (vs. unspoken rules). In a grace-full family or church, rules are there to serve people, people are not there to serve rules. For rules to serve well, everyone needs to know what they are. If the rule favors certain people (adults over children, or men over women, or elders over flock) or is just too silly to be spoken out loud, then get rid of it. It is not okay to hold people accountable for rules they don’t know exist. Don’t expect them to follow double-standards.

4.) Communication is clear and straight (vs. code words). If you want someone to take out the garbage, say “Can you please take out the garbage,” rather than, “I wish someone would take out the garbage.” Children are very literal. They are great observers but poor interpreters. Say what you mean and don’t make people guess or feel guilty or shamed.

5.) God is the source (vs. idolatry). God is our need-meeter, vindicator, defender, and the last word about our worth and acceptance. We are not valuable or acceptable because of our job, our performance, our church attendance, our clothing, or our education. Other people can say whatever they want about us, but they don’t decide the truth about us, God does.

6.) Children are enjoyed (vs. giving the kids a hard time). In grace-full families and churches, kids are free to be kids. They don’t have to act like mini-adults. Normal, healthy kids are messy about the process of growing up. Parents don’t have to feel threatened or take it personally when their children mess up. They aren’t broken and you don’t have to fix them. They are simply exploring life, constantly engrossed in the process of finding out what’s real. That’s why kids ask so many questions. Answer their questions.

7.) Responsibility and accountability (vs. fault and blame). People are responsible for their choices and should be held accountable for them. But this is different than blaming or faulting people as a way to punish them and shame them in order to control their behavior. The difference is between punishment and discipline. Punishment focuses exclusively on behavior modification and our ability to control others. Discipline focuses on helping the person learn from their mistake, and it empowers them to make healthy choices. Discipline may or may not involve consequences. Sometimes just talking through a situation is corrective enough. Punishment inflicts pain with no benefit. But discipline involves forgiveness. It lifts the weight of guilt off of the other person and lets them know that they are loved and accepted.

8.) “Head skills” are used for learning (vs. “head skills” used for defending). In grace-full families and churches, thinking is used for the purpose of learning how to live life. In shame-based families it is used to defend, to blame, to make excuses, and to get out of being responsible. All in order to avoid being shamed. Think about our American legal system and you get what this means. In shame-based families, the question “Why did you do that?” is impossible to answer correctly, since your reply will be analyzed and criticized no matter what. In grace-full families, “Why did you do that?” is a simple inquiry to understand why something was done. If we can identify faulty thinking then perhaps we can help change the thought-behavior process which results in sanctification.

9.) Feelings are valid and useful (vs. weak on “heart skills”). Feelings are not right or wrong, they simply exist. They tell us that we are interacting with the world around us. The choices we make based on how we feel are right or wrong, not the feelings themselves. Grace-full families and churches recognize that feelings are opportunities for members to connect with one another, to complete unfinished relational business, or to support one another in making wise choices in response to how we feel.

10.) It’s okay for outsides to match insides (vs. empty people learning to act full). In grace-full families, what is real is more important than how things look. Having a safe, unconditionally accepting place where outsides can match insides is really the only way to find out if there are inside needs and problems that must be addressed. Life is seen with a process perspective rather than an event perspective. This means that people don’t have to react, or attempt to “cure” behavior forever. Because God is involved, you don’t have to panic: the story isn’t over, even if it doesn’t look too good right now. Unacceptable behaviors are about poor choices, not about our value and acceptance as people. Because that is true, grace-full family members don’t have to fix one another in order to fix themselves.

Conclusion

We can choose to define ourselves, our families, and our churches by what we don’t do: negative theology. Churches or families who function this way spend more and more time focusing on rules and regulations, external behavior, and living in fear and shame. They spend a lot of time judging other people, or else they get mired in morbid self-introspection. Their view of God is of a mean-spirited cosmic kill-joy just waiting to pounce and punish.

Or we can choose to define ourselves by what grace looks like in our lives. Grace, that marvelous, transformative, saving reality which is given as a free gift through Jesus Christ. People who walk in grace are full of joy, charity, and confidence. Their view of God is of a merciful, involved, compassionate, just Redeemer who already took the penalty for their sins: past, present, and future.

Is your group shame-based or grace-based?

63 Comments

How to Rescue Someone from a Cult

Okay, it’s not that simple.

rescuing_cult_membersYou usually can’t just rescue someone from a cult. Put aside images of white horses, commando raids, or black bulletproof sedans.

While a few cult converts may walk away shortly after entering a spiritually abusive group, for most it is a longer process. It can take months or years.

And the number one reason for leaving the group? It’s not the pleas of family members. Instead, it’s dissatisfaction or disillusionment with the group or group leader.

The second most common reason? Expulsion from the group because the member is deemed rebellious or useless.

The point is that once someone is in a cult, it is very difficult to leave. This is part of the definition of a cult, by the way—exiting is hard.

Also by definition, the cult member doesn’t believe that he or she is in a cult. Instead, he or she believes that they have achieved a privileged status in an elite group which offers them ultimate salvation. So your attempts to “save” them from their group ring hollow—or sound nefarious—to the cult member.

But there are steps a concerned family member can take which may hasten a cult member’s exit from the group. I have already described ten strategies in a previous post. After reading Livia Bardin’s excellent book, Coping with Cult Involvement, we can boil it down to four primary strategies:

1.) Increase Your Knowledge

study_about_cultsMost family members react with strong emotions when they discover that a loved one is in a cult. That’s understandable. But before rushing at the group with drawn swords, family members should educate themselves about cult behavior in general and the specific cult in particular. There are reasons why people join cults. Cults offer their members three things: perceived significance, security, and love. And all cults have certain distinguishing characteristics. Is it a Bible cult? A doomsday cult? A New Age cult? A Satanic cult?

The Bible says that zeal without knowledge is not good (Prov. 19:2). By charging into a cult situation, directly confronting cult leaders, or using words like “brainwashing,” “mind control,” or “cult,” you will almost certainly do more harm than good. This is because the group has taught members that family will criticize the group and will get angry about the new convert’s choice to follow God. By reacting emotionally, families play right into the cult’s hands and bring shunning upon themselves.

Though it is difficult, try to remain calm, ask other people to pray, and read as much as you can about cults. This will put you in a strong place to wisely interact with your loved one and the group members and leader(s).

2.) Stay Connected with Your Loved One

This is easier said than done, especially if you’ve ignored step one and have already described the group as a cult or have blown up at your loved one or other group members. Staying connected with your loved one may be difficult or sometimes impossible. But as the Bible says, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. This takes patience. But love, after all, is patient.

stay_connectedHow can you stay connected? First, understand that the group leader wants you to do something which will require your loved one to shun you. This is part of every cult’s strategy, 100% of the time. They want to isolate group members from outside relationships which could draw them away from the cult. So if you know this, how can you foil their plans? You trump their strategy by refusing to react to accusations leveled by your loved one. You refuse to make direct statements against the cult. You answer questions with questions. You set aside your feelings of horror and disgust and choose simply to be patient and listen.

Ask your loved one about the group. Sit in on a meeting if it is safe to do so. Learn the group’s “lingo” and use it in conversation. Every group has certain buzzwords and phrases which are loaded with meaning and which make the members feel special and in the know. If you can use phrases in the same way the group does, you can connect with your loved one on a level playing field.

Perform acts of kindness. Send cards or letters, even if you never hear back. Call occasionally, even if you just get voicemail. Visit your loved one, even if they live far away (ask first). These points of contact may carry more weight than you realize. This leads to step three.

3.) Build Trust and Maintain a Place of Safety

This is difficult, because the group leader has told each cult member to distrust family members who are outside of the group. They may have vilified you or cast aspersions on your character. But the beautiful thing is that the group leader is in fact the person who has an inconsistent, manipulative, treacherous character. At some point or another he or she will make a mistake, get caught in a lie, or evidence inconsistent behavior which will trouble a discerning group member. Hypocrisy cannot hide forever.

warm_welcome_spaceThrough your faithful, consistent, truthful behavior, you can build trust with your loved one. If you say you’ll do something, do it. If you say you won’t do something, keep your word. Continue to act in a loving, sane, rational manner, and your words and actions will carry greater and greater weight. Part of this trust may involve refusing to speak badly about the cult or cult leader while with your loved one. If your loved one says, “Pastor so-and-so is the perfect pastor,” simply reply with, “Wow! I can tell you really respect Pastor so-and-so. Can you tell me more?” You don’t have to agree with your loved one. But let them know that you will listen to them and respect their right to voice their opinion (which is different than agreeing with or respecting their opinion). This will pay dividends later.

Maintain a safe place. Let your loved one know that they are always welcome to visit. By definition, the easier it is to leave a cult, the sooner the cult member will exit. If a cult member knows that they have someplace safe and welcoming besides the cult to go, they may just leave. Some cults do allow members to visit their family outside the group, as long as those family members haven’t spoken out against the cult. The cult members will use these visits to try to “convert” you to their perspective. Refuse to be ruffled. Just love them, listen to them, and let them know they can come back anytime. If they blow up at you, try to defuse the tension. If they press you to make a decision for or against the group, delay by saying you need more time to make a thoughtful and genuine decision.

4.) Exploit Opportunities

What is an opportunity? It could be anything. A phone call. A visit to your home. A spectacular misdeed by the group leader. The death of someone in the group. A strange new teaching which contradicts former teachings of the group. Illness. Doubts.

seed_of_doubtAt this time you may carefully point out disparities between what the group leader teaches and what the Bible says, but do so with tact. Plant little seeds of doubt, but do so in ways that sound like questions. For example, you could say, “I notice that you said that your group is privileged to have the truth of God. Do you believe that other people also have the truth of God?” Or, “I know that Pastor so-and-so teaches that most Christians are sub-biblical or unsaved because they don’t follow the Bible the way your group does. But there is another group in town which believes the same thing: that if you don’t follow their group, you are unsaved. I’m confused. How can both groups be right? This sounds like mutually-exclusive exclusiveness.” Keep asking questions like this, and then listen respectfully to your loved one’s replies. You never know how a single question might lodge in their mind.

If you suspect the group has done something illegal, you may be obligated to get the appropriate authorities involved, depending upon what the issue is and how strong your suspicion. Child Protective Services, the FBI, the ATF, local police, and the IRS may all be called upon to investigate. Many cults eventually blow apart because the cult leader did something illegal: tax fraud, physical or sexual abuse, or in extreme cases, illegal possession of weapons or contraband.

Conclusion

The four steps above are not a panacea for cult involvement. There is no magic bullet to free a cult member from his or her unhealthy group. If there were, experts would be using the formula to free thousands of people every week.

Instead, these steps are general principles which may help to hasten a cult member’s exit from a destructive group.

And never forget: Jesus came to bring liberty for captives.

He is the one who sets prisoners free.

2 Comments

Frankenstein Faith: Vestigial Organs in the Body? Natural Family vs. Spiritual Family (Part 3 of 10)

As a four-year-old, I knew enough to realize that my sister was very sick. There was a blur of fluorescent lights in the Emergency Room, the cool swish of long white coats, a beeping of monitors, the smell of rubbing alcohol. I heard a whispered word: “tonsillitis.”

shunning_family_membersTwo days later my sister lay recovering at home. Covered in stuffed animals, she sipped poorly-set red Jell-O through a straw. Her tonsils were gone but she remained prone to infections and sinus issues for the rest of her life.

At one point in time, doctors in the United States believed that tonsils were a useless organ in the body. A vestigial organ, they called them. Residual. Purposeless. One group of physicians seriously suggested that all infants should have their tonsils removed at birth, to avoid the possibility of tonsillitis.

But tonsils are not useless. They actually form an important part of the lymphatic and immune system. To remove them makes a person more prone to infection, not less so. They are actually quite important.

Why all this talk of tonsils?

We’re in a ten-part series on scriptural distortions which cult leaders or spiritually abusive people use to damage and control the people who follow them.

In this post, we’ll look at the erroneous teaching that Christians must cut off their unsaved family members in order to more fully follow Jesus Christ. Advocates of this position believe that when somebody becomes a Christian, their relationships with “natural” unsaved family members become obsolete. Vestigial. Not only so, but they consider such relationships defiling and believe that the Bible commands them to avoid natural family.

This is unbiblical.

Here are four scriptures used to promote this error, and the biblical response to each of them.

1.) Matthew 12:46-50 – Jesus was teaching in a house with crowds pressing around him. Someone came and said, “Your mother and brothers are outside, wanting to speak with you.”

Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Here are my mother and brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Some folks believe that by saying this, Jesus set an example of rejecting natural family in favor of spiritual family. They view this as an either-or choice where a person cannot maintain relationship with both saved and unsaved family members.

Response: It is important to notice what Jesus does not say in this passage. He doesn’t say that he hates his natural family, or that he will never see them again, or that they are evil, or that by expressing concern for him they have sinned against God. He doesn’t eliminate his natural mother and brothers as family. Instead, he expands who he considers as his family. Just as blood makes a family related at the natural level, so obedience to God makes people related spiritually.

Biblical context helps nuance Jesus’ words. Jesus continued to relate to his family after this incident in Matthew 12. He visited his hometown, almost certainly staying in his family’s house (Matthew 13:53ff). His mother continued to follow him. And even though Jesus’ brothers did not yet believe that he was the Christ, Jesus still interacted with them (John 7:1-10).

There is no indication that Jesus rejected his natural family members, shunned them, or thought that they were particularly sinful even though they failed to believe in him initially. Indeed, he made special provision for his own mother even while he was dying on the cross (John 19:26-27). By doing so, Jesus mirrored the heart of God and avoided acting worse than an unbeliever (cf. 1 Timothy 5:8).

Can you see that Jesus expanded his family to include everyone who obeys God? And he did this without making his natural family obsolete.

fellowship_of_SEALsAn illustration from our modern world might help. I once knew a Navy SEAL who talked about having “2,000 brothers” in the SEAL teams. This didn’t eliminate his love for his own natural family—he still loved his mom and dad and brother and was devoted to them. Instead it expanded his family to include hundreds of men who shared the same vision, experienced the same hardships, and suffered the same pain. When the SEALs called, he had to answer, but it didn’t mean that he had to shun his family.

In the same way, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12 adds a spiritual dimension to family. While you always stay related by blood to your natural family, you also gain an entirely new group of “family” when you become a Christian. And your ultimate allegiance is to Christ.

It’s a simple point, so why do some leaders read into this passage a meaning that Jesus didn’t convey?

I believe it is because they arrive at this passage with a preconceived agenda which wants to cut off family members who aren’t cowed by their so-called “spiritual authority.” Such leaders want to call their natural family obsolete—a vestigial organ, if you will—in order to abdicate any responsibility they have toward them and to consolidate their power over their followers.

Also, by telling their followers that they must shun their natural family and devote themselves exclusively to their “spiritual” family, abusive leaders isolate and control parishioners, making them dependent on the church and the leader for everything.

Anyone who says that Matthew 12 encourages Christians to completely reject their natural family misunderstands the expansive heart of God.

2.) Luke 14:25-27 – Jesus tells his followers that if they don’t hate their own family, they are unworthy of Christ.

Response: We covered this passage in the earlier post on shunning parents. In a nutshell, Jesus uses a well-known Hebrew idiom to tell his disciples that their primary allegiance must be to God. His onlookers would have understood that Jesus was telling them to prefer God over and above their own families. When the two were in conflict, they must choose to honor and obey God. Jesus does not literally mean to “hate” our family.

Several other New Testament passages help to qualify Jesus’ striking statement.

love_your_neighborMatthew 7:12; 22:36-40 – Jesus taught his followers to love their neighbor as themselves. Since a person’s natural family members are included within the circle of his or her neighbors, it is unbiblical to hate them or act uncharitably towards them. To do so—especially when using religious-sounding arguments to justify our cruelty—makes us hypocrites in company with the Pharisees of Jesus’ day (cf. Matthew 23).

Galatians 6:10 – This verse commands Christians to actively do good to everyone, including their natural family members. It does not say that such “good” means to give them the gospel like the thrust of a sword and then walk away forever, leaving the person bleeding on the ground or cut off outside the church.

A normal reading of this verse implies that Christians should continue in relationship with non-believers, including family members, and do kind things for them. Bake them brownies. Help them load the moving truck. Change the oil in their car. Spend a couple hours listening sympathetically when they discover they have cancer. Buy tickets to the Buckeyes Game and invite them to join you. Give them a ride to work. Normal everyday stuff like that.

1 John 4:20-21 – Anyone who says that he or she loves God, but hates his brother, is a liar. I’m not sure this needs elaboration.

3.) Luke 12:51-53 – Division in the family. Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword.

Response: We covered this in the first blog post in this series. The division, we discovered, comes actually from non-believers, not from believers. It is a work of non-Christians, not of Christians. Any Christian who teaches people to actively shun their family members who are unbelievers is in fact acting like an unbeliever. Yikes.

The New Testament calls people who love to divide families “divisive” and commands other Christians to avoid them (Titus 3:10-11). Such people are warped and self-condemned.

4.) 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 – Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.

My former pastor used this verse to justify cutting off natural family members. It seems to present a powerful case for shunning unbelievers and having nothing to do with them, right?

Response: Not really. Instead it makes a powerful case for why Christians should not participate in or condone sin. The context is one of holy living and open-hearted fellowship with other believers. When we participate in sinful behavior it corrupts our relationship with God and with fellow Christians.

2_corinthians_6_yokedThe metaphor of a yoke occurs elsewhere in the Bible. In Numbers 25, God prohibits the Israelites from “yoking” themselves to the Baal of Peor. The context is idolatry. The reason for the metaphor of a yoke is because oxen were physically yoked together and had a common mission, a common destination, and a common master. Jesus would later call people to come to him and put on his “light yoke” (Matthew 11:28-30). The idea is that by yoking yourself to Christ, you make him your master and you do his work.

What Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 6 is that Christians should avoid participating in sin or closely allying themselves with people who want to “yoke” them into something sinful. Instead, yoke yourself to Christ and live a holy life. This doesn’t mean you have to shun your unsaved family members. It just means you shouldn’t sin when they do. Avoid wearing that common yoke. Instead, be holy.

A Better Way

The either-or dichotomy is a false one. Leaders who tell their followers that they cannot maintain relationships with unsaved family members and still follow Christ have set up a binary choice when the reality is more of a spectrum.

It may be true that some Christians will need to spend less time with certain relatives who are a bad influence on them. But the normal model of Christian witness demonstrated by Jesus is one of incarnational ministry. This means that Jesus came to walk and talk with normal everyday people, including his natural family. He lived life with people. He gave grace in the context of normal life. He practiced evangelism and discipleship in the context of life, not in an isolated community. And so should we.

Conclusion

Why would a spiritual leader teach that Christians should cut off their natural family members in order to follow Christ? I believe they do so in order to more fully isolate and control the people in their church. There is no other reason. By doing this, they metaphorically cut out the “tonsils” and make their members prone to the illness of judgmentalism and the infection of pride.

Even a four-year old can see the sickness in that.

Posts in this Series:

Intro: Fixing a Frankenstein Faith – Ten Distortions of Scripture and How to Correct Them

Distortion #1: Love Thy Neighbor But Hate Thy Parent

Distortion #2: “Because I’m Your Pastor/Elder/Spiritual Leader, that’s Why!”

Distortion #3: Vestigial Organs in the Body? Natural Family vs. Spiritual Family

Distortion #4: Brother’s Keeper: Surveillance in Spiritually Abusive Churches

Distortion #5: “It Says in Deuteronomy…”: Misuse of the Old Testament

Distortion #6: God or Mammon: Logical Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

Distortion #7: I Committed Adultery Watching the Smurfs: James 4:4 Unpacked

Distortion #8: You Shall Be Holy Unto Me (So Ditch the Budweiser)

Distortion #9: “We Alone are the ‘Remnant,’ all 75 of Us!”

Distortion #10: Fun in the Shun? Confessions of an Excommunicator

5 Comments

Frankenstein Faith: “Because I’m Your Pastor, That’s Why!” (Part 2 of 10)

We’re in a ten-part series about scriptural distortions used by cult leaders or those who spiritually abuse others.

One of the greatest abuses of scripture is to use Bible passages to make people follow you. The New Testament knows nothing of this. New Testament spiritual authority is based on truth and trust (good character), not the role someone fills or the position they assume. Any church leader who says that you must do something simply because he or she has told you to has misunderstood what the Bible teaches about spiritual authority.

Let me give a real example of a leader who misunderstood his authority.

Rick* walked out to his mailbox on a sunny Maine afternoon. Inside was an envelope from our former pastor. With a mixture of fear and curiosity, the church deacon used his thumb to slit open the envelope as he walked up the drive. It contained nothing but a single white index card with these words: “You Levites have gone too far!”

korah's rebellionWith this phrase, our former pastor summoned up the entire context of the book of Numbers to support his opinion that his authority was equal to that of Moses. He believed this, despite a unanimous congregational vote which had found him disqualified for church leadership. He believed this, despite the fact that he had recently been committed to the local psychiatric unit at the hospital.

I am not making this up.

“You Levites have gone too far!” he wrote, perhaps from a padded cell.

What does this mean? These words are cryptic to anyone who has not spent some time studying the Old Testament. Our former pastor was quoting Moses when Moses called God’s judgment down on the rebels during Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:7. Our pastor truly believed that the church removing him from abusive leadership was equivalent to Korah’s rebellion against Moses.

*not his real name

Since abusive leaders appeal to the Bible to prop up their authority, let’s look at three Bible passages which leaders misuse in order to say: “Because I’m your pastor, that’s why!”

1.) “Touch not the Lord’s Anointed” – This comes from Psalm 105:15, where God tells evildoers to avoid harming his servants the prophets. It is also alluded to when David refuses to kill King Saul despite Saul’s abuses and insane rage (1 Samuel 26:9).

touch not the lord's anointedBut church leaders who use this phrase to rebuke their followers misunderstand the context and proper biblical interpretation. True spiritual leaders would never use these verses to make people follow them. Here’s why:

First, the context of Psalm 105:15 refers to the Patriarchs, not to prophets of later Israelite history. Specifically, the verse refers to the occasions when Abraham lied to various rulers about his wife Sarah (see Genesis 12 and 20). Don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. Abraham had acted deplorably, but God still had his back because God had made a covenant with Abraham and loved him. So God afflicted Pharaoh’s household with diseases, and later threatened King Abimelech with death if he didn’t give Abraham back his wife. How unique and interesting.

While we can all take away from this verse the principle that God often protects his people despite our own failures, this poetry cannot be used by pastors or teachers as a special seal of unaccountability on their ministry. It is not a license to abuse or make people follow you blindly. If anything, it shows God’s great love for all of his people, despite our failings.

Second, the passage about David and Saul relates to David refusing to kill the man who had been literally anointed by God (through the prophet Samuel) as king. At least three things disqualify us from using this passage in the context of church leadership today:

First, we are no longer in a monarchy. Pastors are not kings.

samuel anoints saulSecond, Saul had actually been anointed to be king by a genuine prophet at God’s clear command with real oil. And he still failed, struggled with insanity, consulted a sorceress, and committed suicide. Does your pastor really want to keep company with that hot mess?

Third, “not laying a hand on God’s anointed” in David’s context meant not killing Saul. Like not slaying him with a literal sword. To death. We have a term for that today: assassination. “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” didn’t mean not resisting Saul, not disobeying his commands, or not questioning his character. It meant not killing him. How do we know this? Because David had already resisted Saul, led a group of rebels outside of Saul’s authority, aided Saul’s enemies, rebuked Saul, questioned Saul, disobeyed Saul’s insane and harmful commands, and had made an alliance with Saul’s son Jonathan. All this he had done, but what he wouldn’t do was kill Saul and thus usurp his throne.

Psalm 105:15 and 1 Samuel 26:9 are fascinating and instructive. But they certainly cannot be used by church leaders today to support their claims of authoritarian impunity. In addition, 1 John 2:27 says that all believers have an anointing from God. For a pastor or teacher to claim a special anointing which requires everyone else to do whatever they say is counter-biblical and thus untrue.

2.) Appealing to the life of Moses – While my former pastor probably takes the cake for the most bizarre use of a Moses passage (“You Levites have gone too far!”), appeals to Moses’ authority by pastors are distressingly common. We don’t have time to deal with any verse specifically, but let me show why any comparison between a modern pastor’s authority and Moses’ authority is erroneous.

Moses filled a unique role in the Old Testament as a prophet, priest, and king. Think about it: he delivered the people from Egypt as a prophet; he interceded for the people of God as a priest; and he led the people of God as if he were their king. Prophet, priest, and king. That’s unique among all the characters of the Old Testament. In filling these concurrent roles, Moses functioned as a “type” for Christ. What is a “type”? We use the term “prototype” which means the very first edition of something, like the first clunky airplane, automobile, or microwave. In Moses’ case, he was a prototype for the Messiah.

Jesus and MosesHow do we know this? Well, in Deuteronomy 18 God promised that he would send another prophet just like Moses. The Jews understood that this person would be the Messiah—the Savior of Israel who would deliver God’s people from all of their enemies. You can read about the Jewish expectations in Luke 1 where Zechariah praises God for sending a deliverer. And Jesus’ followers thought he might be “The Prophet,” that is, the Messiah. This was confirmed in Acts 3:22—Jesus was indeed the Moses-like Messianic Prophet of Deut. 18.

What do we learn from all of this? It’s actually pretty sobering. Since Moses filled a unique role as a prototype for Christ, his authority was likewise unique. That’s why he could ask God to open the ground to swallow the folks who rebelled against him.

This means that any church leader today who uses Moses as his or her pattern of authority is setting themselves up as a Messianic figure. Did you catch that? Leaders who appeal to Moses as the model for their own authority are actually claiming to be like Messiah. The Bible has a serious term for people who do this: false Christs (Matthew 24:24). A false Christ is a person who makes false claims about being a messiah and who leads people astray. The Bible commands us not to follow such people.

So let’s have no more comparison between Moses and pastors, okay?

3.) “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” – This comes from Hebrews 13:17. And thankfully, since I have already written two posts about this verse, we need not spend much time on it. Suffice it to say that the Greek doesn’t say “obey.” Instead of using the normal word for “obey,” it uses the uncommon word “peitho” which means to persuade. Again, look it up in a Greek lexicon if you don’t believe me. Since “peitho” is in the middle voice, it means to “allow yourself to be persuaded by.” The verse is better translated, “Allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who guide you.”

This fits the New Testament criteria for authority which is based on truth and trustworthiness (good character). The New Testament never enables a person to claim spiritual authority simply because of his or her position. Instead, he or she must have the truth of God and must demonstrate godly character as described in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5.

You can read my other posts on Hebrews 13:17 and the nature of spiritual authority here and here.

Conclusion

It is a fearful thing to claim positional authority, that is, to say that someone must follow you because you fill a role as pastor, elder, or prophetess. When a leader says “you must obey me because I’m your pastor,” or “touch not the Lord’s anointed,” he or she shows a clear misunderstanding of scripture. By twisting scripture to say something it doesn’t mean, that person has spiritually abused you.

They have gone too far, just like those pesky Levites.

Posts in this Series:

Intro: Fixing a Frankenstein Faith – Ten Distortions of Scripture and How to Correct Them

Distortion #1: Love Thy Neighbor But Hate Thy Parent

Distortion #2: “Because I’m Your Pastor/Elder/Spiritual Leader, that’s Why!”

Distortion #3: Vestigial Organs in the Body? Natural Family vs. Spiritual Family

Distortion #4: Brother’s Keeper: Surveillance in Spiritually Abusive Churches

Distortion #5: “It Says in Deuteronomy…”: Misuse of the Old Testament

Distortion #6: God or Mammon: Logical Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

Distortion #7: I Committed Adultery Watching the Smurfs: James 4:4 Unpacked

Distortion #8: You Shall Be Holy Unto Me (So Ditch the Budweiser)

Distortion #9: “We Alone are the ‘Remnant,’ all 75 of Us!”

Distortion #10: Fun in the Shun? Confessions of an Excommunicator

7 Comments

10 Questions a Church Should Ask When it Receives Bad Press

In my experience, most churches act in predictable ways when the media accuses them of cult-like behavior. They either huddle up like the three monkeys, or else leap into damage-control and lash out at their accusers.

cults respond to bad pressI know, because eleven years ago my church appeared on the front page of the State’s largest daily newspaper with the headline: “Pastor’s Methods Set off Concerns.” As follow-up, the local weekly ran a summer-long series on my church and why people thought it was a cult. Local news stations, not to be outdone, interviewed numerous former members and tried to interview the pastor.

My church reacted the same way other groups respond in similar circumstances. Our pastor became defensive and shouted “Persecution!” Members gathered in a protective huddle and waited for the pastor to explain everything away so that we could get on with our efforts to be saved.

To admit that the media was right—even a little bit—was to suggest that our pastor was not as infallible as he claimed, or that the Spirit had not led our little group with perfect guidance (or that we had sometimes failed to hear the Spirit). It would also call into question our practice of shunning others. Admitting such possibilities would have destroyed the protective husk of infallibility and moral righteousness which our church required in order to isolate members from non-members.

Thus, paradoxically, the net result of intense media coverage is often a hardening of resolve in a particular church. A sense of fulfilled prophecy that the elect will be persecuted in the last days.

Sometimes the media does get it wrong. Sometimes a church truly is misunderstood. But those occasions are rare, because in general the media avoids discussing religion unless something illegal or scandalous has happened.

In the case of my church, the reporters were right. We were a cult. Our group disbanded eight years after those initial media reports.

Let me suggest ten questions a humble, critically-thinking Christian might ask when his or her church receives bad press. These are questions I wish I had been brave enough to ask eleven years ago. If your church is healthy, you have nothing to fear from asking the following ten questions. If your church is unhealthy, you have a lot to gain.

1.) Why is the media writing about my church?

In journalism class, I learned that reporters prefer to write about something interesting. As a genre of people (this is a gross generalization, forgive me), reporters are Reporters are interested in cultsgenerally disinterested in religion. This means that when they write about a church it is not because the church is doing good deeds, but rather because the church has done something illegal/salacious/immoral/or cruel.

Reporters don’t care about your church. They don’t. Your church is not being written about because you have long sermons or because church members wear older-style clothes or avoid makeup and alcohol. That is old news and doesn’t sell newspapers. Your church is being written about because something majorly bad has happened, and your leaders are denying responsibility and instead blaming everyone else who says that there is a problem. This makes for interesting news articles.

2.) Is what the media says about my church true?

Consider for a moment whether the facts are accurate. This takes courage, because most isolated groups operate within a worldview which categorically dismisses any contemporary who is not a member of their church. But if the media has more-or-less accurately presented the matter of concern—that a church controls its members through fear, that its members are encouraged to separate from their families, that a baby was allowed to die by withholding medical help, that the pastor has abused people, that there are inconsistencies in the financial records—then it is true regardless of who says it. All truth is God’s truth.

3.) If what the media says about my church is true (or at least partly true), then why are my leaders describing the media coverage as “persecution”?

This is really simple. Criticism is not persecution if it is true. If a church has allowed a baby to die, for example, and the media covers that story, it is not persecution. It is truth. Church members should avoid assassinating the character of outsiders who are concerned about aberrations of belief or practice in the church. This is called blame-shifting and it is a technique of abusers.

The media is not the problem for saying there is a problem.

4.) Why do my leaders feel the need to re-interpret every criticism against my church?

Part of the subtlety of spiritual abuse is that everything which seems clear is reinterpreted and nuanced by leaders in impossibly complicated ways. Leaders use dozens of Bible verses—generally without context—to support the group’s position. Group leaders may admit that they encourage members to separate from their families, but deception of cult leadersthey redefine this as an act of “love” and prophetic confrontation. They then throw the blame back on “carnal” family members who refuse to rubber-stamp the group’s activities.

Okay. That’s an interpretive choice.

But words have meaning. The Bible encourages Christians to live simple lives which avoid mental or spiritual gymnastics, eliminate self-justification, and eschew cleverness. If the media—or family members who are outside of a particular group—make a claim against a church, members should consider it at face value instead of analyzing it to the nth degree.

Jesus said that even a child could understand his message. Conversely, the serpent was full of guile in the Garden of Eden, and his complicated reinterpretation of God’s clear command spawned innumerable copy-cat practitioners. Church leaders should avoid behavior which would invite comparison with Satan.

5.) Why is my church so afraid of accepting rebukes from those outside of it?

The book of Proverbs says time and again that a righteous person accepts life-giving rebukes from other people. A life-giving rebuke is based on the truth. What Proverbs doesn’t say is that the rebuke must always be from someone within one’s own church, or tribe, or sect. Never eliminate a source of potentially life-giving rebuke simply because the source seems unlikely. God rebuked Balaam with a donkey. He should have little trouble using the media.

6.) What does it mean to be made in the image of God?

Bear with me—this is relevant.

It says in Genesis 2 that men and women are made in the image of God (what theologians call the imago Dei). This means that every human being—not just Christians—possesses intellect, emotion, and will. That’s what separates us from the animals, besides an eternal spirit.

cult members as clonesSo when a church discourages critical thinking or disallows members from seriously considering the criticisms of outsiders—as most cults do, despite their protestations to the contrary—or persuades members to “stuff” normal emotions in favor of a religious mask, or disallows group members from making decisions on their own, the group leaders have successfully defaced the three-fold image of God from men and women under their care. I’m not sure how to describe how horrible this is, but it is at least unbiblical, if not inhumane and anti-God. It turns people into machines—robots, clones, zombies—and imposes the leader’s personality on everyone under his or her influence.

Christians more than any other group of people should exercise a robust capacity to think critically, embrace the full spectrum of emotions, and independently make decisions without coercion or undue influence from a leader. Anything less defaces the image of God.

7.) Is my church obeying the biblical command to cultivate a good reputation with outsiders? (Proverbs 22:1; 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Tim 3:2ff)

Unhealthy churches believe it is their duty to make themselves offensive to outsiders. They do this, they think, because the gospel is “offensive.” But the Bible says that Christians should be well-regarded by outsiders, and should do nothing to cast reproach on the name of Christ. It should go without saying that a condescending manner, sexual abuse, negligent homicide, breaking apart families, and child endangerment do little in the way of cultivating a good reputation with outsiders and is not Christ-like behavior. No matter how many scriptures a person uses to justify such abhorrent behavior.

8.) Am I obeying the biblical command to not judge a matter before fully hearing both sides of the situation? (Proverbs 18:17)

While leaders of churches who experience negative press are fond of quoting this proverb about the media—suggesting that the media is one-sided and is unfamiliar with the church’s interpretation of events—the proverb cuts both ways.

When church leaders scream “persecution” or respond to outside concerns with diatribes and manifestoes detailing outsiders’ sins, they put up a Great Wall around their church and effectively say that no criticism of their church is allowed, ever. But the Bible says that believers should listen openly and without pride or self-justification to the concerns of other people. Anything less is disobedience to God’s wise principles.

9.) Am I disobeying the Bible by allowing a leader in my church to mediate my relationship with God rather than taking ownership for my own faith?

Christ is the only mediatorThis applies whether someone is “saved” or “unsaved.” There is only one mediator between God and people, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Is the leader of your church Jesus? I mean, really—is the person who stands behind the lectern actually Jesus? If not, then he or she cannot tell you for certain whether or not you are saved. The Bible says that salvation is a transaction between you and God, not you and your leader.

I don’t know how to make this any clearer or simpler: if someone tells you that you have to follow them in order to be saved, unless they are Jesus Christ incarnate, then you are committing idolatry.

10.) What would happen if I discovered that the media was right, that my leaders were wrong (or at least partly wrong), and my church dissolved?

Would your faith remain unshaken because it is fixed on Jesus Christ? Or would it collapse because you can no longer get saved because Pastor So-and-So is in prison or got hit by a bus and now you have no way to know if God is pleased with you or if you’re bearing the right kind of fruit?

Conclusion

Christians need not practice damage control when they receive negative press. Instead, view it as an opportunity to exercise critical thinking, display full emotion, and make independent decisions about what course of action to pursue. This makes you fully human, made in the image of God.

Don’t be a monkey.

10 Comments

Frankenstein Faith: Love Thy Neighbor but Hate Thy Parent (Part 1 of 10)

In this series, we’re talking about ten distortions of scripture which lead to spiritual abuse and/or mistreatment of other people. You can read the intro to the series here.

Shunning_ParentsThis first post (a long one—sorry) is about the misguided practice of shunning parents who may not agree with their son or daughter’s involvement in a particular church. Many spiritually abusive churches justify this type of behavior. Mine did.

We used verses like Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (which talks about stoning to death relatives who encourage idolatry) and Luke 9:57-62 (which speaks of the dead burying the dead and not putting your hand to the plow and then turning back) to justify our cruel behavior toward parents who were outside of our church.

Indeed, family members who professed Christ—but were outside of our church—were considered damned. Our pastor taught us that true Christians who heard about our church would join it, or at least would applaud our beliefs and behavior.

When the parent(s) of a church member expressed concern about our pastor’s controlling behavior, that member was required by our pastor to cut off contact with his or her parent(s).

Our pastor’s logic—seemingly supported by numerous Bible verses—was that the disapproving parents were false Christians who were like the yeast of the Pharisees. They must be cut off completely to avoid contaminating our church. Church members must reprove and contend with their parents who falsely professed Christ, our pastor said. They should dishonor their parents, divide their family with the sword of God’s truth (Heb 4:12-13), and thus honor God.

It sounds sacrificial and heroic, doesn’t it? I mean, golly, think of the pain caused by demonizing and shunning your own parents. God must approve of such self-sacrifice, right? You almost have to turn off your natural feelings of love and coat yourself in concrete to execute such draconian orders.

Um, yes. In most instances that’s exactly what you have to do.

But what about God’s command to honor your parents? And what about the biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself? Aren’t your parents a sub-set of who your neighbor is? How can you love your neighbor but hate your parent(s)?

I believe that Christian sects who teach their members to dishonor their “unconverted” parents in order to honor God make a number of false assumptions and commit several scriptural distortions in order to reach this conclusion.

Let’s think this through. We’ll start with some broad assumptions that these groups make, and then look at a couple of specific ways they distort scripture.

False Assumption 1: These groups believe that they interpret scripture correctly.

Rebuttal: This is a big one. In these groups, you don’t start off hating your parents. Instead, you start off interpreting scripture through a particular lens which you believe is correct. This is a huge assumption, because not all interpretations are equally valid. As one of my Greek professors used to say, “If you come up with a novel interpretation of a passage, the heresy bells start ringing.”

So how can we tell which interpretation of a scripture passage is most accurate? Two ways.

hermeneutical_boundariesFirst, there are hermeneutical (“interpretive”) boundaries which limit the possible number of orthodox interpretations. A sign of true wisdom is holding one’s interpretive decisions with a good deal of humility. This is especially important in controversial matters where one group differs with the majority of other professing Christian groups.

For a small sect to believe that its interpretation of scripture is the most accurate—and that everyone else is not just wrong but demonic—stretches the limits of credulity, don’t you think? It certainly stretches the limits of humility.

Second, if our interpretation of a passage causes us to disobey other of God’s clear commands, then our interpretation is wrong, even if we don’t understand why. This is called “coherence.” Coherence makes us ask the question: Does my interpretation of this particular passage jive with the rest of scripture? Does it match the heart of God that I see in the rest of the Bible? If not, then my interpretation is wrong.

Most of these small sects who advocate disowning parents are actively destructive, relish ripping families apart as a sign of holiness, and sometimes cause people to die. Their destructive practices show us that their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate, since how they interpret the Bible leads them to destructive behavior which disobeys many specific biblical commands.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how many Bible verses they string together or how forceful their personality is. Mean people suck. And the Bible says that’s sin.

False Assumption 2: These groups believe that they are saved and that almost all other professing believers are unsaved.

Rebuttal: This false assumption builds on the sifting sand of False Assumption #1. By misinterpreting what the Bible says about salvation, these groups create a false gospel which is less than, not more than, the biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10).

Almost all of these groups believe in some sort of works-based righteousness. Now, they’ll argue till the cows come home that they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, but the proof is in how they live. They judge each person’s professed salvation based on their behavior. This equates to a works-based salvation where if you fail to demonstrate an acceptable level of sanctification (as defined by the group leaders), the group leaders can pronounce you unsaved. That’s a sub-biblical gospel which has nothing at all to do with Jesus’ death and resurrection for you and me while we were still sinners. And it disobeys the biblical command to judge nothing before the appointed time (1 Cor. 4:5).

False Assumption 3: These groups believe that it is an “act of love” to confront and shun their “unsaved” parents.

Rebuttal: The Bible does say that the rebuke of a friend brings life. And the New Testament teaches that Christians have a responsibility to evangelize the unsaved. The problem is that these groups define everybody as unsaved—even professing rudeness_is_not_loveChristians—and they confront people in combative, rude, aggressive ways. When folks respond defensively to such assaulting behavior, these sects interpret their defensiveness as resistance to the gospel rather than as protection against unsafe people.

Such behavior is unloving. 1 Corinthians 13 explicitly says that love is not rude. Even a child can tell if someone is being boorish. When members of these sects act in belligerent ways, get angry, speak condescendingly, pontificate, patronize, or harass their parents, they are disobeying God’s command to honor their parents. To say that such behavior is “love” is to empty words of all meaning and to create an Orwellian double-speak environment which cannot sustain life.

This brings us to the specific distortions of scripture which these groups use to redefine rudeness as love.

Scriptural Distortion 1:  That Deuteronomy 13 may be used by Christians to justify cutting off their parents.

Rebuttal: The Deuteronomy passage has all kinds of problems with it, starting with this: If all of this passage is directly applicable for Christians today, then we need to start killing any person who tries to get us to follow someone other than Jesus. In all honesty, these small sects are not far from that point, psychologically. Emotionally, they already do “kill” and dehumanize other people who disagree with them.

The basic problem here is that much of the Old Testament was written for the theocratic nation of Israel. Deuteronomy 13 is sandwiched between a chapter about the Tabernacle and a chapter about clean and unclean food. Christians today don’t worship at the Tabernacle and we do eat pork and lobster. So we’ve all made some interpretive decisions about what applies to us and what doesn’t.

Groups who use the Old Testament to justify cutting off parents have a poor understanding of biblical context and the difference between Israel and the Church. They also are inconsistent in how they apply Old Testament passages, cherry-picking part of a verse and leaving out the rest.

christians_should_not_stoneCan you read Deuteronomy 12-14 and see some of the problems with an unfiltered interpretation? Make a list of the things in these passages which Christians do not practice. It’s a pretty long list, right? While we can probably all agree that relatives who try to lead us into idolatry are an impediment to our Christian life, I think we can also see that there is a quantum leap between how God commands Israel to relate to such a scenario and how New Testament Christians are to react.

The core of the Old Testament is the Ten Commandments. The fifth commandment is to honor one’s father and mother. While Christians need to have healthy boundaries in all of their relationships—including with their parents—God never says that it is okay to dishonor your parents. In fact, Jesus got pretty sore 1400 years later when the Pharisees discovered a way to dishonor their parents and make it sound religious. 2000 years after Christ, religious hypocrites still use scripture to make the same false arguments. Let’s not fall for these age-old tricks.

Scriptural Distortion 2: That Jesus taught his followers to abandon their parents and to hate unsaved relatives (see Luke 9:57-62; 14:26).

Rebuttal: The passages cited by sects who promote dividing families are misinterpreted and therefore misused. We have already seen that scripture cannot mean whatever we want it to mean—it means what it meant in the context in which it was given.

Jesus often said extreme things to confront individuals with their particular sin issues and to impress on his listeners the absolute allegiance they must have to God over and above any other allegiance. His parables and calls to commitment were designed to shake his listeners out of their comfort zone and out of their idolatrous relationships. He still calls us—today—to follow him with undivided loyalty and to have no other gods but God.

Yes, but in what manner should we do so?

the_sword_of_the_lordNowhere does God say we have to be mean about our commitment to Christ, or that we have to cut off unsaved family members (let alone professing Christians), or that it is our job to wield the sword of God in our families in order to isolate ourselves as a holy people who are actually just rude.

When Jesus says that we must “hate” our family members compared to Christ, he is using a well-known Hebrew idiom which means to prefer one thing over another. He is telling us that our allegiance comes first to God. Jesus cannot literally mean “hate” because the Bible commands us to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

God cannot contradict himself—this is the coherence principle at work. When Christian sects use these verses to justify cutting off “unbelieving” parents, they do as much violence to the meaning and intent of scripture as they do to the people they cut off.

Scriptural Distortion 3: That familial “division” comes via believers, and that it is commanded by Christ.

Rebuttal: This shows how a misunderstanding of description and prescription can result in spiritual abuse. Churches who teach their followers to shun their parents who are not members of the group take Jesus’ descriptive words about bringing a sword as a prescriptive command to go and do likewise.

Oh really?

The Bible condemns divisive people (Rom 16:17-18; Titus 3:10). Who is a divisive person? Someone who seeks to divide people through arguments, quarrels, sectarianism, and plain ol’ rudeness. Someone who wants you to follow him or her exclusively.

Division can be a positive thing, but only as an act of judgment and only when done by God—the Ultimate Judge—or by the corporate church in a discipline scenario which carefully adheres to biblical practice and which is a restorative attempt of last resort in a matter of major unrepentant sin by a professing believer (Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 5). Phew. That’s a lot of qualifiers. Your parent who thinks that you are in a cult doesn’t meet this criteria.

truth_divides_not_ChristiansWhen Jesus says that he came not to bring peace but a sword, he is saying that the Truth does indeed divide people. However, this division does not come through believers, but rather through the choice of unbelievers who may resort to violent hostility and opposition to the gospel. Did you catch that? The divisive agents are not believers but unbelievers.

For example, new Christian converts from Muslim or Hindu backgrounds understand that their profession of faith often results in division in their family—not because they rudely confront their parents with the gospel, but because their family members want nothing to do with them and instead actively persecute them. I know several converts whose own parents disowned them. But the child had done everything they could to honor their parents, love them, and speak respectfully to them. They would have lived at peace in their parents’ household if the parents had not been the ones to cast them out.

So which camp does this put divisive churches in?

A church which turns Jesus’ description of how some unbelievers will respond to the gospel into a prescription for how all believers should act has twisted scripture. They are acting like unbelievers. Pretty diabolical, isn’t it?

When Christians claim God’s authority to wield the sword, Crusades happen. And as in Peter’s case in the Garden of Gethsemane, our timing, target, and aim are always off. Instead, Jesus commands his followers to be peace-makers whose winsome conduct wins unbelievers to faith.

Conclusion:

Jesus encountered a similar mindset in the religious hypocrites of his day who had worked out a spiritual-sounding method to dishonor their parents. Here’s what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Mark 7:9-13:

“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

To love your neighbor but hate your parent is to distort scripture and misrepresent the heart of God.

Here are the other posts in this series:

Intro: Fixing a Frankenstein Faith – Ten Distortions of Scripture and How to Correct Them

Distortion #1: “Love Thy Neighbor But Hate Thy Parent”

Distortion #2: “Because I’m Your Pastor/Elder/Spiritual Leader, that’s Why!”

Distortion #3: Vestigial Organs in the Body? Natural Family vs. Spiritual Family

Distortion #4: Brother’s Keeper: Surveillance in Spiritually Abusive Churches

Distortion #5: “It Says in Deuteronomy…”: Misuse of the Old Testament

Distortion #6: God or Mammon: Logical Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

Distortion #7: I Committed Adultery Watching the Smurfs: James 4:4 Unpacked

Distortion #8: You Shall Be Holy Unto Me (So Ditch the Budweiser)

Distortion #9: “We Alone are the ‘Remnant,’ all 75 of Us!”

Distortion #10: Fun in the Shun? Confessions of an Excommunicator

2 Comments

Seven Obnoxious Jesus Jukes (Re-Post from “Mercy not Sacrifice”)

[This was written by Morgan Guyton on August 21, 2013 and originally posted on his blog, “Mercy not Sacrifice” There is something beautiful about re-posting a well-written piece. It’s like, “Wow, that’s exactly what I wanted to say, but I couldn’t have written it as well as you did.” Thanks, Morgan, for always making me think. I’ve included his blog in my blogroll on the right.]

jesus jukeThe phrase “Jesus juke” was originally coined by Jon Acuff in a 2010 post on his blog “Stuff Christians Like.” Jesus jukes are moves that you make in online conversation to showcase your superior Jesus-ness at the expense of other people who have said something, often in banter or jest, that is inadequately theologically correct (or TC for short, the Christian version of PC). Jesus jukes are the 21st century online conversational version of the exhibitionist piety that Jesus calls out in his Sermon on the Mount, like praying on the street corner, disfiguring your face when you’re fasting, and announcing your alms-giving with trumpets (Matthew 6:1-18). I’ve come to realize that many Jesus jukers actually aren’t doing it on purpose, so I figured some examples might be helpful to my accidental Jesus juking friends.

1) “Why do you make things so complicated? The answer is Jesus.”

This is probably the most obnoxious Jesus juke: “You can have your ‘religion,’ but I believe in Jesus plus nothing.” In Christian music, there’s actually a term of measurement called JPM, Jesuses per minute. Throwing Jesus’ name around as a means of giving yourself credibility in a conversation is a more accurate application of using the Lord’s name in vain than saying OMG. “Jesus” is always the right answer to every Sunday school question and the way to take the higher ground in every Christian argument. “Jesus” is often a code word for a specific set of beliefs about Jesus which have little to nothing to do with the personality of Jesus displayed on the gospel.

2) “You seem to be interested in what people want, but what about what God wants?”

In every evangelical conversation, the ace of spades of trump-cards is to show that the other person is being “man-centered” while you’re being “God-centered.” This was very much the basic posture of Pharisaic existence in Jesus’ day: “I really believe your heart’s in the right place when you heal people on the Sabbath, Jesus, but how do you think that makes God feel when it’s supposed to be His day?” (Jesus himself got Jesus juked all the time!)

What does Jesus say in response to the Pharisees’ Jesus jukes? “The sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:7). “Go and find out what this means: ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice’” (Matthew 9:13). In other words, to try to drive a wedge between “what God wants” and the legitimate needs of human flourishing (insofar as they are legitimate) is a false dichotomy that the Pharisees of yesterday and today exploit to draw a line between God and other people and put themselves on God’s side of that line as His “defenders.”

3) “You worry too much. God will take care of it.”

When someone is dealing with anxiety, the best way to ratchet up their anxiety and shut down any trust between you is to let them know that their anxiety reveals their lack of faith. Faith in Jesus is a grace God offers to all, but it is also a spiritual gift that some possess uniquely. Some people are better at trusting God than others; my wife is way better at it than I am. If you have this gift, God gave it to you to be a non-anxious presence and make anxious people feel safe, whether it’s through humor, good-natured positivity, or another tactic that doesn’t shame the other person and call attention to how much lousier they are at coping than you are.

4) “You know, I used to talk the way you do back when I was a fundamentalist/liberal/etc.”

I’m sometimes guilty of this one. I grew up moderate Southern Baptist. Since I was 3 years old, I have been opposed to fundamentalism, so it’s disingenuous to pretend that I had a fundamentalist past and used to be like “those fundamentalists” I argue with before I got “enlightened.” It’s very tempting to play the “I used to be just like you are” card as a rhetorical power play clumsily clothed in patronizing faux “empathy.”

Even if you have undergone a genuinely radical conversion from one ideological slant to another, do not project “Oh, that’s how I used to think” onto other people even if they sound the way you think you might have sounded. You have no idea what irreducibly complex combination of God’s grace, sin, and other social forces are at play behind another person’s beliefs. I realize you may have a genuine zeal to help other people escape their fundamentalism or liberalism. Just never assume that anyone else is “exactly where you were.”

5) “When I had your problem, I read [insert Bible verse] and everything made sense after that.”

That’s great that [insert Bible verse] helped you. But guess what? God uses different verses with different people and your experience isn’t invalidated if the same verse doesn’t have the same meaning for others. I was once in an online forum with a guy who was emphatic that if I would just read Romans 6 and really let it soak in and maybe say it slowly in a dramatic voice and shed a few tears, then I would gain victory over the issue I was dealing with. This kind of Jesus juke especially sucks when the issue is some kind of legitimate mental illness. When you make salvation/deliverance/healing/etc. about a particular verse and not the Holy Spirit, you’re making the Bible into a magician’s tool.

6) “I guess I just believe that Jesus meant what he said about hell/poor people/other topic.”

I know that nobody else really believes that Jesus meant what he said quite like you do, you radical Jesus freak! But maybe you’ll experience a little more of his grace for yourself if your discipleship becomes something other than a self-justification spectacle whether you’re of the “no cussing, no drugs, no premarital sex” branch of works-righteousness or the “no supporting any aspect of Caesar’s empire whatsoever” branch.

What did Jesus say in Matthew 25 anyhow? Was he using a hyperbolic parable about eternal suffering to prophetically goad his rich listeners into thinking twice about their most vulnerable neighbors? Or was he demonstrating why nobody can possibly be saved from hell because his standards for loving your neighbor are so impossibly high but as long as you do everything Paul says to do to bag justification by faith, then you’re good? Hate to say it, but there’s actually a range of possible interpretation here. What did Jesus mean by what he said? That’s a good question that a very large community of people has been working to answer for more than 2000 years.

7) [A long, non-sequitur string of scripture references without commentary that generally involve some kind of prophetic “warning” of apocalyptic destruction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.]

This might not be a Jesus juke so much as a manifestation of mental illness. But maybe there are people who think that throwing non-sequitur scripture bombs at other people is a legitimate form of spiritual conversation. Here’s the rule: if you can’t explain in your words why you’re using God’s words, then you’re abusing God’s words and they certainly aren’t your words to own.