Biblical Definition of Spiritual Abuse
Summary: This post defines what is improper religious treatment by a group’s spiritual leaders towards its members. Here we examine false prophets and their methods, as well as Christian liberty. Continue reading Biblical Definition of Spiritual Abuse
I would like to introduce this topic by presenting a counter-topic, how do we transmit or transfer morality (that supposedly we have accumulated through our spiritual life) to other? Be they our own kids, or family and friends, or just common people in our church? There should be some kind of standardized way this happens, and basically, it consists of our teaching the principles, then practicing that morality ourselves in our own lives, and then “helping” other people by guiding them in making decisions and setting good moral practices in their own lives.
While we can agree that this is really the way it should go, we get so “gun shy” about abusive churches that many people go off into a never try to morally teach other people anything because you might become abusive position. We need to train the upcoming generation what they need to know to do the work of God correctly. One needs to get over the “gun shy” attitude of not wanting to get involved in other people’s lives morally. You have to do it.
Victims of such brainwashing have lost their personal autonomy and in some cases are reduced to almost a zombie-like state! A person who goes to their church Sunday after Sunday, and hears basically the same underlying message repeatedly for a lifetime, has little hope of ever understanding TRUTH as it is revealed in all of the Scriptures.
But these people will refuse to learn anything different from what they have been indoctrinated in. Why is that?
The reasons are simple but very important to be aware of and understand — BRAINWASHING and FEAR.
I think the best way to guide us so that we don’t go off into a cult-like practice is simply to consider what a good parent would do for their child. A good parent doesn’t want to make all the decisions for their children but wants them “to grow up” and mature so that they can make good decisions on their own.
When I and my wife die, our two children should be able to function in life by themselves, or by themselves with their spouse. Maturity or being grown up is measured by the following (and maybe more I am not mentioning), but these are essential in my thinking:
(1) They work and support themselves.
(2) Whatever problems they have, they work out themselves.
(3) Whatever problems they cannot solve, they go somewhere to somebody more expert than they are, and they get help.
(4) They teach their children what is morally right (no lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc.).
(5) They personally practice what they morally teach.
(6) They are able to take criticism from others, rationally consider it, and modify their own life if they are wrong.
(7) Whatever is lacking or wrong, they are able to recognize it and work on fixing it.
etc.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
The purpose behind God giving the gift of pastor-teacher is to that the saints will be equipped to do the work of the ministry themselves, i.e. that they be perfect Christians, not perfectly sinless, but mature Christians that are able to function on their own.
As a pastor, I am not to do the work of the ministry for my church and people, but my job is to equip or capacitate THEM to do it. Pastors reproduce pastors, and sheep reproduce sheep. Like a sheep, I should witness to others and “reproduce”. But the church as a whole has that same directive. and they should be the principal ones winning souls to Christ and encouraging new converts to stay the course in the way of Christ.
Brainwashing:
1) any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion;
2) inducing a person to modify their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure;
3) the ability to apply procedures or methods so as to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of a person.
Now consider why really morality transfer as the Bible presents it and brainwashing are different. “We” (good churches and leaders) indoctrinate our people with the truth of Scripture. That is a major contrast. But “everybody” says that, good and bad churches. How to tell the difference?
I think the difference can be discerned because what we should be doing is to indoctrinate our people with Scripture, correctly interpreted, and abundantly displayed by our own lives and practice. When we live the moral principles we teach, then that is a key. Also, it is extremely important to correctly interpret Scripture, and that forms the core teaching of what we use to indoctrinate our people. It HAS TO BE SCRIPTURE!
When I take a Jehovah’s Witness or Roman Catholic that has accepted the Lord “under my wing” and teach that person, there should be a radical change in doctrine, belief, and practice. Nothing else can be right.
When a leader or church indoctrinates people to their views that are “loosely” based on Scripture (no thorough exposition of the principles that they are trying to teach is used as a rule), then the group is abusive.
The difference between brainwashing and good Bible teaching is that the brainwasher uses repetition of arguments and catchphrases, and a good Bible teacher exposits Scripture and applies it opportunely as the highways and byways of life present opportunity. Brainwashers want to hobby horse the same points instead of giving a breath of teaching across Scripture. Also, expositors work the entire whole of Scripture, and they do not focus on only the parts that are convenient for them, for example, obey those who are over you is beaten a lot, but the requirements for a man of God hardly ever.
These comments come from reading an article http://www.wickedshepherds.com/BRAINWASHING.html
I think that the point here is that abusive, wicked, or false leaders want others to adore them. This comes from walking with Satan, which wanted even Christ to adore him. The key element that a good leader always remembers is that he is a sinful man like all other men, and he is not so great or better than other people. A good leader looks at leadership as service, and as Christ came to service, so a good leader enters a church to serve God by serving the people. This concept totally controls him.
A bad leader sees himself as being great, and his church has the great advantage of being in his presence and serving him, his desires, and his goals. He uses the church and its members as stepping stones to his own greatness. The difference in attitude is tremendous, and is like night and day.
I think the key element here is that an abusive leader makes rules and a “system” for his followers to be “in” or “out” of his graces, and he works that system extensively. Our obedience is not to men, but to God. As a man of God dedicates himself to God and obeys God, God blesses that man, and others should follow him. As a minister strays from that commitment to God and his standards and work, others should leave him to himself.
The system is a very definite mark that something is wrong. A good leader of a church is pastor-like, and that means that he relates to all the members of his church. He has a personal relationship with each and everyone, no matter if they participate in his “system” of favorites or not.
Here I think we see the great difference between a true church with good leaders and a cult. A cult wants to drag people into the group and then cut them off from interaction with others, especially family and other Christians in other churches that can/could give them feedback as far as what is happening in their church.
When a group considers itself the only true church, they are wrong. They are a cult. “Yes, there are others that are kind of like us, but really we are the only ones that are 100% right.” The cult thinking is to cut off rational thinking and reasonableness. They are pushing their members towards being extremists, while a good church is pushing their members towards being a balanced, reasonable Christian.
Actually, to be truthful, probably the best expositor and thinker in any church is the pastor. Some exceptions might exist, but basically, that is the way things work. If there is somebody who is a better student of Scripture, they have to be very humble to work with the pastor (and the pastor has to be humble also to take advantage of his knowledge and wisdom).
Usually, our egos overtake us, and leaders rarely can handle rebuke from subordinates, and to be corrected on Scripture is deadly. If a major issue comes up and somebody else corrects the pastor, either the pastor leaves or that person is runoff. This is because of egos.
If you examine Acts 15, the early church functioned with many godly endowed men of God (the twelve apostles, the 120 disciples, Paul and Barnabas, etc.). But they were able to challenge each other and correct incorrect understanding and practice, dealing with doctrine in the process. Few church leaders today can pass through such an experience, and rarely any would actually desire that kind of multiple inputs of voices in major issues. That just shows us how far we have gotten from biblical New Testament churches.
I think I touched on this above, but the idea that each church is an island, and the only island out there of true, biblical doctrine and practice is very common among churches, and much more so among abusive churches. The dependence of one church on others is rarely worked out correctly.
Note that the idea is that the views and ideas of other Christians (leaders and laymen) is important and balancing to our view and ideas doesn’t happen often. Either things go the way of a convention or denomination, and in that case, a few decide the doctrine and practice and the rest receive it, or nobody listens to anybody else. Either way it is wrong and not New Testament Christianity.
Here we see the conclusion of this island thinking. To leave the group is the same as to abandon Christ and declare one’s self a Satan worshipper. That is even if you go to another church of the same doctrine and practice as your church.
That is the problem, churches don’t work in the context of world Christianity, but just their own corner of it, and they blow that up to be the last bastion of the faith on earth, that kind of thinking.
This commentary is taken from the article, Mind Control: Six tell-tale signs of abusive church leaders at http://www.wickedshepherds.com/MindControl.html
Churches that Abuse Continue reading Enroth, R. – Churches that Abuse
By Pastor David Cox
This article is simply my reaction to various Internet pages on Spiritual abuse that I have googled for research towards writing this article. I am a local church pastor and missionary.
On this one, I have to go yes and no. First of all, it is the duty of the members of a church to see that he that works the gospel lives the gospel. There are a lot of elements in that. A spiritual requirement for the ministry is that the minister doesn’t seek others silver or gold, but rather he is satisfied with what God provides him. What one church can give their pastor has nothing to do with what another church can do. It is unspiritual (to me as a pastor and missionary) for a pastor to demand such a salary that it stresses economically his church. Yes, he should live from his principal work, pastoring, but no he should not be getting rich off of poor churches. The flip is relevant too. It is wrong for a church to have lots of financial resources and pay their workers little salary.
As far as favors, I think it is great when one of my members brings us some food stuff, or does something special for us. It is not wrong in itself. But I not would ask for that, or worse, demand somebody does me a favor, that is out of place too. Our churches should be places of service, and it should not be out-of-place for our members to be serving one another, and the pastor too. But the pastor should be the example of servanthood, not the primary beneficiary.
Again, I think the pastor is like a real leader of sheep animals. He goes before and is the first one doing the things, so he is not resting at the rear while he commands his armies to go ahead of him. The entire concept of threatening or manipulating is wrong.
See my tract on ch51 The Difference between Cowboys and Shepherds. Cowboys drive cows from behind them using threats and pain. Shepherds create relationships with their sheep and go before them, and because the sheep love their shepherd (they know him), they follow him.
Here, I do not understand the accusation. The intent of Mattera in his article is that abusive pastors attach themselves to the weak and naive in order to take advantage of them. I think that is wrong obviously.
But on the flip side of this one, I, as a pastor, often spend more time with the weaker brethren because they need encouragement and guidance. I see no problem investing my life in their problems to better their lives. This is what I am here for.
Okay, so a lot of people had bad fathers, and they are looking for a father figure. I had a great father, and I still love him even though he passed away some years ago. I think it correct that people look up to me as a father figure. I see no problem that they respect me. Probably few really do though. The problem out here where the rubber meets the road is rarely that somebody idolizes you too much, but that they are constantly tearing you apart limb from limb.
I think Mattera walks a fine line with this one. One think is to become another person’s slave (that is wrong on both sides, those who want to do this, and those who allow it) and another thing to just build a friendship with another person and carry it on in life. Many members of a congregation honor and respect their pastor and have good friendships with him. There is nothing wrong with this.
This is correct for any good leader. He should demand absolute loyalty from his congregation, but that absolute loyalty IS TO THE LORD, not to the pastor. Pastors are actually sheep too, and they are not spiritual overlords or dictators, so loyalty to a man is conditioned on that man being loyal to the Lord and walking in his commandments. When you feel that man is straying from God’s path, then the friendship enters in to tell him, and if he doesn’t respond and correct, then it is time to break that friendship and find another church.
I don’t know that a pastor should ever scandalize a church member. At times, I have called attention to church members because their conduct was incorrect. But that was done publicly only after I felt my personal exhortations were exhausted without any results.
I also directly (in private) called a pair of church members apostates because after some time with us, they went back to the Jehovahs Witnesses, and they declared that they would not change the doctrine that they had learned from us. I disavowed that and told the lady that she and her husband were just apostates, people who knew at one time the truth and refused to follow it. These were people who thought way too much of their own options and spirituality.
I have seen leaders do this. I think that God has set some in the leadership of a church to guide the church as God guides that leader. No leader that occupies that leadership alone is correct unless he is starting a church, and that church just doesn’t have people yet.
But no organization can go forward with a plan or objective if all or most don’t get behind that objective and leadership. I think that good or excellent leadership will always convince their followers to go after the same objectives as they are pursuing, and pushing their people is not how to get things done. You must motivate, convince, and motivate some more.
In other words, yes, a leader uses others to work together to accomplish the plan. But the plan is taken from Scripture, not from his own preferences. It is senseless to be a pastor and not use your people. They are what God gives you to do the job. When the congregation is convinced to the same objectives as the pastor, then they will participate with the pastor. But the point is that all discern the right plan from exposition of Scripture, not from capricious glorifying of one’s own ideas. Of course, the pastor is a principle person is expositing the Word of God for all to decide the plan. But he is also careful to get feedback from his leaders and consider everything. He should only be hard headed when he clears see something Scripture principle, and others haven’t seen it yet.
I find this element very revealing. While many a narcissistic leader is not necessarily abusive at the moment, he may be or will be in the future. The issue is that he has missed his whole reason to be a leader, which is to serve the people of God and God. Missing that, nothing else he does is okay.
See my tract PC50 Narcissism versus Love
Mattera, by declaring this, he has thrown most independent Baptist Churches (and a lot of others) into the abusive leadership category. First of all, being on top of what is going on in a church does not make the pastor an abusive leader. We need to understand that in any corporation, organization, or religious group, control is not necessarily equated with being abusive.
Secondly, a “control freaks” is not somebody who wants accountability and wants to know what is going on in what he is responsible for before the Lord. There is a line where one leaves off what is expected and responsible, and being a control freak.
Basically, from what my experience has been, the rule of thumb is that the leader generally outlines what his subordinates are to do, dealing with goals, and he leaves them to work out the details of the how to and etc. If they are newbies, then he will get involved in the details, or he will usually assign somebody else that is aware of the how tos and details to instruct them, and if there is nobody to do that, he will sit down and teach the newbie how to do it (holding their hand).
The point is that in normal organizations the leaders have subordinates to take care of details and the leaders “lead” working more with overall goals that the particulars of matters. When something is really problematic, then they may get involved in the details.
Having said that, every leader has the right to know the particular details of how his goals and orders are being carried out if he so wants to know.
abusive leaders
Commentary by David Cox on the Post at
This is a reaction and my own opinion to an article by this title.
Spiritual Abuse and Why Are Toxic Leaders Allowed to Remain in Power So Long?
You should read Barb Orlowski’s article. It is good. The whole website from what I have seen is good. But I want to comment on some things that she says, and add my own “two cents” about her topics.
Continue reading Spiritual Abuse and Why Are Toxic Leaders Allowed to Remain in Power So Long?
No dictators allowed! A false prophets study that examines why pastors are not to be dictators, but rather hands on leaders which first do themselves, and others follow their examples.
For an overview of this, see
False Prophets and Teachers Overview
Pastors are supposed to “get things done” in the local church. But in getting things done, many misunderstand the style of leadership our pastors are supposed to have. It is not an army, where the general sits behind a desk and gives orders. The pastor is somebody who takes the lead by doing things himself, and others see him and because they love him, they follow him.
The “lording over the flock” is exactly the problem with modern churches. It doesn’t work in God’s work.
1Pe 5:3 “not being lord’s over God’s flock”
G2634 κατακυριεύω katakurieuo (kat-ak-oo-ree-yoo’-o) v.
1. to lord against, i.e. control, subjugate
There is a grave problem when a pastor thinks his principle ministry is the controling of the flock of God. Pastors do not control. They are brethren with the sheep. Their purpose is to take care of others, and to lead them by being the first and most faithful one to do the correct thing.
1Pe 5:2 not for filthy lucre,
G147 αἰσχροκερδῶς aischrokerdos (ai-skhrok-er-doce`) adv.
1. to gain in a disgracefully, sordidly manner
A pastor does what he does, striving to get what he deems a worthy goal by a correct method. Motives, methods, and goals are all involved. But when a minister makes spiritual decisions based on how it will economically affect him (personally or as a ministry) we need to take a step back on that one. We should not do things without considering the long range effects of the thing, but the spiritual side comes first and can completely overrule any economic suffering that may result. The Christians of Bible times accepted great economic loss in order to obey God (Hebrews 11 – Heroes of the faith).
Although there should be financial responsibility in every ministry, the pastor has to be distanced from that concept of greediness.
1Pe 5:2 but of a ready mind
G4290 προθύμως prothumos (proth-oo’-moce) adv.
1. with alacrity
Merriam Websters – a quick and cheerful readiness to do something; promptness in response.
Again, the greatest pastors in history and in the world today are doers that do not order others to follow them, but rather by themselves doing the right thing, they inspire others to follow them and do the same.
1Cor 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 1Cor 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.
Basically, I have seen two kinds of pastors: (1) those that are hands on pastors, wanting to get involved and if possible lead the charge. (2) armchair generals that normally “do not get their hands dirty with the small stuff.”
When we see a minister that has a dedication to work and work hard, we should follow that man. When we see lazy, do little, do nothing, and brag about what they themselves don’t actually do, we should get away from them.
Note that this concept is very biblical. Some people say, “don’t look at the minister because he will just let you down. Look only at God.” We should not let failures of Christian character get us discouraged. That is a good thought. But if you cannot follow the leaders you have, you need to change leaders and churches altogether.
1Tim 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
Titus 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. Titus 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Titus 2:8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
1Cor 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Cor 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
1Thess 1:6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
The point here is that the Bible exhorts us to follow the faith of those spiritual leaders over us. There is a given here that those leaders are spiritual examples in themselves.
There are several considerations here. First and foremost is that God has not given us His flock for us to do what we want with them. We are but stewards of God’s flock, and therefore God will return one day to force accounts with us. If we have abused God’s heritage, we will be condemned by Christ. Being saved, we will not lose our salvation but rather all our rewards in heaven. This is a powerful consideration in its self.
Moreover the example of God is Jesus Christ, and he was at times very forceful, but never abusive. Jesus allowed his followers certain liberties and
See my tracts
ch38 Recognizing a Good Pastor
ch41 Marks of a Bad Pastor
ch43 Time to leave your church?
Be Free: Galatians, Warren Wiersbe. Brent T. says, “This is an excellent commentary on the book of Galatians, that is just right for people coming out of the Assembly. The back cover reads: ‘In order to be a better Christian, I must_______. How a person answers that question is all important.’ This book debunks the false, performance based teaching promulgated by George, and the book is easy to read.”
Cults are just false prophets at work. One of the distinguishing marks of a cult/false prophet is that they have refused “out of hand” (with no exceptions) the will of God and the correct doctrine of the Bible. Their reasons are a wonder, but basically they prefer to work their will in their own way of doing things rather than submit to God’s will. This is covered up so that their followers don’t get wise to what is going on and leave the group.
After having studied a number of these kinds of groups, and talking to people personally, I think that in many cases they are “sincere” people, in the sense that they themselves are under the lie and delusion of Satan that this way that they do stuff is God’s way, or approved of God. Continue reading Mark of a Cult: Deception