Since our readership has rapidly expanded over the past few years, and especially during the past few months, we want to take some time this summer to draw attention to earlier articles for those who may have missed them. During the summer and fall of 2012, one of our writers blogged through each chapter of "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse". We have chosen two of the chapters to share with you this week, however you can follow the links in the article to the rest of the series if you would like to read it in its entirety.
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Chapter 5: Identifying the Abusive System
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
We continue our series blogging through “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.” The first post in the series is here.
What are the common characteristics of spiritually abusive systems? This chapter looks at the unhealthy dynamics that commonly dictate how people function within spiritually abusive systems. These dynamics result in people who are wounded and tired.
1. Power-Posturing
“Power-posturing simply means that leaders spend a lot of time focused on their own authority and reminding others of it, as well.” (p. 63)
Jesus had authority and he was able to give authority. True leadership and true spiritual authority is demonstrated by a person’s life and message. “Spiritual authority is seen in the man or woman who says, by his or her life, “God and his Word are true–I’ve proven them in the fibres of my being. I know there is hope in God!” (p. 64) Conversely, the people who are eager to put others “under” their authority reveal themselves to be power-posturers. They are not operating with God-given authority but rather with their own authority.
2. Performance Preoccupation
When power is postured and authority is legislated, “obedience” and “submission” become important words.
I was sadly amused that the discussion proceeded immediately to an example of a pastor implying that his congregation needed to work harder in order to gain grace. In Gothardism, grace itself is redefined in terms of performance (“desire and power to do God’s will”).
Obedience to God is non-negotiable but God looks at the heart. It’s a good thing when obedience flows out of a heart that is depending on God alone. But a person who is trying to earn something from God will begin to focus on their behavior and keep track of it (and likely be occupied with others keeping track of it as well). This keeping track is about earning spiritual points which is the opposite of trusting God alone.
There is an interesting point from Acts 5:29 (We must obey God rather than men): “It is only appropriate to obey and submit to leadership when their authority is from God and their stance is consistent with His.” (p. 66)
3. Unspoken Rules
Unspoken rules are powerful things. You may not know about them at first but as you break them, you will suffer either neglect, such as the cold shoulder, or extreme legalism, such as being questioned or asked to leave, as a consequence. In a healthy system, topics are up for discussion and it is allowed to agree to disagree.
The most powerful unspoken rule is the “can’t-talk” rule. Exposing problems threatens the system, because the system might have to change in order to address the problems. Therefore, if you speak about the problem, you are the problem. For example, when a woman is mistreated and she speaks up about it, the problem is not that her boundaries were violated but rather that she said something about it. However, the peace that comes from never challenging the leadership is a pretend peace.
4. Lack of Balance
Two extremes tend to appear: extreme objectivism and extreme subjectivism. Extreme objectivism is an empirical approach which puts God in a box, limiting Him to act only in ways we can explain, prove, or experience. In this extreme, intellectual ability and level of education may be prized over the leaders’ relationship to the Lord. But Acts 4:13 says that the religious leaders marveled at the confidence of the untrained fishermen, James and John, and took note that they had been with Jesus. Their confidence stemmed from their relationship with Jesus and having been filled with the Holy Spirit.
Extreme subjectivism emphasizes feelings and experiences even over the Bible. In this system, a special “word from the Lord” or similar subjective insight from the leaders is authoritative. But it is dangerous to submit to another person’s word from the Lord merely because this person is in authority. We will each individually give account to God. In this extreme, there might be a pride in not being educated, as if education is an enemy of being led by the Spirit.
You may have heard someone claim that since Peter nor Timothy went to seminary, neither should we. The authors counter this with a keen observation, but I will leave that to the book.
Personal Interaction:
I have been enjoying reading this book. It’s so refreshing for me to read someone who “gets it.” It is hard–very hard to explain to “outsiders” what spiritual abuse is like from the inside. People don’t want to see it and even if they did, it is confusing.
There have been some new insights as well. The emphasis on power-posturing has been instructive. I always thought my reaction to the authoritarian, controlling nature of ATI/IBLP and my family were due to my own sinful rebellion. It’s not to say that I don’t have any sinful rebellion, but noticing the problem of power-posturing does not equal rebellion. Just like a fish has fins and gills, and just like a dog barks, so spiritually abusive systems have power-posturing leaders. This emphasis on control and authority seems to be an essential property, not just something that a few of them happen to have in common.
Questions for discussion:
Note: please feel free to comment about these questions or anything else that stands out to you about this chapter.
Have you ever experienced the can’t-talk rule? Have you ever been in a situation where talking about the problem was treated as if you WERE the problem?
What do you think of their claim that topics should be up for discussion, and if they aren’t, the peace that ensues is a pretend peace?
What do you think of their list? Anything you would add or change?
This one could get complicated: Do you believe that Gothardism falls into either or both extremes of subjectivism or objectivism? To be fair, do you suppose Gothardism falls into neither one?
Do you suppose that “rhemas” from Mr. Gothard might be similar to the versions of a “word from the Lord” described as being overly subjective in this chapter, or would that be an unfair characterization?
Good quotes:
The one who offers the most hope has the most authority. (p. 64)
Spiritual authority is seen in the man or woman who says, by his or her life, “God and his Word are true–I’ve proven them in the fibres of my being. I know there is hope in God!” (p. 64)
If a Christian who feels violated stops talking, then the perpetrator will never be held accountable for his behavior. (p. 69)
If noticing problems is labeled disloyalty, lack of submission, divisiveness, and a challenge to authority, then there is only a facade of peace and unity. (p. 69)
(Click here to go on to Chapter 6)
Point 2 made me remember those graph-paper sheets for weeks or months to check all the boxes of various disciplines like prayer, memorization, wisdom books, etc. How many score sheets must a Christian bring to Heaven with him? How many of those sheets do you think BG filled out over the years? Do you get to fill in the blank boxes in Purgatory?
No, Bill will be too busy being purified by fire to fill out blank boxes in Purgatory! :)
I was a part of a Independent Fundamental Baptist Church (a mouthful!!) and experience this kind of treatment. In fact, I was part of a ministry supported by that church and wow, the spiritual abuse. As part of the ministry, we were not allowed to fellowship or have friends outside the ministry. It was awful. Thank God, I made a spiritual journey from that church. But, oh the damage. Sometimes I feel like PSTD!
People who have not experienced this kind of control craziness have no clue the depth of emotional and mental anguish people feel, even a long ways out from exiting these church situations. I believe it can result in PTSD, or be on the continuum close to it. I hear you!
The abuse in these churches is so subtle (most of the time). and SO much of it stems from the whole authority/umbrella thing that is so very off from God's word. I finally came to the realization "you walked yourself into this church, you can walk yourself out. These people or this man have no more God given authority over you than the produce manager at Wal-Mart. Just leave for crying out loud!" One pastor was mean, gossipy, etc... so what on earth was I doing there? I needed to be shown and to show Christ to the world - enough of this falderal. I feel for these pastors since they truly see it as their God given role to exert some kind of authority over the church. Good night! They have families to raise etc... how much can one person give! They are to shepherd and yes that includes reprimand at times but deciding who someone should marry, who is going to too many soccer games - it is just not their role. (Talking about 2 different churches we were in) May we all "consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works"
My realization was that even if the pastor had authority, he didn't have the authority to sin. If any action of a pastor violates the standards of I Timothy 3, Titus 1, or I Peter 5, he is acting completely on his own, and without any authority whatsoever.
I guess I will try to answer the objective/subjective question. The book defined objective as putting God in a box. Yes, i would say Gothardism does that. But Gothardism is very unintellectual. Bill's teaching definitely downplayed one's own intellect and understanding with one's mind. That shows in the ATI program, which discouraged people from attending higher education and promoted internship type training. Gothardism is definitely subjective with emphasis on a word of faith or knowledge reading of the Bible. Gothardism fails to consider the culture of the times from the OT and NT and elevated as Biblical standards for all time. So the patriarchal system we see in OT is used to justify Bill's so called principals of family and marriage. This also places women as property of their fathers then their husbands. These sorts of interpretation and application by Bill is completely subjective. An objective view of the Bible would place and consider the culture of Biblical times. An objective views would look at some of Gothard's teaching like courtship and realize this flies in the face of our own culture and common sense.
"True leadership and true spiritual authority is demonstrated by a person’s life and message."
and
"If a Christian who feels violated stops talking, then the perpetrator will never be held accountable for his behavior." (p. 69)
I needed these when standing up to an abuser just this week. Thanks.
"Have you ever experienced the can’t-talk rule? Have you ever been in a situation where talking about the problem was treated as if you WERE the problem?"
Yes, and too many times! In my experience, whenever one is the bearer of bad news, the feelings people have about the news get attached to the bearer. Think of a patient feeling resentful, and even angry, at a doctor who gives them an unhappy diagnosis; even though it's true, and necessary in order to help them.
It's uncomfortable to think about bad news, and that discomfort is associated with the one who brings it. This has been consistent for me in church, secular employment, and non-profit board work. I have found no way to completely avoid it, and it can be devastating to be treated as the problem.
So I think that those who speak up simply need to be prepared for it, so at least it does not come as a surprise. Some people get over the 'shoot the messenger' impulse, but for some the discomfort is lasting and even permanent.
Speaking out is terribly difficult, but worth the price because it protects other people from harm. Greater love hath no man, than that he lay down his life for his friends.
Well said.
I think some of this makes sense when you look at it from the perspective of systems theory. If you look at a family or an organization as a system, each person in the system tends to settle into a role in the system, the system settles into an equilibrium and the system as a unit resists change. Systems are spring-loaded to go back to equilibrium. A small example of it in action is when the child who plays a "mascot" role (comic relief, bad grades, perhaps) one day shows up with much better grades, which are met with surprise and joking comments. The system is subtly pushing that kid back into his normal role. There is a cost to the whole system if people start changing because the comfortable equilibrium of the entire system is threatened.
It can be surprising when it's the very people who are being oppressed by a system who resist you when you try to speak truth to it. You'd think they would be getting behind you to cheer you on. And sometimes they do, then shift back to preserving the system. Systems resist change, and the system is pushing the people back to their normal roles, preserving equilibrium.
All that to agree with your comments about shooting the messenger. The messenger can be rather surprised by the response but from the system's point of view it makes sense: you were threatening the system and the threat needed to be neutralized. I think you see shades of that in Caiaphas' words about Jesus, "it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Jesus was a threat to the system - he needed to be dealt with. From the perspective of the system, it's not so much about truth or justice, it's about survival. Shooting the messenger is self-defense.
Very helpful MattS, thanks. You must be a GREAT pastor!
But don't dehumanize the process. It is man's sin, his denial, his insensitivity and his hate of the truth that drives such "systemic" hostility to truth that upsets.
On the other hand, some of us (I confess here) are want to bring truth in an arrogant or condescending manner, sure of myself, treating the other as if stupid. The hostility to my bad news can therefore often be a perfectly reasonable reaction to my style: "WHY are you doing that dumb thing in such a dumb way?!?" Best answer: "Because I'm not a genius know-it-all like you!" (My mom's great response was: "Well if I was perfect like you....") You see, I can have all the truth that exists but if I say it without Love I am nothing. Just reflecting on the way we "prophets" (thanks BG) are often received.
I think Gothard's operational definition of gossip and his teaching on giving good reports are means by which an abuser can use the can't talk rule and bolster the abuse by claiming the moral high ground for himself, while making the victim feel like trash all at once. It's a very efficient kind of abuse.
It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to abuse others with your supposed spiritual authority if you have a true knowledge of Jesus Christ and have a heart that belongs to Him. You simply will NOT do it because you will know that it is wrong and it is error -- because you will KNOW HIM. My relationship with others is always the result of who I am to God and who He is to me. If my relationship with God is corrupt, it is from this corrupt root that all these other corrupt practices spring. Thus, these abuses are NOT merely the result of an incorrect theology, or of making mistakes. They are the result of the person NOT being right with God. The ONLY purpose for which God gives authority -- according to the apostle Paul -- is for EDIFICATION in Christ. In short, authority is for the purpose of helping someone else know Christ for themselves. Not through ME. Not under MY authority. But for themselves, one on one, in a personal way. Authority is never for the purpose of having dominion over their personal faith. ALL OF THIS IS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. And it is actually the key to unity in the Body.
Awesome, David! Both John the Baptist and Paul described themselves as friends of the Bridegroom. Neither ever demanded submission of the Bride to them, but only to Christ. And all the NT admonitions to leaders in the church were for them to serve without lording over. Your comment explains well how and why that is the way to lead.
I also think part of the problem with Gothardism in the authority teaching is that it corrupts the family into something that the parent/child relationship is not suppose to be. People that follow BG teaching on authority place too much emphasis on the authority of the father over the whole family which filters down. I clearly remember him drawing the father as the hammer, mom as chisel and children little rocks to be hammered out. According to Bill, one is suppose to submit to one's parents whether the parent's were Godly, or Christian or not. What results are children that are constantly dependent on parents for everything. Look at Mary. From all accounts, she was probably a 13-15 year old when the Angel came to Mary, it was Mary's choice to say yes, not her father's not Joseph's. The angle came to a young single woman, he didn't go to the father and ask and get the father's permission. In fact the responses from Mary's parents are not even recorded. In other words, we stand before God alone, not through our parents. Honoring one's parents doesn't mean obedience in every little thing (and big as well).
Great insight about Mary, Rob. Interesting that Gothard never tried to twist her story into one about authority; I suppose that would have been too obvious!
As another follow-up, does Gothard even talk about Mary? What does he say about her?
I do not believe he does because her example and yes flies in the face of his teaching on the family. She was approached directly herself, not through her father or even mother. She response is her own and all of this as a single young women in her teens. Her parents are not mentioned. I am sure that Bill would not want to point out direct Biblical examples that do not support his teaching and ideas. Instead he twist around other examples from the Bible to build his case. This is why people need to look at all of scripture when examining what someone is teaching, not just the verses they quote at you.
Telling that he would avoid the most prominent female character in the Bible because it didn't fit in with his theology...
I do not agree with Gothard's abysmal authority structures, for single women or anyone else. After marriage to Joseph however, God did speak to Joseph, not Mary in going to Egypt and returning. Not saying God only speaks through the husband, but one must be careful in building theology on biblical descriptive passages. Something Gothard tends to do and twist.
David, Don & rob...Awesome points. GREAT WISDOM here.
The key to Christian unity is never to impose unity through law. It is never to require submission through law. Ever. Christian unity is achieved when each individual believer knows the SAME Christ for themselves, is gripped by the SAME love of God in themselves personally, and desires for the same Father to have His full purpose for themselves and for all. In short, unity is never achieved when people all have the mind of the supposed leader. Rather, unity is achieved when each individual believer has the mind of Christ -- then we are all of ONE MIND -- HIS MIND. Each individual believer must -- personally and individually for themselves -- come to know Jesus Christ in an inward way. Unity is then the outcome -- unity that builds up each in Christ. And the fact is, this is the ONLY UNITY that is the will of God. Hitler had unity. That is the kind of destruction unity imposed through law works.
Can you believe this is EXACTLY what I thought as a new believer in Christ back in the early 1970's. Nobody taught it to me, it was just what I thought was right as far as God's ways. I was attending a Baptist college in Calif. It did not take long to screw it all up-right after marriage and a move to the Bible Belt where I got belted with all sorts of old south traditionalism and legalism of how to "live" the correct Christian life that would be pleasing to God and "your husband".
The correlation between 'old south traditionalism' and these teachings is an interesting one, esbee...
Thanks, David, this is an excellent point. We get into trouble when we confuse submission to God with submission to human leaders. A friend who is in the military once equated his unquestioning obedience in the military to following directives from our pastor (no sin was involved, just organizational issues). That really rubbed me the wrong way, and this gives me the words to explain my disagreement with him.
While this website was written in response to the aberrational teachings of IBLP/ATI, it does mention the aberrational teachings of the IFB as well such as KJV Onlyism.