Let’s cut through the theological jargon and think about the church for a while. September 29, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Government, Uncategorized , add a comment
|
To be or not to be: September 26, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Theology , add a commenta 501 (c) (3) and/or a non-profit corporation
If the Son has set us free, why do we place ourselves back in bondage? How are we so easily fed the lie and as elders and pastors just buy into it? Isn’t that why we have elders to protect the flock, not feed it to the state?
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Mat 18:20)
In America there has been a separation of Church and State. Exactly what that separation means can be debated. What cannot be debated is what is written in the Constitution of the United States, also known as the Bill of Rights. Article one of that Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
All religions and churches should be free from government influence. As we look out into America can we say that this is still true or does it appear that government today both establishes religion and prohibits religion and churches? Are churches subject to strict operational restrictions by government authority?
Who is supposed to establish a church and when is it established? I have been told more times than I care to recall that all churches must file 1023 forms and become tax exempt as a 501 (c ) (3) church. People have quoted Paul’s letter to the Romans over and over again. They declare that we are required to apply for tax exempt status as a 501c (3) church because it is the law.
But, is it the LAW? Is it required by law or statute or regulation or rule that a church must apply to the state or be established by the state as a corporation of the State? What is required to become exempt? The Internal Revenue states that, “The following organizations will be considered tax exempt under section 501c(3) even if they do not file Form 1023: (a) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, 1
“Some organizations are not required to file form 1023. These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or association of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group.”
“These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). However, if the organization wants to establish its exemption with the Internal Revenue Service and receive a ruling or determination letter recognizing its exempt status, it should file Form 1023 with the key District Director.” 2
By this we can see that Churches are automatically exempt and are not required to file. The publication does go on to say that these organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements. Two questions should be asked:
First, what are those requirements?
Second, what is included in the classification of organization? Note that the publication does not say that ‘churches’ are exempt if they meet the requirements but only that ‘organizations are exempt.’
The same section of 557 states, “If Organizations that have a statutory requirement to apply for recognition do not comply with the requirements relating to exemption applications, deductions for charitable contributions will not be allowed for any gifts or bequests made to those organizations.”
Again, note the use of the word organizations and statutory requirement to apply. None of this refers to churches which are not required to file nor does it refer to true Church organizations.
Are there any regulations, rules or statutes that determine approval if you do decide to apply to be religiously exempt?
Department of Revenue and the I.R.S. state:
“In order to determine whether recognition of exemption should appropriately be extended to an organization seeking to meet the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3), the Internal Revenue Service maintains two basic guidelines: 1) That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held, and 2) That the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.“ 3
On the same page of that publication we see phrases like, “If you are organized to operate a home for the aged, the following information must be submitted:” Or if you are a scientific organization, “You must show…” etc. But for religious organization there are only ‘two basic guidelines’ which are merely maintained by the Internal Revenue Service. These mere guidelines are maintained only to determine whether recognition of exemption should appropriately be extended to an organization seeking to meet the religious purposes test.
Are there actual statutory regulations defining churches or their requirements to apply?
The I.R.S. rules and codes are not statutes and have no authority of law in themselves. They are based upon the USCS, but the I.R.S. makes no mention of statutory requirement for Churches. “The regulations do not define the term ‘church’ and Congress has given no guidance in this area. “ 4 Regulations do not exist for religions or churches because there is no power granted to government to regulate or establish religions.
What statutes do exist that allow the I.R.S. to even establish a 501(c)(3) church? If congress and the regulations do not define the term ‘church’ and Congress has given no guidance in this area.
26 USCS .508 Special rules with respect to 501(c)(3) organizations.
(a) New organizations must notify the secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status Except as provided in subsection (c)…. (b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations. Except as provided in subsection (c). any organization… (c) Exceptions. (1) Mandatory exceptions, Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to –(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches….
26 USCS . 508 - 1 Notices (a) New organizations must notify the Commissioner that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status — (1) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph… (3) Exceptions from notice. (1) Paragraph (a) (1) and (2) of this section are inapplicable to the following organizations. (a) churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches,….
26 USCS . 6033 Returns by exempt organizations. (a) Organizations required to file (1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (2)… (2) Exceptions from filing. (A) Mandatory exceptions Paragraph (1) shall not apply to (i) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,….
26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-96 Edition) Internal Revenue Service, Treasury . 1.508 -1 (7) Exceptions from notice. Subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph are inapplicable to the following organizations: (1) Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group…
The USCS . 508, . 6033 and the CFR’s do not include Churches. All the statutes make Mandatory exceptions in the case of Churches.
Many have told me that if you are not a 501(c)(3) church you can not deduct your contributions. For those who believe that to be true you should know that, “Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption.” 5
So, contributions are deductible if you do not file. Yet many churches do file. Why? What are the advantages that they may find under a 501(c)(3) status?
“Advantages and Disadvantages of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3).”
“The main advantage to classification under .501(c)(3) is that the organization is generally spared federal taxation of its income.” 6
The use of the words ‘generally 7 spared’ should make it clear that any ‘organization’ granted or permitted exemption under . 501(c)(3) is spared not because of its nature or right but because of its ‘classification.’ Probably the most important word to note is the word ‘under.’
“Even if these organizations are not required to file form 1023 to be tax-exempt, they may wish to file form 1023 and receive a determination letter of IRS recognition of their section 501(c)(3) status to obtain certain incidental benefits such as public recognition of their tax exempt status; exemptions from certain state taxes; advance assurance to donors of deductibility of contributions; exemption from certain Federal excise taxes; nonprofit mailing privileges, etc.” 8
How is it an advantage to exchange a God given mandatory exemption as Christ’s Holy Church for a classification as an organization which is only generally spared taxation?
So, what are the disadvantages?
“The disadvantages of exemption under .501(c)(3) stem from the strict operational restrictions. 9
A church or a religion is exempt, in the sense that it is not taxed or regulated, because the government has no power, granted by the document that created it, to make rules to the contrary. Do you want to be merely spared a tax although your operations will be strictly restricted under the administrative rule of 501(c)(3) regulations and authority?
What is a church? Congress does not define what a Church is but the legal dictionary does consistently.
“Church. In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances.“.
“A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of one faith, and the observance of the same rituals and ceremonies. 10
“The Supreme court has held that tax exemptions are a matter of legislative grace.” 11 Is this true with all tax exemptions or just the ones granted by the legislative power over institutions that fall under or go under their jurisdiction?
That being justified 12 by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Tit 3:7 )
One exemption is by the grace of the government of men. The other exemption is by the grace of Jesus Christ. Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2Ti 1:9)
If by the grace of God you have been granted a mandatory exemption from the prohibitions and regulations by man’s governments, why would you desire an exemption by the grace of the legislator who only generally spares taxation?
“The exemption from taxation of money or property devoted to charitable and other purposes is based upon the theory that the government is compensated for loss of revenue by its relief from financial burden which would otherwise have to be met by appropriations from public funds, and by benefits resulting from the promotion of the general welfare.”13
Is your Church established by Jesus Christ and united under one government to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances or is it doing the work of the state governments of men established by men for the personal benefit of men. If your church is actually a creation of the state then who is collecting and receiving the tithes you contribute? Who owns the church?
“The IRS, for many years has had the right to examine church records, because churches have been collecting taxes for many years for the government. The churches, therefore, hold in trust that which belongs to the government. We have a right to examine church records to see if the churches are handling government funds properly.” 14
Is your Church a church of Jesus Christ or is it an organization of the State created by men for their purposes and belonging to that State?
Have you been deceived into granting dominion over the Church and your congregation to a foreign authority that is an adversary to the doctrines of Christ?
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil 15, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you]. To him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:8, 11)
Why would you put the strict operational restrictions imposed by the arbitrary and human rule of the legislators over the Church instead of the loving and benevolent and eternal restrictions of Jesus Christ?
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man’s] conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? (1 Corinthians 10:29-30)
If a church is a body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of one faith why does it want to go under another form of authority and government that it is already mandatorily exempt from? If a Church is a body or a community established by the authority of Jesus Christ then why would it want to become a body politic established under the authority of a democratic community of unbelievers with strict operational restrictions?
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2Co 6:14)
Should the church want to be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3)? We have seen the advantages and disadvantages. To be considered under the statute is to be considered under the authority of the men who made it. Neither men nor their government, have by themselves any power to establish or prohibit the Church, founded and established by Jesus Christ.
The Church is mandatorily exempt. Should it go under the power and authority of man made statutes? All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1Co 6:12)
Is the Church, that was founded and established by Jesus Christ autonomous?
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common [unclean, unholy] 16salvation [thing that keeps you safe and healthy] 17, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (Jude 1:3, 5)
Do not be a participant in the unclean salvation with its wantonness denying the Lord God but seek out the LORD and be a part of His body under the Lord Jesus Christ lest you be destroyed with those that believe not. Stand fast in the faith of the Lord Jesus, Yahshua, the Christ, our King whose kingdom was not of this world.18
Should a church be incorporated?
”Incorporate. To create a corporation; to confer a corporate franchise upon determinate persons.” 19
Isn’t the Church already created by Jesus Christ according to the legal definition of a church? If Jesus was a king and he established his church under that one form of government with his doctrines and ordinances then his church is already incorporated as his corporate franchise upon the earth.
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Ro 12:4, 5)
“Corporation (Latin corpus, a body). An artificial being created by law and composed of individuals who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination.” 20
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.. But now [are they] many members, yet but one body. (1 Co 2:12, 20)
“Corporation. An Artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity.”21
A corporation is a legal entity created by a state.
“Legal... Created by law.” 22
A corporation is an entity of the state and its statutes.
“Establish …To found, to create, to regulate. 23
Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. (Colossians 2:7)
“Corporation. All corporation, of whatever kind, are molded and controlled, both as to what they may do and the manner in which they may do it, by their charters or acts of incorporation, which to them are the laws of their being, which they can neither dispense with nor alter.” 24
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? (Romans 9:20, 21)
What is the act of incorporation of the Church established by Jesus Christ? Was it not the act of his sacrifice upon the cross and the shedding of his blood.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (Joh 19:30)
“Charter. An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or a dependency, assuring them of certain rights, liberties, or powers…is granted by the sovereign…” 25
Is God not the sovereign power of his church? Was his son’s sacrifice not enough? Is the Holy Bible not the charter of His Church? Can we add to it with a new charter? Should we?
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, 19)
What is the character of the church, of the body of Christ and from where is it derived? “The character of the corporation and the purpose for which it was organized must be ascertained by reference to the terms of the charter, and the right of the corporation to its exemption must be determined like wise given by the powers given in its charter. 26
If the Holy Bible is the charter of Church, given to us by the power of God and the church is the body of Christ or his holy corporation then it is the character of Christ and his purpose that shall be ascertained from His word. Therefore, also it is His power, given in His charter, that determines His Church’s exemption.
Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (Ro 16:25)
Has the body stood fast in faith in Christ as we were warned?
Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. (1Co 16:13)
Have they worshipped and called upon the name of another?
Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? (Jas 2:7)
Have we been blinded by our own pride and vanity?
Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always. (Ro 11:10)
Do we continuously call upon the name of the Lord throughout the earth? But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal. (Ro 11:4)
Have we taken pride in our own creation and bowed down to it worshipping, trusting and putting our faith in the institutions of men?
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (Php 2:10)
Are we bowing our knee in the wrong direction?
For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (Ro 14:11)
Have we given authority over what is God’s to a man appointed Caesar?
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Col. 2:18, 22)
If the state, created by man, establishes the corporation then the state is founder and creator of the corporate church.
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, [is] God;… for by faith ye stand. (2 Corinthians 1:21, 24)
Upon incorporation the church by the privilege of the State, once established by Jesus Christ, the King, is reestablished by a new state. The Church has been reconverted and changed. It has been reborn as a church organization under the authority of a new father.
“RECONVERSION, noun change, change over… readjustment, rebirth… reestablishment, … return, reversal, reversion, shift, transformation…”
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. (Re 21:9)
Jesus Christ is not the Father of the Church but the husband, for the Church is the bride of Christ. Incorporation with the state by a Church, established by Christ, is like fornicating with another groom. The churches are going under the authority of the state when they ask to be reestablished by the state.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body. (Eph 5:23)
If the Church is the bride of Christ and his Holy Body, one with Him, then how can it let another authority rule over it. Is this relationship established, not because it is the Law, but because it grants gifts or payment? If the church enters into a relationship with the state by its own desire, which was reserved for its husband, has it committed fornication.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: (Rev. 17:4)
Those ministers and priests who continue to hide their eyes and put no difference between the holy and the profane and conspire to cause the faithful to stumble and go under the authority of those who are not of Christ must repent and turn about into His Holy way.
And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto her, Thou [art] the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation. [There is] a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed [difference] between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. (Ezekiel 22:23, 26)
Can there be any doubt that Christ’s Church is exempt without application 27?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1Co 6:20)
Can you justify giving to Caesar what Christ has bought?
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (1Co 7:23)
Can there be any doubt that if you request an exemption that is already mandatory that you are going under a strict regulatory power that claims ownership of your church and your tithes?
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2Pe 2:1)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
1 “Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,” under “Purpose of Form,” section “2. Organizations not Required to file Form 1023. -Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.
2 Department of the Treasury, I.R.S., Pub. 557 Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization. Chapt. 3 Page 9
3 Department of the Treasury, I.R.S., Pub. 557 Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization. Chapt. 3 Page 14.
4 Detailed Analysis, Tax Management Inc. a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 464-2nd, A -3
5 Department of the Treasury, I.R.S., Pub. 557 Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization. Chapt. 3 Page 14.
6 Detailed Analysis, Tax Management Inc. a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 464-2nd, A -1
7 “GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual.” Black’s 3rd ed. Page 840.
8 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Instructions for form 1023. section 2.
9 Detailed Analysis, Tax Management Inc. a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 464-2nd, A - 1
10Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd ed. Page 325. also 4th, 5th 6th Ed.
11Detailed Analysis, Tax Management Inc. a subsidiary of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 464-2nd, A - 1
12 Strong’s No. 1344 1344 dikaioo {dik-ah-yo’-o} from 1342; vb AV - justify (37) be freed (1) righteous (1) justifier (1) [40] 1) to render righteous or such he ought to be 2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered 3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
13 House Report from the Revenue Act of 1938.
14 Roscoe Egger, former IRS Commissioner.
15 Strong’s No. 1228 diabolos {dee-ab’-ol-os} from 1225; adj AV - devil (35) false accuser (2) - slanderer (1) [38] 1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely 1a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer, … the author of evil, persecuting good men, estranging mankind from God and enticing them to sin, afflicting them with diseases by means of demons who take possession of their bodies at his bidding.
16 Strong’s No. 2839 koinos {koy-nos’} probably from 4862; adj AV - common (7) unclean (3) - defiled (1) - unholy (1) [12] 1) common 2) common i.e. ordinary, belonging to generality; by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean
17 Strong’s No. 4991 soteria {so-tay-ree’-ah} feminine of a derivative of 4990 as (properly, abstract) noun; AV - salvation (40) - the (one) be saved (1) - deliver + 1325 (1) - health (1) - saving (1) that (one) be saved + 1519 (1) [45] 1) deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation: deliverance from the molestation of enemies; …
18 Strong’s No. 2889 kosmos {kos’-mos}”an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government.” from komizo”to care for, take care of, provide for” or “carry off what is one’s own,” Bible and Concordance. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
19 Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd ed. Page 946.
20 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
21 Black’s Law Dictionary 6th ed.
22 Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd ed. Page 1085..
23 Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd ed. Page 681.
24 Bovier’s Law Dictionary.
25 Black’s Law Dictionary 6th ed.
26 Harrison v. Barker Annuity Fund; 90 E2d 286
27 Roget’s Thesaurus 765.1 prayer… application.
Spiritual abuse can be difficult to detect (SA 6) September 6, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Spiritual Abuse, culture , 1 comment so far
Spiritual abuse can be difficult to detectSpiritual abuse can be difficult to detect at first if you have never encountered it. In a manipulative church, the pastor or senior leaders have subtly positioned themselves to take the place of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives. They may try to put undue influence on the choices that people in their congregation are making. They might try to sway someone’s decision in a matter to keep them under their control, or to keep them from leaving the church. People in a controlling church are often told they cannot leave the church with God’s blessing unless the pastor approves the decision. They are warned that if they don’t follow the pastor’s guidance, not only will God not bless them, but they will also bring a curse upon themselves or their family. Leaving the “covering” of the church and the controlling pastor will result in some sort of calamity. When a pastor tells his congregation that those who leave his church or disobey his authority are in danger of God’s wrath, you can be sure this man is operating in a spirit of control. He is attempting to sow fear as a carnal means of keeping people in his church. “If you leave this church,” he may warn, “the blessing of God will be lifted from your life, and you will miss God’s will. You will be in rebellion, and you will open yourself up to all kinds of calamity. The devil will have freedom to attack you because you have walked away from God’s protection,” that “protection” being the one true church that he happens to pastor. Fear is the motivation behind such comments — not love. You can be sure that this type of reasoning is not from God. Jesus never motivated people out of fear. Fear is a form of manipulation, which the Bible calls witchcraft. Manipulation is sin. Instead of motivating people through love and a call to serve the body of Christ and reach the lost, a spiritually abusive minister will try to motivate through manipulation. The apostle John is called the apostle of love because he wrote so much about our call as Christians to walk in love. ‘There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear,’ he wrote in 1 John 4:18. By keeping people in fear, controlling spiritual leaders work to get good Christian people to build their religious kingdoms — by telling them that they are building the kingdom of God. We see this kind of prophet and priest in the book of Jeremiah. The controlling leaders are focused on their own needs being met, and the needs of the people are ignored. Jesus was more critical of the religious leaders of His day than He was of the sinners, and for good reason. The Jewish leaders put false religious burdens on the people for the sake of their own prosperity.
In this case, as it is in controlling churches today, the people were burdened with rules and regulations that needed to be performed to gain the acceptance of the religious leaders — in that day the Pharisees. Today, it is the manipulative spiritual leader. Many Christians today find themselves bearing the heavy load of the religious baggage in an abusive system. Around the world, hurting churchgoers struggle to earn the favor and approval of a modern-day Pharisee, all the while thinking they are earning the favor of God. The good news is that if you are in Christ, you already have God’s favor! And no amount of work for a spiritually abusive pastor will give you more acceptance than you already have. Jesus recognized the burden that was being placed on sincere believers in His time, who just wanted to do what is right. He saw them as sheep without a shepherd, even though they were involved in the religious rituals in the temple and synagogues.
In his book, Exposing Spiritual Abuse, Mike Fehlauer points out that Jesus saw these dear people as harassed: “This word conveys the idea of some outside force pressing upon the people, causing them to feel weary, distressed and downcast. This outside force was the religious system that placed its emphasis on outward appearances. It was a system that promised peace based on one’s ability to follow the prescribed rules and regulations. If one failed, then there was judgment.” “Not having a shepherd didn’t mean that the people lacked for those who told them what to do,” he continues. “There were plenty of Pharisees willing to do that. It meant they had no one to lead them to spiritual green pastures. A shepherd doesn’t drive his sheep as cattlemen drive their cattle. A shepherd leads his sheep to a safe place where food is plentiful and where they can find rest.” The term shepherd is an Old Testament metaphor as well. Ezekiel 34 contains an exhortation in which the Lord holds the leaders of Israel responsible for failing to care for the flock:
I wonder if these modern-day Pharisees realize that God considers their congregations as sheep without shepherds. Perhaps if they recognized how God viewed the situation, they would change their ways. The Christian seeking guidance from a spiritual leader must also be on the lookout for the dangerous trap of spiritual elitism that can produce an “us-and-them,” or a “fortress” mentality. This is a telltale sign of spiritual abuse. A church or pastor with an elitist attitude teaches, if ever so subtly, that no other church or ministry is preaching the pure gospel — or at least, no one is preaching it the way they should, in other words, the way that he is preaching it. An elitist leader will discourage members from visiting other churches or receiving counsel from anyone who doesn’t attend their church. If anyone breaks this rule, he or she is viewed as rebellious. We see a biblical example of this in 3 John 9–10:
Spiritual elitism is not a new thing in the church, but the apostle John rightly called it “evil.” A healthy spiritual leader, on the other hand, respects and encourages the other churches and ministries in a community, recognizing that there are several different expressions of the body of Christ. A spiritually free pastor realizes that no one denomination or local church can represent the love of Jesus to a city. A healthy church will promote revival in the entire Christian community. It will not promote the idea that it has some kind of doctrinal or spiritual superiority. In a healthy relationship, a spiritual mentor will provide godly counsel from selfless motives. He or she will want God’s will for your life. If that means that you will need to leave the church or ministry, then they will rejoice that you are being sent out to be a blessing in another place. A healthy pastoral relationship should produce peace in the life of the believer — another one of the seven keys of God’s guidance. If the godly counsel that you receive is not giving you peace or rest in your soul, it may not be from the Lord. Because man is a sinner, building healthy spiritual relationships will always be a challenge. Someone once said, “the perfect church stopped being perfect the minute I walked in the door.” God’s intention all along has been for the local church to be healthy, life-giving, serving, encouraging, and Christ-centered. But because He has chosen to use sinful men and women to lead His church, there will always be the possibility that a local congregation can fall into deception or unhealthy spiritual patterns. There must be a balance between humbly seeking guidance from a person of spiritual authority, and subjecting yourself to the manipulative practice of spiritual abuse. Finding that balance is an ongoing process in life. But it is a necessary struggle that will prevent you from becoming weary and worn on one hand, trying to jump through religious hoops that promise God’s acceptance and love — and on the other hand, from becoming an island unto yourself, determining what is right in your eyes alone. Both sides of this spiritual spectrum are dangerous, and should be avoided. Ask God to give you the grace and guidance to walk in the tension of these truths — opening yourself to the input of mature Christian leaders, while avoiding spiritual control. If you find yourself striving to gain the acceptance of spiritual leaders, or if your church constantly requires more and more of your life with no end in sight — and little encouragement along the way — then you may want to re-examine the church you are attending. We can protect ourselves from spiritual abuse by considering all the keys of God’s guidance in every major decision. |
|
|
Discipleship abusers (SA 5) September 6, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Spiritual Abuse , add a commentOne Source of the Contemporary Problem Where do these false concepts come from, and how have they become so widespread in the church? For evangelical Protestants such as myself, the fact that authoritarianism even exists among us is a supreme irony. The Protestant Reformers rightly argued that only God’s Word has such a place. And yet there are a large number of professing evangelicals today who actively teach that church leaders have not only the right, but also the duty, to impose a very heavy-handed authority system on the church. These people teach that to go against such “authority” is to go against God Himself! And it appears that they all share one thing in common: either directly or indirectly, they have all been influenced by an early 20th century Christian author from China.
When I first read this, it sent chills down my spine. In our spiritually abusive group, Watchman Nee was required reading. Nee’s influence had been exceptionally pervasive in the last half of the 20th century, but I didn’t realize how dangerous it could be until I was indoctrinated in it. I can testify that Ken Blue very accurately represents Nee’s teaching on this topic. Our leader was so enthusiastic about Nee’s teachings that he scanned Nee’s chapter on “delegated authority” into his computer and printed it out for our entire group to read. I’m pretty familiar with Nee’s concepts. It is obvious to me now that we neglected to weigh all of his teachings against the Scriptures, and since our leader was already highly authoritarian, we were actively discouraged from doing so. Since Nee had been a very popular author among many Christians whom we had previously known, and his titles were sold in most Christian bookstores — I had even once heard him cited at length as a trustworthy authority on our local Moody Bible Institute radio station! — we assumed that his books must be alright. And for the most part, perhaps it could be that many of Nee’s books basically are alright. After all, spiritual authority was not the only subject he wrote about. But Nee’s approach to Christianity was highly mystical, and there’s an old saying: “A mystic is never far from a mistake.” This is because, by definition, the teachings of mysticism tend to be very ambiguous, obscure and enigmatic. This makes them capable of more than one interpretation — very often an erroneous one. Mysticism also tends toward the legalistic notion that we are rewarded with a relationship with God on the basis of our works. Webster’s defines “mysticism” as “the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation” (p. 898, emphasis mine). Christianity, on the other hand, is the doctrine that it is possible to receive communion with God through simple faith in Jesus Christ. In mysticism, the individual is required to somehow spiritually “ascend” in order to achieve a mystical union with God. In Christianity, God Himself descends through the person of Christ, effectively bringing us true spiritual union with Himself. The ultimate ideal of most mystical systems is an impossible one, for Jesus said:
Mysticism requires something of us that we cannot do. Christianity presents that very thing to us as a gift: intimate, spiritual communion with God. But this leads to another irony: while on the negative side, mysticism tends to lead toward legalism, on the positive side, it tends to lead away from authoritarianism, rather than toward it. This is because mysticism emphasizes the individual’s ability to have a subjectively experienced personal relationship with God. If I can go to God directly, I shouldn’t need an authority figure over me in order to make it happen. So how did Nee’s mysticism become so authoritarian? The answer lies in the fact that Nee’s special brand of mysticism derived from his background in what is called “the Higher Life Movement” (or “Victorious Christian Life Movement;” or “Keswick Movement”). Like other forms of mysticism, it has its own built-in legalistic element: it has tended to teach its own brand of “perfectionism” — the notion that Christians can somehow be sinless in this life. Many Christians are not aware of this when they read Nee. But Higher Life mysticism also had a teaching that lent itself to authoritarian abuse. It taught that before Christians could lead a holy life they needed to be “broken.” This “brokenness” had to be accomplished in the area of the human will. So far, most Christians would agree with this, but with huge qualifications. For one thing, most biblically-informed Christians would quickly add that any “breaking” that takes place is something God does, not something we do. Mysticism, on the other hand, is based on what we do, and the Higher Life movement was essentially mystical. So it was natural for Higher Life teachers to emphasize what we must do, and in doing so, they fell into a grave error: the idea that Christian sanctification is essentially a process of “breaking” ourselves. But Christian sanctification is not essentially a process of “being broken,” let alone “breaking ourselves.” Rather, it is a process of being renewed by God’s Holy Spirit. Any “breaking” that takes place is primarily the breaking of the power of sin, not the breaking of ourselves. But Nee, following his Higher Life mentors, made this “breaking” of one’s self a major part of his ministry. It is only a small step from teaching that we must “break” ourselves, to the notion that others must help in “breaking” us. This small step leads to the worst forms of authoritarianism. And even though mysticism does not usually lend itself to authoritarianism, it almost always lends itself to a “guru mentality” — i.e., the notion that we need someone more experienced than us to act as our guide, because mysticism’s concepts are so far beyond the knowledge or understanding of most people. Nee simply took the inherent logic of the Higher Life Movement to its next natural step, and in the process he also blended it with principles that every Chinese person learned from birth, and which westerners have always found fascinating: the teachings of Confucianism. Confucius had taught that the loyalty of a child to a parent should be so strong, that if necessary, the child should cover up his parent’s misconduct. While not actually teaching that children should turn a blind eye to their parents’ sins, he did teach things that came close to blind obedience:
This concept of authority has been deeply embedded in Chinese culture for over two millennia, and Nee did not escape its influence, despite the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Christ. Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to Nee to conclude that he would approve of the authoritarianism that spiritual abusers practice in his name. Ken Blue was probably right to say that Nee “unwittingly” contributed to the problem, even though Nee’s teachings on spiritual authority are difficult to misinterpret Watchman Nee’s concept of “spiritual authority” gained a foothold in the church-at-large through three primary avenues:
The primary book in which Nee propagated his teaching was entitled Spiritual Authority. All of Nee’s books have sold remarkably well in western countries, and establishing a direct link between Nee and those who borrowed his concepts is not difficult, because they frequently list him as one of their sources. One individual in particular who listed Nee as a source in his unpublished master’s thesis has a concept of spiritual authority so strikingly similar to Nee’s, and has been so successful in promoting it, that he deserves special attention. His name is Bill Gothard. Bill Gothard is the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, USA. Since the mid-1960s he has popularized his concept of “Umbrellas of Authority” through an immensely successful seminar ministry which claims more than 2.5 million “alumni.” Gothard insists that every Christians must be under the authority of another Christian — someone “higher up” in a spiritual “Chain of Command,” and to make this idea more palatable, he writes:
The problem here is that the text of 1 Samuel 15:23 does not have anything to do with Gothard’s point. It does not say anything about authority acting like an “umbrella of protection.” Instead of providing us with a Scripture verse that does prove that point, Gothard diverts our attention to another issue entirely: he smoothly glides into a comparison of rebellion to witchcraft. If this was the only example of Gothard trying to use the Bible to prove an unbiblical point, that would be one thing. But it seems that Gothard does this habitually. On the same page in which Gothard cites 1 Samuel 15:23, he also misused two other Bible passages in much the same way. As Ronald B. Allen wrote (when he was Professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon),
Gothard’s view of authority is foundational to his view of the Christian life. He considers it “The Basis of Achieving Great Faith.” “The size of our God,” he says, “is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us” (Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 19), and yet he does not even attempt to provide a Bible verse to back up that statement! These words have a nice sound to many people, but one should pause and ask: “If this concept of authority is so basic, why isn’t it taught in the Bible?” Gothard never provides a biblical foundation for his “umbrella” teaching. He simply assumes it, and expects us to do the same. Again we should note that Gothard does not credit Watchman Nee with any of his ideas. Nevertheless, both Gothard’s and Nee’s teachings on authority appear so remarkably similar that it is reasonable to assume that Nee influenced Gothard. On the other hand, those in the charismatic who hold to the “Covering” teaching do sometimes credit Nee with influencing them on the subject of authority, and it is quite interesting to note the parallels between Gothard’s “Umbrellas of Authority” and the charismatic “Covering” doctrine. Gothard teaches that by getting under an “Umbrella of Authority” we accomplish the following purposes:
These three things sound nice, and no one can argue with the fact that they are worthy goals. The only problem is, the Bible does not teach that these are the primary purposes for authority, nor do the Bible verses Gothard quotes support this idea. And notice the parallels between this and the charismatic “Covering” teaching:
But the charismatic “Covering” doctrine has the same basic weakness as Gothard’s “Umbrella of Authority” concept:
The leader of the abusive group to which my wife and I belonged simply assumed that the teachings of Watchman Nee and Bill Gothard (and hence, the “Covering” charismatics) were biblical on the issue of authority. I have spoken with many people, and I have ready the writings of many others who belonged to intensely spiritually abusive groups that were based on these principles. I can testify, along with countless others, that the implications and tendencies that Moriarty describes here are amazingly accurate, and — thanks to Nee’s books, Gothard’s seminars, and the charismatic “Covering” teaching — amazingly pervasive. But the Bible does not teach that spiritual authority consists of some “Chain of Command” that we must follow, or some “Umbrella of Authority” that we must be under. In fact, the Bible teaches precisely the opposite:
Keeping The Baby While Throwing Out the Bathwater In all fairness we should point out that there was another side to Nee, one which Stephen Brown notes (I’ll quote Brown’s entire passage, because all of it is good):
Based on Brown’s quote from Nee, it’s very possible that if he ever witnessed firsthand what today’s spiritual abusers practice, Nee would have disapproved of it. But we’ll never really know in this lifetime. After all: he promoted their authoritarianism so forcefully in principle. And anyway, the damage has been done. The negative impact of Nee’s teachings has far outweighed any good intentions he might have had, and the scarred spiritual lives of countless Christians bear ample testimony to that. As Christians, our first duty is to obey God’s word. The writings of other people may help us do that, if they first help us to correctly understand God’s word. But no matter how good they are, they can never replace God’s word. And yet if we find ourselves turning to books by human authors before turning to the Bible, then we have effectively replaced the Bible with those books. |
Spiritual Terrorists (SA 4) September 6, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Spiritual Abuse, culture , add a commentOne of the most insidious features of Spiritual Abuse … … is the state of terror in which it leaves so many of its victims.
People who flee Spiritual Abuse are in a double-bind: in the very process of fleeing from the oppression that comes from being part of the group, they are terrorized by the threats of the leadership and various members — threats of dire consequences, punishment from God, and even eternal damnation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that members who leave the Watchtower Society will be destroyed in Armageddon. Members who leave the International Churches of Christ (also known as the Boston Movement) are told that they will be condemned to eternal torment in Hell. In the group I came out of, the leader kept telling us that no one “prospered spiritually” after leaving, and he not-so-subtly implied that many of them were never really Christians in the first place. (Translation: they’re going to Hell.)
In one form or another, to one extent or another, spiritually abusive groups elevate affiliation with their “body of believers” to a requirement for salvation — or at the very least they elevate membership in the group to a requirement for demonstrating that you are a Christian. In either case the result is the same: once you’re in, you can’t leave — at least not safely; at least not without jeopardizing your eternal destiny.
After spending a sufficient amount of time in these groups, escaping members are often totally defenseless when it comes to this kind of spiritual terrorism. They have come to the point where because they are no longer able to endure the very real fear and torment of being in the group, and they are willing to risk the potential fear and torment of being outside the group. But they frequently leave with the sincere conviction that their departure is a sign that they are going to Hell, and they have no idea how they are going to cope with that. For many going through the exit process, fears of eternal damnation become a constant preoccupation. Once they are fully out, the result is almost always severe depression, and they are sometimes suicidal.
As for me: I was too afraid to commit suicide, because all my assurance of salvation had been stripped away by my abusive group, and I didn’t want to arrive in Hell any sooner than I had to. I kept praying to God that He would give me whatever it was that I needed (repentance, more faith, etc.) to be assured of salvation long after I left.
Another woman who left our group before me remembers drawing a deep breath and saying to herself: “Well, this probably means I’m going to Hell … but I can’t stay!” Another former member moved hundreds of miles away to avoid the inevitable, searing condemnation of the members she left behind, some of whom had been old friends before she joined.
Occasionally, someone comes to us
who is terror-stricken in this way. Such a person is being tormented by the idea that God has forsaken them because they have left — or are thinking about leaving — a particular church, a denomination, a small group, a religious organization, or a local fellowship, and this kind of fear has been instilled in them.
Such a person is terrified by the simple fact that they even found this web site. “Perhaps it’s a sign of just how far away from God I’ve fallen!” they might think to themselves. And they sense the tentacles of Satan wrapping around their souls, and the cold hands of death grasping after them.
Such a person feels as though he or she is somehow permanently contaminated, damaged goods, poison to all other true Christians. He or she might look for a big church, and then hide in the shadows — or avoid churches altogether. He or she may have begun to wander numbly through, spiritually aimless, occasionally experiencing deep attacks of dread and panic.
“Does God love me?”
“Does God even care about me?”
“Is it too late for me?”
“Please, God — tell me it’s not too late! Just show me what I have to do to know that you love me!”
“But it was so nice at first …”
Time and time again we hear the same story: “When I first joined they were so loving, so kind, so united. … They treated me special. … I never experienced the kind of things I experienced when I first joined them.” And then?
“It was so gradual, and so subtle,” they tell us. “It was only after many months that I began to dread going to meetings, or getting together with other ‘brothers and sisters,’ or seeing our leader. But by then, it was too late! They had me convinced that this was a special work of God — a special movement of God’s Spirit — a prophetic voice for these times.
“To leave them was to leave God … and yet I knew that I just couldn’t take it anymore! I was always being rebuked for every move I made. I was always either being the object of harsh treatment, or having to stand by and watch as other people endured harsh treatment. If I ever questioned their judgment, they said it indicated that I was rebellious, carnal, unrepentant. It finally came to the point where I couldn’t bring myself to walk through that door anymore …
“But they told me …!” these people say, “They had told me over and over, even from the early days after I first started coming … They told me how spiritually dangerous it was to leave. They told me that people only left because their sinfulness was being confronted in the group, and they didn’t like it, so they left. I remember hoping that I would never be like them — and now I am!
“They told me that if I left …”
My experience was so much like yours. I know what it’s like to go personally through the things I am describing here.
So let’s look at some of the things spiritual abusers tell us will happen to us if we leave them:
“They told me that if I left,
I would backslide spiritually.” No matter how many Bible verses they quote, no matter how many examples of what happened to other people spiritually after leaving, this is pure bunk, and you don’t have to believe it.
Many, many groups have a habit of pointing to examples of those who left and went into a spiritual tailspin. But is this a negative reflection on the people who leave, or the group that they left? Much more often than not, when any group can cite a long list of such spiritual casualties, it’s a negative reflection upon them rather than a negative reflection on those who left. And yet how cunningly they twist it around!
Any group that leaves a trail of broken people should be avoided. Unfortunately, we can’t see the broken people who lay strewn all around us as a result of these groups, because typically when people leave spiritually abusive groups, they go into hiding and do not want to be found. So all that we have left is the word of the leaders, who testify at length to how “backslidden” these ex-members are. Perhaps they can even come up with particular “sins” these people are guilty of.
Some abusive leaders do not go into details about the supposed “sins” these ex-members are guilty of. Instead, they are so confident of their hold over remaining members that they are content to let them draw their own conclusions. Why did they leave? a member asks. They fell away, comes the ready response. End of story. After hearing that explanation enough times, remaining members naturally come to equate leaving with “falling away” from God.
But when we examine these ideas under the light of Scripture, that light exposes them for the utter nonsense that they are.
We do not come to God by going to a church, to a group, to an organization, or to any other human being on this earth. We come to God by coming to a person. We come to God by coming to Jesus. Jesus Himself said it:
| … “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” [John 14:6, New American Standard Bible.] |
Since we don’t come to God by coming to one particular group, it follows that we don’t leave God by leaving that group. The only way we can leave God is by leaving Christ, which means renouncing Him, and turning away from the faith.
And when we come to Jesus, we don’t have to come walking on eggshells. We don’t have to wonder if He will accept us. For He also says:
| “… and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” [John 6:37b, New American Standard Bible.] |
Jesus does not cast people out who come to Him, or drive them away. That is a key difference between Jesus and spiritually abusive leaders. A favorite verse that spiritual abusers like to quote in order to intimidate people is 1 John 2:16:
| They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. [1 John 1:19, New International Version.] |
Spiritual abusers will point to this verse and then point to those who have left their so-called “fellowships” or “churches” or whatever, and say, “See! The Bible says that these people were never really Christians in the first place, or they would have remained with us!” But this is a twisting of Scripture. By saying, “they went out from us,” John is not referring to one particular church body or group of believers. Instead, he is referring to those who have left the faith itself, and have denied that Jesus is the Son of God (as John points out in verse 22).
In fact, the Apostle John is referring to a very specific group of cultists in the early church who were called “Gnostics” (pronounced “NAH-sticks”). These were people who believed that they had “special” spiritual knowledge that other professing Christians did not have — much the same way that spiritual abusers today claim to have “special” knowledge, “special” gifts, or insight, or callings, or integrity, or whatever.
The Gnostics were very self-assured people. They could talk a big talk. They knew how to sound so lofty and spiritual that most people who heard them frankly could not understand them half the time, and they made a practice of questioning the spirituality of Christians in regular churches. Gnostics would sneak into a Christian church, start spreading around a bunch of pseudo-spiritual teachings, and draw little followings around themselves. When people questioned them they would turn-the-tables on them and accuse them of not being “spiritual enough to understand.” This had a tendency to make other Christians feel inferior, and rob them of their assurance, which is why the Apostle John spends so much time in 1 John assuring his readers that they are the ones who are really Christians, and not the Gnostics. Eventually these Gnostics would take their little bands and split off to form a new group. It was that situation that the Apostle John was addressing, not the situation of a believer fleeing an abusive group. In fact, were the Apostle John around today, I am convinced that he would find a lot more in common between the old Gnostics and today’s spiritual abusers than he would find between the Gnostics and people who leave abusive groups.
They told me that if I left,
I would join up with the enemies of God.” The leader of one group in Indianapolis, Indiana (USA) constantly warns his followers about “the web of darkness” that is lying-in-wait just outside their little semi-communal congregation.
He’s not talking about the World Wide Web (although, coincidentally, he discourages his flock from surfing the web because of supposed “spiritual pornography” that is on it, which is supposedly much worse than regular pornography). He’s talking about the informal network of ex-members who have either been kicked out or walked out on their own, and who have begun communicating in order to support each other through the terrible process of exit and re-adjustment to the real world outside their little cult.
People in the group become conditioned to warnings about “the web of darkness” waiting out there to consume them once they leave. One-by-one as members leave or are kicked out, their reputations are smeared and their characters are assassinated by leader. Most of the time, the leader doesn’t have to say hardly anything. The simple fact that he ordered someone to leave is enough to persuade the other members that the person is in some kind of sin. When someone leaves on their own, it is usually preceded by many solemn warnings about “the web of darkness.” Then, when it is discovered through the grapevine that an ex-member has been in contact with other ex-members, the remaining members say to each other and themselves, “See! It’s inevitable: once you leave the ’spiritual protection’ of our group, you fall into ‘the web of darkness!’”
If it were not for the fact that members take this so seriously, and that it causes ex-members many sleepless nights and many bouts with hysteria, we could write it off as perhaps a very bad joke that is in very poor taste.
The goal is obvious: to scare people into staying, and to create a feeling of utter isolation for those who have left or are in the process of leaving. Many people who have leave the group think that while those other people left one day get a phone call from an ex-member, and panic is the inevitable result.
“Oh no!” they shudder to themselves, “It’s true! I’ve fallen into ‘the web of darkness!’ This means that I’m one of them!”
People who have recently left an abusive group have been known to refuse calls from ex-members who had been out for a while because of this very fear. This keeps them isolated and afraid, and more likely to return to the group in order to avoid “God’s wrath.”
In my ex-group, the leader spoke of the “network of sick people” who were outside of our group, ready and waiting for us to leave the group so we could “plug back into them.” Other leaders use various other metaphors and analogies. It is a very common theme. And a very unbiblical one.
There is nothing in the Bible that says you cannot leave one group to join another group of Bible-believing Christians, especially when you have been abused by the group you are leaving.
“They told me that if I left,
they would have nothing more to do with me.”
This can be a very painful experience. Sometimes it involves more than friendships, but also involves families. Some families have more than one generation in an abusive group, or sometimes siblings or other relatives join together. In its most extreme form this is referred to as “shunning.” Several months before writing this, I was standing at the cash register line of a local Christian bookstore. Eventually I noticed that standing only five or six feet to my right was a woman who was still attending the abusive group I left.
A sudden wave of various emotions came over me. Should I try to get her attention? Should I greet her? Should I say anything to her?
For a moment I wasn’t sure it was her, but I stared at her long enough to assure myself that it was — and the sheer length of my stare would have been enough to make anyone on the receiving end of it feel uncomfortable.
And yet, there she stood, standing as straight as a post, her cold, stony face staring straight ahead, refusing to turn to acknowledge my presence.
She was shunning me.
She could hardly have avoided seeing me and my wife standing to her left as she approached the counter. She would have had to walk right by us just to get there.
I began to scan the rest of the store over my shoulder, and sure enough: I saw her husband not that far away, his back strategically turned toward us, looking at some of the merchandise.
Surely at least one of them must have seen us! I thought to myself.
They were shunning us. Just as our abusive ex-leader had warned us.
Of all the painful experiences of my life, this ranked somewhere near the top of my list. But by this time more than four years had past, and God’s healing in my life was working to soften this blow.
It is not simply the pain of being cut off from important relationships that is involved here. What makes it all the more traumatic is that those who shun us also blame us. They say things like, “It is you who are shunning us! We are simply acting toward you physically the way you are acting toward us spiritually.”
They often know how to say just the right thing to confuse us, to turn the tables on us, and to make us feel guilty. But don’t believe it. There’s not one shred of evidence in the Bible to justify them shunning you simply for leaving their group. They are simply misusing the Bible in a vain attempt to justify their own sinful attitude towards you.
“They told me that if I left,
I would bring evil into the lives of those around me.”
Abusive groups are very good at making their members feel like worms on the undersides of slimy rocks. They spend a lot of time and energy working on tearing down any positive or hopeful thoughts that members may have about themselves in order to foster dependence on the leader. It is their association with the group (and ultimately with the leader) that must provide them with feelings of self-worth and adequacy, or the leaders fear they will lose control. Therefore, the leaders tell their members that leaving the group is proof that they never really “cleaned up their act,” never really “repented of their sins,” never really “saw the Kingdom,” never really “understood the Gospel,” and so on. This arouses all the conditioning and training to think of themselves as scum-buckets that they received in the group.
As a final ploy, if the confession of personal sins was emphasized in the group, the leaders are often known to bring up these past sins, throwing them in the faces of those attempting to leave.
As a result, people leave abusive groups with a pervasive feeling of being spiritually contaminated, of being some kind of “spiritual poison” to others, of being “damaged goods.” Ex-members who have received this kind of treatment are often known to become reclusive. They may visit other churches, but remain in the shadows to avoid all personal contact with others.
Sometimes the leader will even contact the church to which the ex-member has fled, and make all kinds of accusations against the ex-members character. This is what happened in my case. In a letter from my ex-leader to my new pastor in December 1992, my ex-leader made all kinds of false accusations against me, knowing that the group would back up anything he said. The letter even advised my new church to “return” me to the group for “correction!”
Fortunately I had a pastor who wasn’t born yesterday. He spoke with my ex-leader on the phone, questioned him very carefully, and finally said to him, “So far you have not mentioned anything that would justify Biblical church discipline.” My new pastor concluded (correctly) that the real issue was one of disagreement between me and my ex-leader, which my ex-leader was trying to trump up into over-inflated charges of spiritual and moral waywardness.
My new pastor told the truth. He accurately appraised the situation, and called it for what it was. This comforted me somewhat, but not entirely, because over the course of my 5-1/2-year involvement in the