Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse

L. Oakley, K. Kinmond

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137282873
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology of Religion
• Index: Social Sciences

Providing a balance of empirical research and practical concerns, this book explores the definitions and historical context of spiritual abuse, outlines a process model for the different stages of spiritual abuse and includes strategies for therapists working with survivors of spiritual abuse.

1

What Is Spiritual Abuse?

Lisa Oakley

Definitions and difficulties of definitions

A fundamental issue in any text on a form of abuse is definition. Yet, obtaining a clear definition is often fraught with difficulty (Yancey & Hanson, 2010). Nonetheless, it is important to identify a definition of the abuse under consideration. The impact of limited research into, and understanding of, the experience of SA has led to the current position where defining the term SA is highly problematic. Indeed Ward (2011) notes that ‘there is no consensual definition of “spiritual abuse” ‘. The lack of familiarity with the term SA has been illustrated during seminars and presentations on this topic at both academic and non-academic conferences (Oakley & Oakley, 2005a, 2006; Kinmond & Oakley, 2006; Oakley, 2006a, 2006b; Oakley & Kinmond, 2009).

The most common question posed at the start of presentations is ‘what is spiritual abuse?’. Ward (2007:13) suggests that defining SA is problematic because ‘it is somewhat new in general literature and to date is sparingly used’; indeed ‘the phrase “spiritual abuse” was rarely seen in literature at all until around the last ten to fifteen years’. This lack of understanding about SA was reflected in the Church Experience Survey(CES) (Oakley & Kinmond, 2013) we conducted where 37 per cent of respondents stated they had not heard of SA.

The history of spiritual abuse

One of the important issues in reaching an understanding of SA comes through an awareness of its historical context. That is, where SA has come from and how it has developed and changed over time. The term is a contemporary term. However, the practices it is used to describe are documented as having existed in the church context throughout history (Johnson & VanVonderen, 1991). Indeed in Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor, first published in 1656, the issues which current literature describes as elements of SA are documented. These included pride in ministers, inability to manage challenge and contradictions, maligning of others and inability to recognise self-failings. This suggests that although the term SA may be contemporary the issues it describes have been problematic for Christianity throughout history (Blue, 1993).

It is interesting to note that whilst the ‘church’ has been, and is, willing to proffer opinions on a wide range of social issues external to the church context it has remained noticeably quiet on the issue of SA until relatively recently (Blue, 1993). This silence has resulted in the limited amount of literature in this area to date, the majority of which is written from the 1990s onwards.

It is evident that the practices being described as SA have a clear historical context building upon foundations from an earlier movement known as the ‘shepherding’ or ‘discipling’ movement which originated in America. This movement began in the late 1960s and became the subject of publication and concern due to its problematic use of authority and expectations of obedience (Plowman, 1975).

This movement developed against a backdrop of a society that was increasingly liberal and secular. It was in this context that a movement that preached moral integrity and conservative values became attractive to some. The use of ‘house churches’ (small groups acting as communities) was also an added attraction of the movement to many. These small communities provided a surrogate ‘family’ or social support network which was now absent for many individuals as the extended family continued to break down, with many individuals reporting the attraction of the community and relational emphasis within the movement that they now struggled to locate within wider society (Moore, 2004).

One of the fundamental principles of this movement was the role of ‘shepherds’. These were leaders within the groups. Each shepherd was responsible for ‘discipling’ a small group of individuals. This involved being responsible for and engaging in mentoring and building relations with these individuals. Usually, those assigned to the shepherd for discipling would be part of his ‘house church’ (Moore, 2004). The shepherding movement grew rapidly. Digitale (1998 cited in Moore, 2004) suggests that at its height there were approximately 50,000 individuals involved in the movement and this included members of 500 churches in America alone.

However, the relational principle on which the movement was built began to cause concern within church organisations and society. In 1975, Plowman discussed the growing problem of ‘heavy shepherding’ within the charismatic movement. The term charismatic comes from charismata, spiritual ‘gifts’ described in the Bible as being given by the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost. These gifts are listed as words of wisdom; words of knowledge (information given directly from God to an individual); faith; healing; miracle-working; prophecy; distinguishing of spirits; tongues; and interpretation of tongues (1 Corinthians 12 v 8–11). Charismatic churches hold the view that these ‘gifts of the spirit’ are still in evidence and part of the Christian faith today and these gifts can be an integral part of services in the charismatic and evangelical context.

Services may include a time where individuals are able to share words or pictures they believe God has given to them with the rest of the church body. Conversely, many mainstream denominations do not share this belief in the gifts of the spirit being evident today and church services would not include these times of sharing. Therefore, the inclusion of such gifts is seen to characterise the charismatic church (Greig & Springer, 1993; Hyatt, 1998).

Plowman’s (1975) comments about heavy shepherding in the charismatic movement include a reflection on the role of shepherds, suggesting that this role evolved and extended to become a controlling role defined by identifying faults in others. The role of the ‘disciple’ changed to submitting to and consulting the shepherd about all personal decisions, even including marriage partners. Shepherds were used to implement the movement’s principles of authority and submission. Heavy shepherding was seen to tie people into a relationship involving blind and unquestioning obedience. The system was found to be extremely hierarchical, utilising a pyramid leadership structure with the shepherd at the top holding the power and the disciple at the bottom with no power (Okeyan, 2000). Criticism of this movement continued to develop and in response some of the shepherding movement was disbanded.

Nonetheless, the principles of shepherding, including an emphasis upon obedience and submission, remained in the religious consciousness. These were to be redeveloped through the growing charismatic movement of the 1990s (Vintzant, 2003). Thus, some of the principles of the heavy shepherding movement were seen to persist. However, the literature discussing such practices began to describe them as elements of SA. The first book on the topic of SA was published in 1991 (Johnson & VanVonderen, 1991).

Therefore, the experience of SA has a clear historical context. It is not a new phenomenon but the key elements of this experience have moved away from heavy shepherding churches to be found more within mainstream church organisations.

Where does spiritual abuse happen?

The literature on the topic of SA in the 1990s primarily located this abuse within charismatic and evangelical churches, suggesting a possible denominational bias (Enroth, 1992). Interestingly, there has been growth in the Pentecostal and evangelical streams of Christianity over the last century (Hyatt, 1998; Peck, 2004; Brieley, 2006).

The rise of heavy shepherding was a response to the changing cultural contexts that individuals encountered, possibly as a result of their search for ‘safety’ and security. Similarly, Giddens (1991, cited in Kinnvall, 2004) suggests that cultural changes have resulted in a society where there is a great deal of ontological insecurity. That is, where people have no certainty or firm trust in what the future will hold for them. The continued loss of the extended family, relationship breakdowns, redundancy and the current credit crisis are suggested to result in a sense of existential anxiety where individuals are unsure of who they are and where they belong. The search for ontological security has led some individuals to explore spirituality to provide meaning in their lives and there has been an explosion in spiritual events, literature and organisations over the last decade (Croft et al., 2005). An increasing number of individuals have turned to organised religion, which offers a clear sense of identity and the benefits of group membership (Paloutzian et al., 1999).

However, the turn to organised religion has not resulted in an increase in members of traditional church structures (Peck, 2004). Church attendance in the UK continues to decline each year (Peck, 2004; Brierley, 2006). Conversely, membership of churches based upon charismatic and evangelical principles has continued to increase over the last 30 years (Peck, 2004). Individuals choosing to join the Christian faith appear to be attracted to the charismatic, evangelical and fresh expressions of churches which seem to offer greater freedom in worship style but also a direct relationship with God and a clear sense of community (Peck, 2004; Thinking Anglicans, 2012). Arguably, these branches of Christianity offer a personal relationship with God in a society where individuals feel increasingly isolated and lonely. Indeed Killeen (1998:762) described loneliness as ‘an epidemic of modern society’.

Further, these denominations have clear beliefs and membership appears to provide the individual with clear guidance and a sense of identity (Peck, 2004). The existential anxiety individuals are reported to experience can be addressed by membership of an organisation which provides a strong sense of identity and belonging (Kinnvall, 2004).

Although it is possible to propose a clear rationale for the increase in church attendance in these denominations, it does not provide an explanation as to why SA may be more prevalent within these churches. One explanation for this could be the emphasis on the Holy Spirit, gifts of the spirit and the informality in service and leadership structures; these allow for the manifestation and maintenance of SA within charismatic and evangelical churches more readily than in other streams of Christianity, where the accountability of leaders is much more clearly structured (Enroth, 1992).

It seems the very factors that attract individuals to these churches and the kind of individuals these churches attract could be causal factors in the creation and maintenance of SA. The free nature of charismatic churches, the emphasis on power, idealisation of ministers, lack of leadership structures and accountability, and lack of transparency in decision making have all been suggested as causal factors in the development of SA within these denominations (Parsons, 2000; Appleton, 2003).

The emphasis within these denominations upon a ‘high’ view of leadership, resulting in a system where leaders cannot be challenged, has added to the possibly problematic nature of these denominations (Hall, 2003). Enroth (1992) also suggests that some churches with charismatic principles have been more subject to issues of authoritarian leadership, manipulation, excessive church discipline and spiritual intimidation than their more mainstream counterparts. Appleton (2003) comments that the charismatic culture has the most clearly identifiable issues of accountability and transparency.

However, it should be noted that even within mainstream church contexts abusive leaders can hold office for considerable time periods without any form of monitoring. This claim is supported by Beasley-Murray’s (1998) self-report survey of church ministers, which found that 77 per cent had no formal job description and that only 36 per cent of ministers underwent any formal job appraisal and that these could be between six months and five years apart. Beasley-Murray (1998) concluded that the survey supports the notion of a lack of accountability within the mainstream church context and indicates that abuses of power can also be identified in this context. Interestingly, there has been no update on Beasley-Murray’s original research.

There is a growing realisation that SA cannot be readily confined to charismatic and evangelical churches (Fehlauer, 2001) and there is a very real danger that we leave other church denominations without scrutiny or suspicion if we assume such confinement. Enroth (1994) suggests that many Christians would seek to endorse the notion that SA happens only in churches at the fringe of society, thus leaving other mainstream churches in the UK safe. However, he calls for caution about this view point and comments that ‘Spiritual abuse can probably be found almost any place in the world where there are large numbers of Christians’ (Enroth, 1994:35) and that ‘Spiritual abuse is far more prevalent and much closer to the … mainstream than many are willing to admit’ (Enroth, 1994:139).

In the empirical work for my doctoral thesis and the CES (2013), the issue of the denominational prevalence of SA was explored. This partly informed the choice of participants in the doctoral work. Initially, I felt that the work would refute the claim that SA occurred more readily in charismatic churches. Personal experience and discussions with survivors seemed to challenge the notion that SA sat neatly within denominational boundaries. The inclusion of narratives from Church of England and Baptist denominations illustrated that SA was experienced within mainstream denominations and not solely confined to charismatic or Pentecostal denominations.

It would be very pleasant if this were a firm conclusion but it is not. Even though SA has been identified across denominations, reviewing the participants’ church background (for the doctoral research) does show some clustering of SA in Pentecostal charismatic churches and this was the case when reviewing all the participants who offered their story. This may be accounted for by a variety of factors including the snowball sampling effect (Robson, 1982). That is, those who initially came forward were from a Pentecostal background and, therefore, this led to others from a similar background offering their stories. A further explanation can be found in a simple reflection on church attendance. The Charismatic Evangelical Church is the church stream that is experiencing growth in the UK (Peck, 2004). There is significant decline in church attendance generally and especially within traditional denominations (Peck, 2004). Therefore one suggestion is that as there are growing numbers entering charismatic churches there are more possibilities for abuse.

Nonetheless, the recent CES was completed by participants from a range of denominations and 68 per cent of participants suggested they had felt manipulated in church and 74 per cent had felt damaged by a church experience. Again this illustrates that an understanding of SA must include an acceptance that it can occur in any denomination whether or not it is more prevalent in some. A discussion of why it may be more prevalent in some denominations does not equate to suggesting that it only happens in these denominations. However, to assume SA is solely denominationally specific is a mistake and not supported by the narrative evidence.

Why is culture important in understanding spiritual abuse?

In addition to understanding that SA has a basis in history and can occur across denominations, it is important at the start of this text to understand how people’s experiences of SA have been framed by the culture they are in. The definition of SA that has been developed in this text is a reflection of the culture in which the experience was lived.

There is an understanding in other forms of abuse that definitions cannot be separated from the culture in which behaviour occurs. For example, Sternberg (1993:818) comments that any definition of child abuse is ‘inextricably linked to culture’. One of the reasons for this is that there are cultural variations in child rearing and therefore in what does and does not constitute acceptable treatment of children. A consequence of different cultural understandings of the treatment of children is the inability to produce a universal definition of child abuse (Yancey & Hanson, 2010). Similarly, I am arguing that what constitutes SA will be influenced by the individualistic culture we exist in within the UK.

In such cultures individuals live as separate and autonomous beings. They live and experience life from a position of ‘self as centre’ (Smail, 2005:22). Smail’s (2005) argument is that our life is experienced with a focus upon self. Within western culture self is central to individual experience; indeed, self is the starting point from which we make sense of the world (Pratt, 1991). There is a clear focus on self as the creator and explainer of our experiences. That is, life is experienced as it impacts individuals and from their perspective.

The narratives collected clearly presented SA as a deeply emotional and intensely individualised experience. The depth of personal pain was evident throughout. For many individuals the story of ‘what it did to me’ was central to their accounts of SA. Further, it was frequently their rationale for participation in the research. This personal focus resonated with encounters in conferences and discussions with other survivors and my own experience of SA, which was deeply emotive and personal.

Equally, the focus on self within western culture leads to a focus on individual blame. Within the experience of SA the focus is often placed upon the personality of the abuser or the abused rather than the spiritual context in which it occurs. Zimbardo (2007) suggests that we have a dispositional bias, often asking the question ‘who is to blame?’, rather than examining the context in which behaviour occurs. He uses the analogy of a ‘bad apple’ and suggests we always focus on the apple and what is wrong with it, rather than looking at the barrel in which it is kept. Similarly, in SA the focus to date has often been on those who abuse or experience abuse rather than the spiritual context in which the abuse occurs. This can be explained by the individualistic culture in which the experience of SA takes place and the focus on self within this culture.

The argument then can be made that any definition of SA must be informed by the culture in which the abuse occurs. Therefore, a definition of SA in the UK must include a focus on the personal impact of this abuse as this is how the abuse is experienced within this culture but it must also include mention of the context in which this abuse takes place.

Who abuses who?

A further issue of focus in current writing is the position of the abuser. The published literature to date contains only minimal discussion of anyone except the minister as the abuser and anyone except church members as the target. The writing in this area is almost exclusively focused upon SA of church members by their minister (Johnson & VanVonderen, 1991; Blue, 1993, Enroth, 1994; Ward, 2011). I am suggesting that this can be thought of as a top-down model of abuse. That is, SA is directly related to power positions within the church. Abusers are in a position of greater institutional power than those they abuse. The direction of the abuse is shown as top-down, from the leadership at the top of the model down to the t...