I believe that the leadership and system at Bethlehem Baptist Church are spiritually abusive. I do not say those words lightly. It has taken us some time to get to this point. When we wrote our open letter and our one month retrospective, we deliberately avoided the term "spiritual abuse" because we weren't sure it fully applied. Since writing the letter, we have learned a great deal. We've learned more about what spiritual abuse is, we've heard more personal stories, and we've also learned more about what the elders have been aware of and done in the last years. Collectively, that new information made us realize the actions we thought seemed "off" were actually far more sinister than we initially thought. I now feel comfortable using the term "spiritual abuse" to describe what the elders are doing and have done at Bethlehem. Why?
1) The term fits. Some definitions that I've run across in my reading:
Spiritual abuse, then, is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him, as a means of accomplishing what he takes to be biblical and/or spiritual goals.
-Michael Kruger
Spiritual abuse is a form of emotional and psychological abuse. It is characterized by a systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context. Spiritual abuse can have a deeply damaging impact on those who experience it.
This abuse may include: manipulation and exploitation, enforced accountability, censorship of decision making, requirements for secrecy and silence, coercion to conform, control through the use of sacred texts or teaching, requirement of obedience to the abuser, the suggestion that the abuser has a 'divine' position, isolation as a means of punishment, and superiority and elitism
-Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse
Hannah and I have talked to over 30 people (at last count) since we started asking about things at Bethlehem. While every story was different and each person had different (but overlapping) concerns and reasons for leaving, I see a clear pattern of domineering, control, misuse of power, and the like at Bethlehem by the leadership.
We've heard stories of broken lives, significant emotional damage, depression, and other serious wounds. Multiple people have said, "if it were not for the grip of Christ, I would have lost my faith." Not all of them used the term "abuse" themselves, but we see a clear pattern. We've heard of elders pressuring congregant members by claiming the elders' decision to dismiss grievances was "the sovereign will of God." We've heard of an elder shaming someone by claiming they weren't being forgiving if they continued to flee from an abusive workplace at Bethlehem. For ourselves, we've received personal emails from elders (one of which we have made public) using Scripture and appealing to the good things done at Bethlehem to pressure us against speaking up. The label fits: the elders have used spiritual authority to coerce and control the people under them. Using the proper term "spiritual abuse" is our way of truth-telling.
2) Properly naming something as "spiritual abuse" helps to cut through the fog and confusion that is present in abuse dynamics. One of the hallmarks of abuse is how it fogs things. Abuse disorients a person by confusing, isolating, and undermining through misinformation, informational isolation, emotional manipulation, and the like. Frequently in the past season Hannah and I have been so confused, "What is happening? What is going on? This seems concerning, doesn't it?" People hearing the term "spiritual abuse" can have a category and can tap into other resources to find help and perspective. It was as I learned about toxic systems and this common pattern that I gained clarity into what was happening. Naming what the elders have done restores clarity and perspective. What has happened is not ok. It is abuse. It's happening to individuals, and it is subtly happening to the congregation.
I've read a number of books on the topic (some currently in progress, marked with *): The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse*, When Narcissism Comes to Church*, Something's Not Right, and Redeeming Power. Not every detail of every book applies directly to Bethlehem, but the books as a whole are relevant and applicable. I would commend all of them (especially Redeeming Power).
People can also read about spiritual abuse online. Michael Kruger (President of Reformed Theological Seminary) wrote multiple blog posts on the subject: Intro, Post 1, Post 2, Post 3, Post 4, Post 5. Brad Sargent has been thinking and writing about spiritual abuse and toxic systems for years. I haven't read every single post of his, but what I have read I found helpful.
3) The term "spiritual abuse" properly highlights the impact and harm of what the elders have done. In our open letter and retrospective, we used the term "misuse of authority" or "misuse of power." Those terms, while also accurate, give the impression that the impact or harm falls on the "authority" or "power" as if the elders simply used the wrong side of a hammer to hammer a nail. This hides the horror of what the elders have actually done. The problem is not using the wrong side of the hammer, but rather wielding the hammer against a person rather than a nail. The elders have wielded power, authority, and Scripture against people they are charged to care for. Instead of following Jesus' call to use power to sacrifice, build up, love, serve, and support, they have used power to criticize, shame, silence, and crush the people of God. This is an atrocious and horrific act, rightly deserving the negative connotations of the word "abuse." We avoided "abuse" in our original documents because at the time, we did not know if those connotations were warranted and hoped they weren't. I believe those connotations are warranted now. The elders are spiritually abusing people.
4) By using the term "abuse," we properly highlight that this is not a typical interpersonal disagreement. Abuse is, by its nature, outside of typical interpersonal dynamics. The tools we use for interpersonal dynamics (let's meet face to face and talk things out, each person needs to own their own sin, etc) sometimes are not appropriate in cases of abuse or must be used very carefully. For example, when Darby Strickland came to do a seminar on marital abuse, she pointed out that one major danger to avoid when it comes to abusive marriages is mis-framing it as a "sin on both sides reconciliation" problem. When a husband (or upon occasion, the wife) has harmed their spouse repeatedly, casting the now broken marriage as a reconciliation problem only serves to compound the harm on the already wounded party. It is true there is going to be sin on both sides, but in cases of abuse, it is not a 50/50 split. The side with the power is responsible for major sins because they have misused their power and harmed people. The other side does not have sins at the same level of culpability (though everyone would admit they have some sin). To talk about it as a 50/50 split only further clouds the issues at play: one party is harming another.
The same mis-characterization as a "reconciliation" issue applies with the current situation at Bethlehem, where the elders have frequently cast the situation as "disagreement" or "reconciliation" issues by saying things like "it's like the separation of Paul and Barnabas," and blaming the three pastors who resigned for not staying to work things out. Using the term "spiritual abuse" helps us understand why this is an entirely different situation from "reconciliation." Interpersonal disagreements are not the problem here, not why the three pastors left. The problem to be dealt with is stopping the harm at Bethlehem
5) Applying the label "spiritual abuse" to Bethlehem also appropriately highlights the subtlety of spiritual abuse (see also the title of the book mentioned above: The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse). Not all abusive actions are easy to spot, especially if you aren't the person who is in the crosshairs. We might recognize a problem when a pastor is yelling from the pulpit, but frequently, abuse starts smaller and more subtly. Additionally, abuse can be more subtle because the same action may land on two different people in two different ways, dependent on the relationship (how much do you see the person as a spiritual authority) and how much the person knows about the context (what is the pastor/elder speaking into?). In abuse contexts, the term "grooming" refers to manipulating a person to make them more vulnerable/confused/isolated. These actions are subtle and occur over time.
Here are some examples of more subtle acts of spiritual abuse by elders that I've observed at Bethlehem:
- silence and a lack of support from leadership who are appealed to (shaming and shunning)
- a long prayer from the front about keeping the proper tone before a possibly contentious church meeting (using spiritual authority to control/shame)
- using rhetorical power to draw attention to the public nature of concerns (and claiming this disobeyed Paul's commands against lawsuits) rather than addressing the concerns (misdirecting the discussion away from concerns, shaming and using Scripture to silence)
- talking about how much better that church plant is doing because even in its disagreements, it hasn't broken into the public and the people are still at the table (seeming to shame those who have brought concerns publicly and chastise the pastors who have left).
- saying that the people who filed grievances were "complaining people," as if to say "you don't want to be associated with them, do you?" (information and relational control)
- claiming that Julie Roys was not a reputable source and falsely claiming that she "threatened" an elder to get him to talk (information control).
Some qualifiers:
1) Not every leader at Bethlehem is responsible in the same ways. There are varying levels of culpability and complicity. Some are more active in exercising authority/control, others are active in supporting/clearing the way, while others are simply continuing with their normal actions, lending support with their presence. Brad Sargent has a helpful primer on the pyramid of different roles that people can take on (both leaders and followers) within a toxic/abusive system.
2) I don't believe that every person ought to use the words "spiritual abuse" when describing Bethlehem. Some may feel more comfortable using different terms and that's ok. Different people can only speak about what they know. Perhaps they believe that what they see may be concerning but doesn't rise to the level of abuse. We were there too. There may be other reasons for avoiding the term "spiritual abuse" too. We're fine with leaving that between each person and God.
3) My hopes are higher for South Campus than for Downtown and North. I think Pastor Jason's qualifier in his resignation letter is appropriate: "It applies most specifically to the Downtown elders, but also to the North elders at various points. It applies less to the South elders, but some of the dynamics I address show up in all-church meetings."
4) I will be elaborating on this post in the future and am happy to provide specific examples to those who ask. This post is not intended to extensively prove my case for why the term "spiritual abuse" is applicable (though I sketch out my points), but rather to explain why I believe it's correct and helpful to use the term "spiritual abuse" when referring to Bethlehem.
5) The term "spiritual abuse" does not have to be the final word on Bethlehem. I believe, even with the negative connotations, it can be a word of hope. Once properly diagnosed, we can seek proper treatment and help. Even during dark days, God's invitation remains:
Let the wicked change their ways and banish the very thought of doing wrong. Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously. (Isaiah 55:7 NLT).
No comments:
Post a Comment