Bully Pew: How to protect abusers and re-victimize victims

 In the midst of the latest rounds of posts, Nathan Eshelman's Gentle Reformation post Bully Pew came across my desk. Since I haven't read Bully Pulpit, the book that he is critiquing, I'm going to deal mainly with his arguments. I'll try to summarize the arguments rather than try to take this point-by-point.

DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) 

This is the typical tactic abusers use to deal with accusations. They portray themselves, or those they support, as victims. Unfortunately Eshelman takes this tactic, which, in my opinion, doesn't help his case, by implying that he is going to become the victim merely for saying that not everything is spiritual abuse. He also does this more directly:

In the midst of that project, a beloved former professor of mine and churchman has resigned from the ministry, in part, because of what is currently being called "spiritual abuse."

This quote seems to imply that a "beloved" = incapable of spiritual abuse professor got victimized by angry congregants to resign. This reminds me of Jimmy Hinton, whose father sexually abused perhaps hundreds of children. An article about the situation says:

After his dad's arrest, Jimmy Hinton was shocked to see how many people responded with compassion. In retrospect, he says, it makes sense given the powerful role that he had occupied in their lives. Hinton had led many in his congregation to Christ, as well as baptizing them and marrying them.

Jimmy remembers the conversations. "When he got arrested they would ask me 'how's your dad doing?'" he said. "At first I would answer it. And I would be polite but then after a while, I just thought – 'not one person has asked how my dad's victims are doing.' And so I started to answer people. I'd say 'well he's doing fine. It's his victims who aren't doing well.'" (source)

Those who are not victims do not see the abuser in the same light. Often, abusers, like John Hinton, are enabled in their abuse by projecting a certain image to enlist supporters. Those same people will circle the wagons and defend them from seemingly absurd accusations. Larry Nassar was well-respected by his peers, but he was an abuser. Eshelman's reference to his 'beloved former professor' demonstrates a naive lack of understanding of abusive systems.

Eshelman goes on to claim that he will be the victim of accusations of gaslighting, misogyny and defending abusers. Maybe it would be worthwhile for him to pre-examine those accusations and figure out how to revise his paper instead of forging ahead with a paper that is easily discarded as such.

Cognitive Dissonance

Eshelman continues to poke holes in the book by questioning Kruger's definition of spiritual abuse:

This definition is difficult. Imagine a man who is leading and is convinced he is “seeking biblical and kingdom related goals” but is being accused of being domineering, bullying, and intimidating. I understand that each of these things can occur and do—but they are so broad as terms that I would caution reading ministries through this lens. 

He thinks he’s building God’s kingdom. Was that bullying? Was he seeking to be domineering in what he just said? Again, I understand the definition, but I am afraid it is not the full story. Witch hunts are started with only half stories. 

Cognitive dissonance is an abusive tactic where a person's judgment is subtly undermined to be replaced with the judgment of the abuser. This is the approach Eshelman takes in multiple places. His implication is that someone who feels like they are being spiritually abused cannot possibly understand the nuances of that abuse sufficiently to make the claim that they are being abused. It's utter horse crap. Pastors and elders who say (like Rhoda does in his paper) that abused people are incapable of judging sin need to ask each other if this applies to Jesus. Jesus has to step off the throne of judgment in murder cases, because he was murdered? Why is the RP church digging people out of whitewashed tombs to wave over their congregations? These guys need to be driven out of their ordinations!

If a pastor thinks he's building God's kingdom by abusing his flock, he's just fulfilling what the Bible says: 

They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. (John 16:2-3)

I don't think that Jesus is saying that, as long as a pastor thinks he's doing the will of God, everything is okay. Perhaps Eshelman is not saying that either, but it's not a defense at all. A pastor who spiritually abuses someone "in the name of God" is still a spiritual abuser. The RP church is often confused with the ends and the means. Creating joyless soldiers for Christ to establish a Christian nation might seem a worthy end, but the means - abusing children in the name of Christ - is certainly not the way God has designed families. We don't need to complicate this by pretending that unwitting spiritual abuse is somehow non-abusive. We might say that the consequences are different, or that the process of repentance is different, but abuse is abuse. More on this later. I believe my father abused me for the advancement of the kingdom, but the natural result of that is a difficult, joyless relationship with my heavenly father that is still in the early stages of healing. Spiritual abuse is so much more destructive, because the very people who are ordained as being representatives of God are hurting people in the name of God. Narcissistic church leaders make God look narcissistic. As an example, choosing to ignore Stephen Rhoda's narcissistic rage is creating an impression among the congregations that narcissistic rage is okay for a spiritual leader. If rage is okay for a spiritual leader acting on behalf of God, then what does that say about God? Whether this is the intent or not, the culture of the GLG presbytery, and likely the RPCNA, through inaction on spiritual abuse, is to paint a picture of God as a spiritually abusive God.

Red herring/Genetic fallacy

Eshelman waves the red herring of egalitarianism in front of the reformed audience. Certainly a scholar who believes the Bible teaches women elders cannot be trusted to discern Biblical teaching! Especially a professor who is teaching NAPARC students were the organization has disavowed women elders.

To follow this to the logical conclusion, PRTS (Eshelman's seminary alma mater) cannot be trusted because they teach students that singing unbiblical hymns in worship is okay. So, this whole argument is ridiculous on its face. Baptist John Piper is quoted from RP pulpits even though the RPCNA excommunicates parents who hold Piper's beliefs. CREC Doug Wilson is widely revered. The RP seminary teaches Biblical Counseling even though Jay Adams was OPC. Saying that anything Kruger writes must be suspect simply because of one unrelated position he takes is faulty reasoning. It might be reasonable if Eshelman could find some incorrect egalitarian principle Kruger ties to abuse, but simply saying that egalitarians have lost any Biblical authority is a dangerous and hypocritical argument.

Boiled Frog / Plugged Ears

I wonder how pervasive spiritual abuse is in the church? Kruger seems to think that most of our churches are filled with abusers in leadership, at least that is how he presents the numbers. Kruger says that “63% of survey respondents said they had experienced some form of spiritual abuse, including coercion, manipulation, and and the defense of such behavior with a divine rationale.” Kruger, 5. That is a huge number! Scary actually, because there’s a bogey man in most of our churches at that rate. But it gets worse! Kruger says, “Whatever the hard numbers are for spiritual abuse, there is a good reason to think most instances still go unreported.” Kruger, 5.

Eshelman concludes that if a majority of Christians are being spiritually abused then we'd read more about it other than sensationalist cases: 

If spiritual abuse is as common in more than half of our churches as the non-discerning reader may believe; then why are the examples sensational rather than examples from presbytery records in the more common corners of our average churches where pastors are doing ordinary things through ordinary means? I am not saying Kruger’s wrong—he may not be at all--but I am saying that we need to push pause and open our Bibles and discern what’s here. 

Perhaps he doesn't read presbytery reports? The majority of what the GLG presbytery dealt with last week was spiritually abusive. Let's see, Ben Manring being rebuked because he challenged a session candidate? Sounds abusive to me. How about Sparta RPC admonishing an adult member who believes that the requirement for parental obedience ends at adulthood? Sounds abusive. How about Bloomington and Stephen Rhoda calling for spiritual discipline of any people who report abuse to the media.

Actually, maybe that is why abuse is underreported, Mr. Eshelman? I knew I was being spiritually abused in the RPCNA. I also knew that reporting spiritual abuse would go nowhere because virtually every instance of spiritual abuse I've seen rise to presbytery level has been justified by the fellow presbyters (like Manring). Taking "Average Joe" spiritual abuse to the media not only isn't sensational enough to get to air, but it subjects me to further spiritual abuse and church discipline.

Mr. Eshelman doesn't see spiritual abuse because he doesn't want to see spiritual abuse. He calls that denial discernment, as he argues that only a "non-discerning reader" would believe that 63% of Christians are being spiritually abused. I don't think of ostriches burying their heads in the sand as discernment. Spiritual abuse is a constant in the RPCNA and especially in GLG, but he refuses to see. Maybe his subconscious mind has told him that acting on spiritual abuse erodes his pastoral authority. 

Wolves and abusive systems

As I said, abuse is abuse. Part of the problem in the RPCNA is that it is very hard to differentiate between wolves and a wolvish system. Maybe in prosecuting abuse, there is a difference between an abuser who is abusing because he believes it to be God's will, versus an abuser who is abusing because he delights in the abuse. I will say that it is mostly a moot point. If a child lies beaten to death on the floor, does it really matter to the child whether they were beaten to death because the parents were serving God to the best of their abilities and thought they had to "beat until sweet", or because the parents were violently asserting their dominance with no regard to God?

The RPCNA has both. As with any church, there are pastors who are abusing because they want to domineer, and there are pastors who are abusing because the RPCNA system is abusive. Either way, members are being abused. I prefer the definition of spiritual abuse in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. 

Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment.

In other words, spiritual abuse is defined by the effect on the victim rather than the state of mind or actions of the perpetrator. When members are told not to go to the press, their spiritual power is weakened. When members are disciplined for openly questioning the direction of the leadership within the bounds of the church, their spiritual empowerment is weakened.

Johnson and VanVonderen go further to explain red flags of abusive systems:

Power posturing:

Power posturing (or positional authority) is claiming power by illegitimate means. For example, the authority of an elder does not come from a denomination or ordination, but by the calling and work of the Holy Spirit. That work is also in play when we converse with elders. True elders will tell us what the Holy Spirit is saying in our hearts. False elders will say things that are not in keeping with the voice of the Holy Spirit. It is these false elders who need to use the posture of church authority and the threat of church discipline to exert their own influence over the members. If it is truly the will of the Holy Spirit that Christians not talk to the media, then what is the point of threats from presbyters? If it is, instead, the will of ungodly power brokers not to be held accountable, it makes perfect sense that false authority would be used to silence members.

Performance preoccupation:

Playing into this, abusive church systems want to have the appearance of righteousness. They want the appearance of peace where there is no peace. They want children sitting quietly and attentively, even if it is not developmentally appropriate. I think this is a primary reason why abuse of any sort is hidden, because the abuser is intent on their appearance to outsiders. I think this is a better phrase than "legalism" because in the RPCNA, "legalism" is used to say that people believe we are saved by our works. However, even in a "sola fide" reformed church, there can still be a preoccupation with how things look on the surface, and that is endemic in the RPCNA. People must wear masks that hide their true selves from others in the church, and they must not need help. When people sin within the congregation, it's more important that things "look okay" than being forthright. This is the core of the IRPC issue. They perceived it more important to keep up appearances of a peaceful church than acknowledge the crimes committed. They perhaps didn't want to follow through on protection measures, because those measures might visibly expose that there was a "situation" in the church

.

If presbytery sided with Ben Manring, it would mean that a session abused its power. That would set a precedent that sessions cannot act with impunity. The downside of Presbyterianism is that the foxes are guarding the hen house. We see this play out in the case of Jared. He can write papers on how the wonderful presbyterian system holds pastors accountable and how he desires that accountability, but when he is on the receiving end of that accountability, he protests and walks away. So it is a false peace - a preoccupation with the appearance of holiness. As long as presbyters defend the spiritual abuse of their peers, the system seems righteous and accountable (even though it is not!), but when the system does what it is supposed to, all of the narcissistic abusers come out of the woodwork to restore the false peace and destroy those who dare do what is right.

Unspoken rules:

These are sort of the elephant in the room types of rules. I often dealt with the unspoken rule that elders may never be questioned or challenged. I've brought up many unspoken rules in the RPCNA. First of all, many of the unspoken rules are unspoken because they would sound utterly ridiculous if written down. "Christians may never talk to the media." or "members may only tell their story if it's warm and uplifting." or "it's immoral to tell someone something that an elder did to you if it casts said elder in a negative light". Also, many of these rules, hearkening back to the definition of spiritual abuse, weaken those in the system who need to be strengthened and strengthen those who would harm.

Lack of balance:

Paul talks about these two extremes (extreme subjectivity vs. extreme objectivity) in Corinthians and Galatians. For the Corinthians feelings were everything and having rules just took away from the feelings. For the Galatians, the rules were everything, even if those rules led to a system where Christian freedom and joy were destroyed. Not surprisingly, the spiritually abusive system within much of the Evangelical church is rules-based and joyless. There is no need to take a victim-centric approach because there is no such thing as a victim. A victim is somehow stuck in an emotional attachment to their victimhood and hasn't objectified it away. Once the church has acknowledged that a crime was committed, that's all that's necessary. Peace can be restored. "Victims" who want further acknowledgment or protection or help are just weak-minded fools!

The RPCNA is clearly guilty of these four, and, as such is a spiritually abusive environment. This is seen in presbytery documents - assuming your eyes are not clouded in delusion.

DARVO revisited

While I agree (and the authors demonstrate) that spiritual abuse can be perpetrated against those in power. The mere fact that this can and does happen does not justify the status quo abusive system. The Presbyterian system is already designed to protect those in power from lay members. 

The fact that women falsely accuse men of rape does not prove that we should not investigate rape claims. The fact that sinning members who don't want accountability accuse elders of abusive discipline doesn't mean that the church should ignore complaints.

That's why, as Jimmy Hinton and Boz Tchividjian assert, churches need to have policies for investigating these matters before they happen, not inventing them on the fly. If a church has a policy of suspending pastors while allegations are investigated, then they don't have to decide whether to suspend or not when allegations come. If a church has a policy to report allegations to authorities, they don't have to determine whether they are credible beforehand. Then the actions of the likes of Keith Magill become matters of policy violations.

Didn't report to authorities: illegal and policy violation
Didn't inform the session: policy violation

Told the victim to be silent: policy violation

Told the victim not to tell authorities: policy violation

Also, consider how the above played into the patterns of spiritual abuse: Magill used power posturing to silence victims when he had no authority to do so. Magill used the system of unspoken rules - that it is insubordinate to ask for an outside opinion of what the pastor tells you - to avoid scrutiny. Magill's performance preoccupation of having a good church kept him from exposing sin in the congregation and exposed children to further abuse. Magill used the existing lack of balance to suppress the natural expression of righteous anger. A mom who was not pre-groomed would not have accepted Magill's coverup and would have demanded immediate action.

Also, all of these play into the broader definition. Magill used spiritually abusive tactics to disempower the mother and the victim. They were made lower so that he (and the father) could retain their positions of authority. Their spiritual power was suppressed. This was done in the name of God. That is why spiritual abuse is so dangerous and why spiritual abuse should disqualify a pastor or elder from any spiritual office.