Sometimes I have interactions in real life or on this blog that raise an unexpected emotion. My response, then, is to try and figure out, is this emotion a healthy thing or an unhealthy thing. Is the interaction a healthy interaction or an unhealthy one.
My experience of spiritual abuse within the RPCNA was likely different than many others. There was no "sin" that the leaders decided they needed to eradicate from my life, (generally) no fundamental disagreement with church leaders that had to be resolved. Instead it was a response to the fact that I was born and raised in a family that was intelligent, and took church doctrine very seriously. Leaders did not want to be questioned on decisions they had made that were against church doctrine, and since RP leadership is about doctrinal superiority, they chose to belittle me and poison the well rather than resolve differences.
That said, there are other aspects of spiritual abuse that are thematic in the RP church, and I think a recent interaction touched on a sore spot. Here is an article that discusses a lot of the aspects of spiritual abuse, but I'm going to focus on one question: https://sojo.net/articles/interview/what-spiritual-abuse-and-how-do-we-heal-it
Vulnerability, especially in faith communities, can be a meaningful way to establish deep human connection. But spiritual abuse shows there’s a flipside to encouraging vulnerability. What role does vulnerability play in spiritual abuse?
I think that connection to vulnerability is, to me, what is part of the wicked nature of spiritual abuse as it connects to sexual abuse, because grooming is a huge part of both forms of abuse. It’s an attunement without containment. It’s a capacity to read and see another person really well — to not only see their vulnerability, but to invite it, to set a table that creates a fantasy of safety.
Jesus’ fury is really reserved for the religious leaders who are exploiting their religious authority — those of us with skills to set the table for vulnerability: good therapists, good pastors, good spiritual leaders. I don’t see many places where Jesus gets furious and actually says language like, “Woe to you! It would be better for you to have a millstone around your neck and cast into a lake than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Which, basically, like, you should be brutally killed. If you have access to someone’s innocence, their vulnerability, their formation, and you exploit that, Jesus has some pretty powerful things to say about it.
A common theme I saw in my own life and the lives of other RP members is the exploitation of vulnerability. As the article says, vulnerability is a GOOD thing, but it really hurts when it is exploited. I know of a person who went to an elder to counsel about a family issue. It was a huge step in vulnerability. I think the elder handled it with appropriate safety to a point, but when the elder felt it was beyond him, he talked to the pastor, betraying the confidence. The pastor had other information and it turned into a monthly inquisition at session meetings. That underscored, at least in the RP church, the importance of putting up good walls and not letting people know your "dirt", but that is not what the church is meant to be.
However, this exploitation of vulnerability makes RPs very wary of people who, whether really or deceptively, try to invite vulnerability. In my past, it's shown up as some form of "let me fix you". So, I told a session that I didn't feel loved or respected, and they said essentially, yeah we're not good at that, but instead of taking steps to meaningfully address that, we've decided to instead point out that you like to question us and that's the sin we want to work on. To me, this is clearly abusive.
Take Doug Wilson's dishwashing example. The husband has likely dumped all the household chores on his wife. He won't lift a finger to unburden her (other than to wash the dishes once to demonstrate his expectations), but the implication of the discussion is that now that he's identified this sin in her and brought it to the attention of the church, all of the church's resources are going to be expended on "fixing" the dish washing and not on questioning whether the husband has completely unrealistic expectations of how work is divided in the house.
So, commenters on this blog shouldn't be too surprised when what to them seems like an honest offer to help comes across as "set[ting] the table for vulnerability" coupled with the repetitively exploitative tone of "let me fix you". I have trusted and safe people in my circles and I go to a safe church. I do recognize that there are things that need to be fixed in my life. On the other hand, I think I'm rightly angry with people whose sole purpose seems to be belittling me and trying to somehow goad me into lowering my boundaries so that they can investigate my sin and fix me. No thanks! I may never have healing from spiritual abuse in this lifetime, but I'm not going to just walk around talking about my internal spiritual struggles with every self-proclaimed spiritual superior that feels like they can fix me.
I would say that this is a general truth. Most, not all, licensed mental health professionals will adhere to confidentiality and ethical guidelines (or they lose their license!), but not all are able to guide people towards healing. I think the typical local church is much worse - they tend to guide people to behavioral compatibility, not healing, and they don't follow ethical guidelines. Maybe my "questioning" comes from a place of sin, but fixing the external behavior doesn't heal the wound, and, likely once the Session decides that this is something that needs to be fixed, it's no longer between me and the Session, but something that gets spread (gossiped!), with the best of intentions, because of course the church leadership would only spread information like that to help the person, not to make other members think that whenever this person "questions" it's coming from a place of sin, right???
And, back to mental health professionals. I haven't studied this enough to be an expert, but I don't think it's characteristically helpful for a counselor to listen to a patient for as long as it takes to diagnose them and then say, "okay, stop right there. You have anxiety disorder. If you tell me all the deepest stuff that gives you anxiety, I'll provide you with my one page 'how to overcome anxiety' checklist!" Instead, a counselor has to establish trust and generally (from my experience) ask questions that help you understand your own issues and then maybe help, once you've figured it out, to come up with healthier strategies to deal with the issues.
