Abuse of Pastoral Authority
A Detailed Case Study

By
Carmen Brill
December 2004
Revised April 27, 2006

This article is closely associated to the article “Guilty Until Proven Innocent?“ found on this site. It is the author's account of an incident of Spiritual Abuse that happened to her and a sad account of what can happen when pastors are given too much authority by congregations or individuals. "It is not abusive when a spiritual leader, who has the responsibility to make final decisions, uses his/her best judgment and chooses to go against your opinion. It is abusive, however, if someone's opposing view is used to devalue a person's spirituality....those in spiritual positions of authority can violate our trust. It's possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or doesn't 'behave' spiritually the way you want them to. When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a person's standing as a Christian - to gratify you, or your position or your beliefs while at the same time weakening or harming another -- that is spiritual abuse." 1. The church visitor will be referred to in the third person. Correspondence between the church visitor and the pastor after the event will be analyzed in Part 1 and this compared to methods of control used by sect leaders. Then a scriptural analysis will follow in Part 2 addressing other pertinent issues. Further additions to the text documenting some recovery and changes in the situation were added to another page, they are referenced at the bottom of this article. Revisions are additions of new reference material about spiritual abuse that have recently come to the author's attention.

After reading Twisted Scriptures by Mary Alice Chrnalogar, who has released the names of denominations where some of her patients had suffered, the author has decided to do the same. The type of the church that the author was abused at is Reformed Baptist. The name of the pastor will not be mentioned. The names of all other participants except the church visitor will be changed to protect their privacy. The church is located in Italy, within the Milan metro area, but not in down town, nor is it affiliated with Reformed churches in the area. The author would like to emphasize that not all nor even a majority of churches of that denomination/kind are abusive and the mention of that name is not meant to single out that particular denomination, but provide information concerning the situation in which the author was spiritually abused. Spiritual abuse can be found in practically all denominations whether they be mainline, Pentecostal/charismatic or bible oriented.

Part 1

This would be the third time that the church visitor attended Sunday services (the first time she attended was the 24th of October 2004) the pastor having asked her a few days earlier if she would attend. It was the 14th of November, 2004. Those of the congregation welcomed her. The pastor welcomed her. The sermon considered the breaking of the bread and mercy to Christian sinners. The pastor asked all of those present to search their hearts in preparation for communion. The church visitor also did this. Then it was announced that the visitors from other sister churches that were present could partake of communion but the pastor then announced the church visitor by name, saying that she could not partake of communion because she belonged to no church. No mention of this had been made in previous communications between them whether by telephone, e-mail, in person, or any other form of communication. The woman tried to take the humiliation in stride but was unable to and broke out in tears, which made the situation even more embarrassing. At the end of that service the pastor gave the woman a sheet of paper containing the information about that church’s form of “restricted” communion. A few of the congregation members attempted to console her and one of them told her that of course she still could continue to attend services. No one openly regretted the actions of the pastor. Here in her words from a letter to her parents:

“After the service I talked to the pastor for a minute. He said that he thought I would have known about the non-participation already. He then gave me a sheet of paper with church information and made an appointment to see me on Thursday at his home.”(she is referring to Thursday, 18th of November).

A meeting between them had been previously arranged at the home of the pastor (Saturday 6, November at 5:oo PM.) and proofs were given of salvation (as far as can be proven by word of mouth), knowledge of scripture and good will towards most if not all beliefs of the denomination. If the pastor was not satisfied with those proofs he did not say so. He did not request other proofs or mention the church’s belief in “restricted” communion. When asked what information should be consulted to learn more about the beliefs of that church, a book and diverse pamphlets were given, none of which contained this information, since it is church-specific and not necessarily denominational. The woman was told to read the London Confession of Faith of 1689. She had already done this previously and that specific information was not contained in the document.

After the service the woman returned home by car and was fortunate not to have had an accident, as her eyes kept filling with tears. Upon arrival at home she was unable to read much less concentrate on the text given to her by the pastor. Thoughts kept filling her mind as to why anyone could keep her from communion which was her right and even duty as a Christian. Feelings of humiliation and grief washed over her, and she even began to worry whether she was worthy to receive communion. She did not really go through that day or the next five normally but went mechanically through cooking dinner for the family and other daily duties.

She felt isolated. She knew that her husband, having a very different faith from her own, would not understand her dilemma. She could not burden her children with such a situation. Her parents live in another country and could not be reached by telephone because they were on a trip away from home that weekend. She had no relatives nearby. Her only friends that shared a faith similar to hers, "Marco" and "Maria", were also on a trip away from home. She being a foreigner, living in Italy for three and a half years, not in full control of the language, could not rely on a circle of close friends and relatives for support. She knew that to keep everything inside of her would be unhealthy, and having a penchant for writing, she started to write everything that went on in her mind and heart on her computer. Since she was already preparing a website about false doctrine in the church after about three years of study, she decided to format her thoughts and feelings in the form of an article, an open letter which she decided to send to the pastor as her response to the humiliation. This took a few days to write and she was able to reach her parents that returned from their trip on Tuesday the 16th shortly before finishing the article. Her mother told her, that since she had no pastor to talk to, she could phone or e-mail their pastor.

Let us look at some excerpts of this first attempt of hers to organize her thoughts and feelings (the full letter contains 8 pages of text which would be too lengthy here). For the sake of reference all letters or excerpts will be numbered. The message was e-mailed to her parents and their pastor, asking him for advice. He was going on a trip and said that he would read the letter and respond later. The message was sent per e-mail to the pastor that had refused her communion on:

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:47 PM.

1.

..............“Is there a great sin in my life that should keep me from joining other believers?……

………..I do see the need for a congregation to protect itself from evil outside influences, scripture entreats Christians to remain pure. If I am so evil then why did anyone welcome me in the first place? Why would anyone want to associate with someone so base? If I had some scriptural proof of my sin I could confess it and repent, but I cannot find the place in scripture where such a sin (if repented folly is a sin) is listed as being enough to keep one out of a congregation. What then is the sin that keeps me from the bread and the wine? What have I done that the others have not? Is it a sin to be a foreigner, to live in a foreign country especially when God has sent me here? If one believes in the sovereignty of God then I certainly cannot be here by accident. Everything I have experienced, leaving family, leaving friends, leaving everything familiar behind, experiencing isolation, deception, delusion, pain, even grief will turn to my good and hopefully can benefit others as well…………

……..was that the sin I have committed? What sin can cause such great grief? What error could have been so gross? Why did I have to cry myself into sleep and wake up only to cry again? I would even have cried out loud if it would not terrorize the neighbors. This is why I must write of my pain rather than cry out. It must have an exit. How can pain in the soul become so great that even my head and limbs hurt? Why was I even so sick with grief that I had to retire to bed? I have been shaped and molded by God before as clay pots must be. Sometimes it can hurt very much but that kind of pain is understandable and necessary, but no pain of the heart has ever stabbed or stung like this. The only thing even remotely comparable to this would be childbirth, which I have experienced first hand and which I would not afflict even my worst enemy with, much less a dear brother or sister in Christ. This is what can happen if nourishment is denied to the elect. Need anyone experience depths of grief like this? Why should this be allowed to happen to someone else?...............

……….I tried to follow God’s command and assemble with the others but it was not permitted. Not permitted by whom? Perhaps I am one of those for whom there remain no more sacrifice for sins, but if I am I would like to know it. Who has accused me and what am I accused of? Why must I stand with the condemned?.................

………Have I committed one of these great sins? Am I perhaps an adulterer? Could I be a false apostle, a deceitful worker as in 2 Cor 11:13? I teach in a small way but if I err no one has told me so. Rather, I seek out false doctrine, criticize it and correct it. I provided a sample of my work. If what I wrote was wrong where are the scriptural proofs? Where is the challenge? Why does no one tell me? My rapport with God has not been broken. It has increased. Surely he would have told me of such a great sin as he already has admonished me of smaller ones. Why must I suffer so? I have suffered ridicule before for being a Christian, but this is different. Why do my brothers cause me so much anguish? It is clearly wrong to hurt another brother so. If it is this painful in an oasis I would rather have no part of it. Manna was sustaining enough, and loneliness can be borne. But it is cruel to welcome someone and then shun him thus, suddenly, without reason, without accusation. Wandering in the desert can be caused by sin, but traveling is also necessary to reach another oasis if you must leave one to travel. I have lived in two other countries beside the one I was born in, in five different places all together. I know what it is to wander physically, I know how the alien feels. In fact I feel doubly so because I do not feel at home anywhere on this planet and long for the kingdom to come. If I were part of an oasis myself I could not bear to cause such anguish to another brother without him being proven of a crime, without it being just.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent!....................

……..I would have expected such behavior from heathen, but not from brethren. Love should be the hallmark of a Christian, but I have found exclusion and isolation greater than that which I experienced by the dead as I was one of them. This is no better. It is even worse. This is no Christian example. Non-Christians have treated me much more hospitably when I needed companionship and I hope that they are blessed for it. One would think that after years of grief, I would be well acquainted with it. But unlike Much-Afraid my grief does not turn into joy. The pain that she felt when she took the hands of Sorrow and Suffering lessened over time, but my pain does not diminish. Each time I take their hands it hurts just as much as it did the first time. Suffering for Christ I can take with more ease, that is a burden that is lighter to carry, Sorrow unjustly at the hands of my brothers I cannot. Living in a dead world causes grief, and I do feel occasional joy at the fact of being alive and at the prospect of helping others to life as well. I have felt much grief at the hands of unbelievers and have had to forgive brothers for offenses, but no brother has ever refused me what Jesus freely offered…………..

………But after one has been bought by the blood of Christ, his body broken so that we can be healed, are we not clean? God the Father receives us not because of what we have done but because of who has done it for us. He receives us for the sake of his son who was innocent. He requires us to forgive our brothers and have mercy on them just as he had mercy on us. “Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, ‘Execute true judgment and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: and oppress not the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.’” Zech 7:9-10…………..

……….Even though one may be wary of a stranger, food is not refused him at mealtime if he has been invited in. If one will not feed strangers, then one should not invite them in. Even the heathen give their children food when they ask for it and not a stone or even a snake. Matt 7:9-12. I had not felt that I was a stranger. God does not treat me as one. Just the opposite, I have been disciplined as a child should be. Prov 3:11,12; Rev 3:19-22. He has shown his love for me as well by providing for my every need. 1 Tim 6:17. He promised that nothing would be withheld from me, not even his son. Romans 8:28-39………..

……….. But if there is a congregation that withholds the bread and wine from children of God that have not been proven to be wayward, that have not sinned against them, that have not been proven to be disobedient to God, that have been baptized, I cannot be a part of it.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent!....................

……………The unspeakable grief that I have experienced should not be thus caused to another child of God and I cannot become part of a congregation that approves of this. I can forgive this if it is caused to myself and indeed already have, but if it happens to another, what then? It must never happen again. I will not stand idly by and let it happen. I have suffered much grief and deception in the past and it is my vocation not only to preach the gospel as it is for every Christian but also to warn my brothers and sisters wherever I find them and keep them from hurt and harm if I can. I would not boast and say that I am a warning as I perceive Ezekiel to be, but I must remind and warn. It is not a thankful job but necessary………….

………The only Christians that were isolated from the brethren were those that had committed grave sins against the others and/or against God himself. To my knowledge I have committed no such sin and have not been addressed as in Matthew 18: 15-17. I have been treated like an “heathen and a publican” even though I gave what I thought was enough proof to show that I am at least one of the brethren, if not a Peter or a Paul. What did I reveal about myself that was so vile? The truth is not always pretty, but is my soul so black? If the Blood of Christ and the witness of the Holy Spirit is not enough then what is? He is the seal given to us by God which God will accept when the time comes…………….

…………How can we request more from newcomers whether they be babies in Christ or already grown? I do not understand how this lack of love and mercy can be justified by scripture. Jesus showed us mercy while we were still sinners. Eph 2:4-5, “But God who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;).” We will also be judged for our actions, but as Christians that have obeyed or shirked our duties, and judgment takes place after mercy. Jn 5:28-30; Acts 17:31. Should we not do the same with others as Jesus did for us and show mercy before we show judgment? 1 Pet 4: 7-10.”

Above we have a clear view of the woman’s feelings of grief, humiliation and the resulting anger that followed. The article may have been an overreaction to the situation but necessary for her self-therapy since at the beginning there was no one available to help her. She did realize that she had been rejected by man and not by God, but the emotions remained and despite this knowledge even intensified. What was the pastor’s response to this? All messages are original, as written, in English. The message arrived per e-mail on:

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:26 AM.

2.

"Dear Carmen,

I am surprised at your reaction to the situation. I cannot explain to myself your response to our position on the Lord's Table. I know brethren that think that the "open" view is the correct biblical view, but they never reacted toward us because we hold a "restriced" position (not absolutely "closed" as you defined it) on the Lord's Table. Even if you might prefer the "open" view, does your personal preference justify your reaction? Are we not free to hold our own view? And if we have our own view are we to be condemned with such harshness as you did only because we differ from you in a secondary matter of Christian doctrine? Do you think to have a valid reason to warn other Christians against us you said without even knowing us?

Considering the tone in which you wrote and the opinions expressed about the principles that order our church, I ask you to take some time to think over your disagreement with our position and your negative evaluation about our church before attending again one of our meetings; in fact I'll inform the church members of your negative assessment of the principles they chose to practice. Moreover, since the letter you wrote seem to imply that you think to know better than the Pastor who opened his home to you and to your family - to the point that you consider your duty to "warn" others against the teaching of our church -, I think that the best thing I can do is to wait for a change in your attitude before continuing our relationship. And even if you should change attitude, your behaviour in this situation will hinder your acceptance as a member of our church for a longer period than was expected when we first met you.

Your sincerily in Christ,
Name of Pastor"

How did the woman respond to this?

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:22 PM

3.

"Dear Pastor …………,

I agree that the tone of the letter was probably too harsh. But that did reflect my feelings, if not my logic. I apologize if I have offended you and your wife for your hospitality. I do appreciate it more than you will know. Perhaps if I had known about the concept of closed communion sooner I would not have reacted so vehemently, although I am sure that I would not have approved. But I think that it was a valuable experience nonetheless. I have experienced something firsthand that other dear brothers and sisters in the Lord should be spared.

You are right in keeping me away from your assembly. I could not bear to see this happen to another. In fact, I know someone else that this has already happened to. My mother was not given communion at a ……... church in ..........., USA, where she lived before. She was very, very sad and cried also. She was allowed to continue attending the church as they were the only bible-believing church in the area, but since she could not receive communion she never officially joined the congregation. I did not know this before, but she told me this week. The ………… church which my parents currently attend practices open communion [afterwards it was said that their church practices restricted communion]. I cannot agree with the doctrine of closed communion. As far as it being a secondary matter, if it were it would not have been withheld.

Attitudes may change, but until someone is able to convince me fully that Jesus approves of this form of closed communion and the sorrow that it can cause, (or unless someone convinces you that open communion is correct) it must be so that I cannot attend your assembly.

If it makes you feel better, I will tone down the article before publishing it on the web.

I still have one book and some pamphlets that belong to you. Should I return them directly to you or should I give them to the couple that lives nearby to bring them to you on Sunday?

Yours sincerely,

Carmen Brill"

The pastor’s response to this was received on:

Thursday, November 17, 2004 10:01 AM.

4.

"Dear Carmen,

Thank you for your email. I would like to ask you a few questions just to help you to think about your reaction towad us.

Was it not possible for you to discuss about this matter without harshness and vehemence, as Christians should do? You hide yourself behind the futile excuse of "sparing" other dear brothers and sisters. But where are "your" brothers and sisters? You do not belong to any of God's visible families! You have no one to spare! Moreover it is not your duty. You transgressed the word of God becasue you have not been called to spare, to warn and to defend anyone, but, as yourself wrote in the first paper this is the duty of pastors. You should have appreciated our carefulness in this confused age to help people to order their life according to the word of God. In fact - I repeat it - we do not practice "close communion", but a more "resticted" form of the open position, because we allow to partake of the Lord's Table all professing Christian who belong to an evangelical church. You are not being sincere when you say that you were rejected because we practice close communion and you acted contradicting the precepts of the Bible speaking negatively with Marco about us: when you first came to us you spoke negatively about him, now you went back to him spaking negatively about us! You attended only three of our meetings and you already passed judgemnet on us! Now you want to publish on the web your word of condamnation saying contrary to the truth that you were exposed to a church that practice close communion. You did not even mention the document I gave were it is plainly stated that we do not practice closed communion. If this is the attitude you have with your husband I do not marvel that "your" faith does not appeal to him!

One last observation: you compare your experience with that of yor mother, but we did not say that you could not receive comunion among us, we only asked you to allow us to know you and your family a little more. Another family that was visiting with us last Lord's Day did not partake of the Supper, but they understood our motivations and they did not complain and next week are coming back to our meeting. Oh, but you are the "expert" on heretics, they don't! Shame on you!

Carmen you are too self-confident and self-centered. And the fact that you feelings determined your behaviour shows the full extent of your immaturity. I pray that God may humble your heart opening your eyes to your sin and corruption.

May the grace of God be with you,
Name of Pastor

P. S. You can keep the books. They are a gift made with kindness."

A few details that are unknown to the reader must be expounded on. The woman sent a full report of what had happened to her parents on the 21st of November including all of the correspondence and an explanation. The next entry is from that letter.

5.

"There are some things in the reply of the pastor that must be explained here. The "document" mentioned near the end where it is stated that closed communion is not practiced is one sheet of paper printed on both sides (author’s note: only one side of the printout was relevant) that I received after the service where I did not receive the communion. Also, he mentions Marco, a Christian friend that lives here in ………... I never spoke negatively about Marco but only mentioned that he encouraged me to attend a church, if not his then somewhere else rather than remain outside of a church, and that he recommended the Reformed church at ………... My reply to Marco sparked the initiative to write the article entitled, "Is Church Membership Really Necessary?". I only mentioned Marco in that light as an acquaintance that went to a ………… church and that I did not agree fully with their doctrine.

I had called Marco and his wife on, I think, Wednesday afternoon. They had just gotten back from a trip. I simply told them that I had not received communion and was in very bad shape. They are the only Christians I know well enough to call up like that. Marco tried to reach someone that used to go to one of the ………… churches nearby but didn't get a chance to talk to him long, as the cell-phone connection was bad. He only enquired about the sister called Carmen that had attended the church and was going to ask why I had not received communion but didn't get a chance to say it. The recipient then called up the pastor. The pastor assumed that I had said something negative about him and/or his church but that is not the case. I met Marco and his wife while picking up the kids from school on Thursday and told them to keep it to themselves to prevent the situation from getting out of hand."

The woman broke out in tears of desperation while talking to her friends, thus they really saw that she was “in bad shape”. She was afraid that her newfound Christian friends would no longer want to associate with her, and was sincerely afraid of causing a rift in the Body of Christ as implied by the pastor. She was aware of scriptures that mention that those that do such things must be put out of the church. She was even afraid that the pastor would tell others in the region to reject her. Usually a rational person, the experience put her way off balance and she began, in her anxiety, to think of situations that were highly improbable. She even began to have thoughts of suicide.

She then revised the article which was sent to the pastor and her parents without delay. It was, with few differences, the article on this website entitled “Guilty Until Proven Innocent?” with the undertitle “Can Grief be Avoided?”. She also e-mailed the pastor of her parents not to read the previous article (he already had read it) and not to tell anyone about the situation. The pastor in question received the revised article with this letter:

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: Toned Down Version

6.

"Dear Pastor ................,

Attached is the toned down version of the document I sent before. I have deleted the other one. This is the one that I should have sent you instead. I can understand if you would rather delete it than read it.

This is an apology, not a request nor an excuse. By sending this I am not expecting any change in the situation.

Yours Sincerely,

Carmen Brill"

Thereupon he replied:

Received Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:09 PM.

7.

"Thank you very much.

Name of Pastor"

Here are some further details from the abovementioned letter that the woman had sent to her parents on the 21st of November.

8.

"Still needing consolation I called up Maria and Marco Friday afternoon asking to meet at the park. As there was a lot of cold wind, they said we could meet at my place after school was out. I agreed. They called up a short time later to ask if they could bring a brother with them, the one that led Marco to the Lord. He said that the brother was very trustworthy and would not mention the situation outside of our circle, so I agreed to let him come. They came with their children and the brother. He is very knowledgeable in scripture and was able to console me using scripture and his own experiences. He showed me that what happened was not my fault and that if I had made peace with the Lord and asked forgiveness to the pastor for any offence that my slate would be clean. We prayed together and ate a quick snack together and there was much love and consolation in the meeting.

From that time until now as I type this e-mail I have not had any contact with the pastor whether by e-mail or phone. He never called me by phone. All of the e-mails are here.

Yesterday, Saturday, I took the book that the pastor had given me to one of the church members that lives across the street from me so that she can take it with her next time she goes. I plan to return the pamphlets as well even though they were a gift. Originally I was supposed to give them back and I will when I am finished.

I refused to tell the sister the whole story even though she insisted, to avoid tension in the church, and informed her that I will not be attending services. She says that I can visit her any time. As her daughter arrived, who also goes to that church, I left promptly after only a greeting to avoid conversation.

I had sent an e-mail to your Pastor ………… with the attached article, the first one, "Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Closed Communion". I then sent him repeated mails asking him to stay out of the situation to avoid making things worse.

Love,

Carmen"

End of correspondence.

Now an analysis of the letters point by point will follow. Here a table containing diverse methods which sects use to control members will be particularly useful. 2.

Not all points will apply to this situation, but the author feels that the reader will agree after examining the analysis, that too many points apply. What this may mean will be discussed after the analysis.

The woman had not been told that she would not be allowed to receive communion until only a minute before communion, even though ample opportunities for informing her were available; she had been humiliated before the congregation. If this was on purpose, as she thinks it was (her parents, after analyzing the correspondence and situation, also arrived independently at this thought), then what may the reason for it have been?

If the woman had accepted the humiliation this would entail “obedience” to the pastor. As she vehemently did not accept the humiliation this triggered a series of events.

“The process of keeping people unaware is key to a cult’s double agenda: the leader slowly takes you through a series of events that on the surface look like one agenda, while on another level, the real agenda is to get you, the recruit or member, to obey and to give up your autonomy, ……...” This is called, “non-informed consent.” 3.

The object of manipulation can be led on a journey, seemingly by their own consent, because they are not aware of the true agenda.

It must be made clear here that humiliation is not equal to humility. It is my thesis that the desired result of the act of humiliation was to call forth a false sense of humility, submission and obedience to the pastor, and perhaps cause further conformity to the rules of that particular church. This was done and could have been continued by using the woman’s beliefs against her. The pastor was aware of her beliefs because she had freely volunteered the information. She had given him two more or less finished articles that she had previously written for web publication which contained some personal information (the personal information has since been omitted before web publication).

If Singer’s point 1, keep the person unaware of the real agenda, had been successfully applied at that time and in the future, points 4 and 5, suppressing old behavior and instilling new behavior, could have been applied with more ease. See the points in the table above.

Unable to assimilate the humiliation the woman wrote the article numbered 1. In it we see her feelings of guilt, grief and anger and also some self-assurance which the pastor did not approve of.

Let us analyze the reply of the pastor from letter 2.

"Considering the tone in which you wrote and the opinions expressed about the principles that order our church, I ask you to take some time to think over your disagreement with our position and your negative evaluation about our church before attending again one of our meetings; in fact I'll inform the church members of your negative assessment of the principles they chose to practice.

I think that the best thing I can do is to wait for a change in your attitude before continuing our relationship."

This would apply to Lifton’s point 1. Control of the woman’s environment by enforced isolation from the pastor and congregation. Upon receiving letter 2 the woman was distraught that the others may not be allowed to associate with her at all and having been outside of a bible church for 15 years was eager to belong to a group again.

"And even if you should change attitude, your behaviour in this situation will hinder your acceptance as a member of our church for a longer period than was expected when we first met you."

The woman knew after she had mustered herself up to read the sheet of paper containing information about the “restricted” communion practice of the church, that her hefty reaction in the form of the first article (letter 1) would impede her acceptance into the church which she so greatly desired. Letter 2 of the pastor confirmed this. This desire could be used against her. Add to that various stressful situations which she was currently experiencing, being a foreigner, financial stress, out of work; even the normal day-to-day activities, if too numerous or time-consuming can be a cause of stress; and we have the formula for someone that may be open to manipulation, despite their level of intelligence or education.

“Potential sect victims are searchers that are driven by the longing to find an intact world…….a lack of purpose in life, inner emptiness, a lack of feelings of security, the pressure of grief after traumatic experiences can transform older (more experienced) persons that are searching, into addicts……persons that are labile due to phases of mental instability do not ask important questions and voluntarily suppress doubts concerning the doctrine of salvation or group rituals because they want to reach the deliverance and enlightenment promised by the cults or sects at all costs. With the goal of their longing in front of their eyes, they think that they have found the way to salvation.” 4.

“A depressed and temporarily unaffiliated person is more likely to resonate to the offerings of a cult recruiter, particularly if the offering fits in with a personal interest or if the person feels at liberty to check out the invitation.” 5.

An interesting addition at this point: the current members of the congregation are all former ………………church members that had split off from their denomination and had tried to start their own church unsuccessfully. The pastor, upon his arrival from southern Italy, found them in an unaffiliated state.

If we look at letter 3 we see that the woman did have feelings of remorse after receiving the pastor’s response to her article. She apologized to him, which was not necessarily a form of submission but civil behavior and offered to change the tone of the article before publication. The pastor had previously terminated the personal relationship in letter 2 and thus the appointment at his house for Thursday 18th November. By offering to bring by the book and pamphlets previously given to her, the woman was giving him the chance to reconsider this action and meet with her personally to explain the situation. The offer was not accepted as we will see in letter 4.

Let us look at the phrase:

„to help you to think about your reaction towad us”. Was it not possible for you to discuss about this matter without harshness and vehemence, as Christians should do?

This is already the pastor’s second letter to the woman and he has not even made an attempt to excuse himself for not telling her sooner about the church’s view of communion. He does not give even a literary glance at the fact that his actions may have been at least partly at fault. Instead he criticizes the woman’s reaction. This applies directly to Singer’s point 6, allow no criticism. Singer expands on that point: “If you criticize or complain, the leader or peers allege that you are defective, not the organization. In this closed system of logic, you are not allowed to question or doubt a tenet or rule or to call attention to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction within the belief system or a contradiction with what you’ve been told. If you do make such observations, they may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what you intended. You are made to feel that you are wrong. In cultic groups the individual member is always wrong and the system is always right.” 6.

The Pastor adheres to a belief that accepts the Christian Bible, the entire work from cover to cover as infallible. The church professes a creed called the London Confession of 1689 which is a particular interpretation of what is contained in the Bible. No outside influences are to affect belief or behavior. Not one word of the Bible can be held in doubt and at least some in that kind of church hold the London Confession of 1689 for infallible as well. This would be circular reasoning as in Singer's point 6. No input or criticism can be accepted in such a closed system. It is true that there are many Christians that lead happy lives in this kind of closed belief system. This would, however, depend on the particular interpretation of Scripture that they believe in. It is conceivable that some interpretations of Scripture can lead to oppression and manipulation of congregations by the leaders, with no possible way for the members of the congregation to defend themselves. Self-defense in such a closed system of logic, especially when the leader is said to be the one most qualified to interpret terms, would be impossible. Reformed churches can be part of an association, but many are not accountable to others of the same kind, especially if the churches are geographically isolated. In such a case, even membership in an association or group of churches may not have much bearing on the quality of the church. There is no board of elders or council that holds pastors accountable for their behavior, there is no one that a member or even outsider can turn to if he has a complaint except the pastor. In such a case, the quality of the care and teaching in such churches is fully dependent on the pastor and his interpretation of scripture and the London Confession of Faith. The interpretation may lead to caring, scriptural behavior, and it may not. If pastoral behavior is responsible for the complaint what then? In general such complaints to pastors of sister churches land on deaf ears or are seen as gossip, negative reports are generally not wanted and no action is taken. At the most one receives sympathy, but no help.

"You hide yourself behind the futile excuse of "sparing" other dear brothers and sisters. But where are "your" brothers and sisters? You do not belong to any of God's visible families! You have no one to spare! Moreover it is not your duty. You transgressed the word of God becasue you have not been called to spare, to warn and to defend anyone, but, as yourself wrote in the first paper this is the duty of pastors."

Here the pastor is trying to cause uncertainty in the woman, feelings of isolation and uncertainty about her vocation. By using the word “transgressed” he is even calling her a sinner for doing what she knows is right. He is expecting her to go against her conscience. As far as the “duty of pastors” goes he did not fully comprehend the first paper that she gave him. I know of more than a few who practice discernment without being told to do so by a pastor and they have helped many, including myself, by the will of God. It would be using reverse logic to assume that the duties pastors have are only for pastors, or only for them to delegate to others. Jesus Christ can call someone to a vocation, without the aid of a pastor or priest. What the pastor is aiming at above is covered by psychologist Edgar Schein’s Stage 1, unfreezing.

Singer states, “your whole sense of self and notion of how the world works – are destabilized by group lectures, personal counseling, rewards, punishments, and other exchanges in the group. This destabilization is designed to produce what psychologists call an identity crisis. While you are looking back at your own world and behavior and values (that is, unfreezing them), you are simultaneously bombarded with the new system, which implies that you have been wrong in the past.

…successful behavioral change programs are designed to upset you to the point that your self-confidence is undermined. This makes you more open to suggestion and also more dependent on the environment for cues about “right thinking” and “right conduct.” Your resistance to the new ideas lessens when you feel yourself teetering on an edge with massive anxiety about the right choices in life on the one side, and the group ideas that offer the way out of this distress on the other side.

Many groups use a “hot seat” technique or some other form of criticism to attain the goal of undercutting, destabilizing, and diminishing.” 7.

If the woman would “submit” to the pastor at this point she would be admitting “her” mistake and give up the vocation that he harshly criticized thus going against what she perceives as correct action. She would be going against her conscience. "The discipler usually has the unfounded notion that conscience is a "selfish desire" and, by contrast, his advice is "spirit-led"." 8. Once having broken this mental barrier going against her conscience she would be very open to suggestion and manipulation.

A modern form of manipulation uses a more subtle technique. These techniques are being used in some churches today by new kinds of leaders but the fact that they are being used in churches still does not make them correct.

“Arnold Mitchell, a social psychologist from Stanford, has spent years studying the attitudes and behaviors of Americans. He contends that three ingredients are necessary for change to occur. First, Mitchell notes that change comes from dissatisfaction.... Effective change agents assess the chances for change by evaluating the level of dissatisfaction within the group. If dissatisfaction is strong, the potential for change exist....

To be effective, a leader must also deliberately develop dissatisfaction. ...

Preparing people for change sometimes takes what seems like forever.... I shared startling or even embarrassing statistics about where we were as a church body and where we needed to be, seeking to create the right level of dissatisfaction....” 9.

Purposefully making someone so dissatisfied and unsure of himself and so manipulating him in such a way is not acceptable behavior either in civilized society or from a biblical perspective. There could be a further reason behind such actions.

“Today's change agents don't really want everyone to "give their perspective openly." Some facts and group observations can topple their plan. They want "dissatisfaction" but not dissent. They want tolerance, but not toward uncooperative church members. Those who are found to be enemies to their manipulative process must be disciplined, expelled or changed.

I have talked with many humble and faithful Christians who were labeled "divisive" or "critical" by the new leadership in their beloved church. Some were given a simple choice: leave or stop asking hard questions. Others were told that "confession" (including confessing the "sin" of questioning the change process instead of submitting to it) and counseling under an assigned change agent would be a prerequisite for permission to stay and continue their ministry.“ 10.

Could it be that the woman was considered a sinner for being an enemy to the manipulative process?

"You should have appreciated our carefulness in this confused age to help people to order their life according to the word of God. In fact - I repeat it - we do not practice "close communion", but a more "resticted" form of the open position, because we allow to partake of the Lord's Table all professing Christian who belong to an evangelical church. You are not being sincere when you say that you were rejected because we practice close communion…

Now you want to publish on the web your word of condamnation saying contrary to the truth that you were exposed to a church that practice close communion. You did not even mention the document I gave were it is plainly stated that we do not practice closed communion…. …we only asked you to allow us to know you and your family a little more. Another family that was visiting with us last Lord's Day did not partake of the Supper, but they understood our motivations and they did not complain and next week are coming back to our meeting….
…. but we did not say that you could not receive comunion among us…"

As far as the victim’s perception, since no one told her previously about even the concept of “restricted” communion or “closed communion” as she found the term defined on Reformed websites after the fact, she was exposed to a situation which was intolerable. If the situation of not receiving communion was temporary, it was not told to her before communion. She did not mention the document in her article because it was not relevant to the situation leading up to the incident and did nothing to ease her pain afterwards. Contrary to the pastor’s statement that she was asked to allow the church to know her and her family better as a requirement for communion, this was never mentioned before the incident. The woman was not aware of the situation of the other family mentioned, and it was not discussed in the services that she attended. It is to be hoped that they were not treated the same way and accepted it.

The statement:

“…. but we did not say that you could not receive comunion among us…”

...cannot be true as it stands. Exactly that was said during the service just before communion and nothing was said at that moment to the contrary. These words cannot ring true, especially not when they come long after the fact in a letter.

The pastor uses the compliance of the other family as an example of good behavior:

“they did not complain and next week are coming back to our meeting.”

This complies with Singer’s point 5 using example to instill the new acceptable behavior. Once the victim becomes convinced of wrongdoing then they should conform to what has been called “good spirit.” 11.

Let us look at another statement:

"you acted contradicting the precepts of the Bible speaking negatively with Marco about us: when you first came to us you spoke negatively about him, now you went back to him spaking negatively about us! You attended only three of our meetings and you already passed judgemnet on us!"

This statement was particularly aimed at the woman’s knowledge of Scripture about those that purposefully cause divisions in the church, the bible says that they should be rejected by the Church. Romans 16:17. For a while this kept her silent, and caused her to silence others which would have spoken out, which was likely the purpose of the statement.

"Oh, but you are the "expert" on heretics, they don't! Shame on you!

Carmen you are too self-confident and self-centered. And the fact that you feelings determined your behaviour shows the full extent of your immaturity. I pray that God may humble your heart opening your eyes to your sin and corruption."

"Shame, the flip-side of self-righteousness, is also a result of performance-based mentality (rather than grace)....where the constant message is that you don't measure up....Guilt is a valuable signal indicating a wrong or bad behavior. Shame is an indictment on you as a person....the message of condemnation is not limited to our actions or appearance. It is directed toward and lands on us: "You are the problem." "You are in the way." ...."You are stupid, fat, ugly, incompetent, lazy, worthless, selfish." "Shame on you!" This attacks the very core of our identity." 12.

The pastor tries to make it clear to the woman, that she is nothing if she is not within that particular group or one like it. "You hide yourself behind the futile excuse of "sparing" other dear brothers and sisters. But where are "your" brothers and sisters? You do not belong to any of God's visible families!" Johnson/VanVonderen list this attitude as an attribute of a shame-based relationship. "Shame-based relationships are relationships based on messages of shame: "You are so weak and defective that you are nothing without this relationship." 13. The pastor almost had the woman believe this by way of his statements. The woman was supposed to feel shame, feel devalued, feel not just as if she had done something wrong, but was wrong to the core of her being. It was not only about telling her what she had done wrong, but trying to convince her that she herself was flawed in some way. Not being in an "acceptable" church was a flaw as well.

Sects like to silence critics. “From university professors and students to journalists, reporters, and writers, those who study cults have consistently come upon one particularly disturbing aspect of the cult world. It has become apparent over time that, when researchers are critical of certain cult activities or features, some of the groups attempt to suppress such findings and opinions and silence their critics through both subtle and overt intimidation in a variety of forms.” 14.

The book, Toxic Faith, refers to different identities within an abusive system, Persecutor, Co-Conspirator, Enabler, Victim and Outcast. Apparently the woman took on the roles of victim and outcast. She was both in danger of being a religious addict, but also already informed of sect-like behavior and recognized some of the signs intuitively before she did mentally. "In most toxic systems, someone can usually see the problem and confront it. Unwilling to play the games of persecutors and co-conspirators, the person becomes an outcast. ...When outcasts surface, they are identified as troublemakers and pushed out of the system as soon as possible....Outcasts who challenge the system are discredited immediately. The toxic-faith system creates a lose-lose situation where the outcasts must give up perceptions of reality or be willing to face rejection. Abandonment becomes the reward for trying to correct the ministry." 15.

The pastor knew that the woman saw it as her vocation to protect others from false doctrine and became alarmed, especially since her letter was in the form of an article, that she would tell about what she experienced. He tried to silence her by instilling feelings of “shame,” inadequacy and guilt. The word “corruption” implies much more than simple error. It would be a character trait incompatible with what many understand to be Christian conduct or even salvation. Someone who is termed as corrupt would be kept out of the church in that particular denomination. At the beginning this kind of intimidation was effective, but only as long as the woman’s feelings controlled her. She was luckily not completely alone and had access to those who could help her as depicted in letter 8. No help was offered by the pastor even though he had full information concerning her grief. Both her parents and their pastor, who had also received a copy of the letter, did immediately see that she was hurting.

The above statement also adheres to Lifton's point 3, “demand for purity” where “each idea or act is good or bad, pure or evil. Recruits gradually take in, or internalize, the critical, shaming essence of the cult environment, which builds up lots of guilt and shame.” 16.

The statements of the pastor referring to the woman's "transgressions" and vocation, rather than coming from biblical doctrine, comply more to a system called “shepherding” that has been introduced into some churches in recent decades. It is a system of control that promotes a cult-like environment.

Reverend Friedrich Wilhelm Haack addressed this issue: “The "shepherd" takes the place of God for the "sheep," his word is the word of God in God's name. No one can speak out against him, not even in reference to the ten commandments or the Bible. To oppose the shepherd would be opposing God.” 17.

Carmen did “speak out” in writing and her opposition to the way she was treated was taken as opposition against God. She,

"transgressed the word of God."

On to the next statement which subtlety makes it effective even though it is only a footnote to the letter:

"P. S. You can keep the books. They are a gift made with kindness."

Giving someone a gift makes him obligated to the other person. He feels that he must give or do something in return. Carmen would still have a tie to the pastor via those books. She would be indebted to him. Also, the bible tells the scripturally versed, “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.” Proverbs 25:21,22. 18. I have heard interpretations of that particular verse as a method of manipulating "enemies" to capitulate by showing kindness to them. This may even be true in praxis, but let us sincerely hope that the offer was not made in that light.

This statement as mentioned above also prevented a personal meeting between the pastor and the woman. If she would have had to return the books they would have had the chance to talk personally and start moving toward reconciliation, if not agreement. One must not see the two as synonymous. Agreement is not necessary for reconciliation, that idea is not be supported by scripture. The pastor could have used the opportunity to speak with her in person but continued his course of rejection and isolation, denying any help, encouragement, advice or information he could have given personally. He never attempted to contact the woman by telephone.

After receiving his letter she finished rewriting the article in a less offensive and less revealing manner and sent one copy of it to her parents and one to the pastor with another civil apology in letter 6.

Letter 7 received from the pastor did not contain the usual polite greeting but only a “thank you very much.” Thank you for what? It could not be for the apology because he did not thank the woman for the first one. Was it for keeping silent perhaps? For changing the letter to avoid revealing details?

What does all of this amount to? It is difficult to discern whether the congregation members know the extent to which they are being manipulated. If this treatment is given to those still outside the church group then what of those that are already inside of it?

At least one member acted very suspiciously. Mentioned in letter 8, Marco, a friend of Carmen’s that was worried about her well-being tried to enquire what had happened and why. Even though his contact with his acquaintance that attended the church was short, the man told him just before he severed the connection that he would have to call the pastor immediately. Apparently he was not able to answer without first consulting the pastor, which he did immediately. The pastor then e-mailed letter 4 in an attempt to intimidate and silence the woman as quickly as possible.

Immediate confession to the leader of something that you would not want others to know has been seen before. One leader of a church movement once said, “When something happens that you would not wish to be known, say it immediately – in a hurry – to the Good Shepherd,” 19. not meaning Christ, but himself or one of the superiors under him. That particular movement encourages tattling on other members, and punishment for those that don’t use opportunities to do so.

This is also a tactic commonly used by sects to keep the leader informed of all actions and even thoughts of the members so that they can be better controlled.

Also, a marked change in behavior was noted in one of the other church members that lives across the street from the woman on Nov 29th, the day after the assembly would have met again (The church could not assemble one Sunday because of traffic restrictions).

The elderly woman was the only one to give Carmen a hug after the service and tried to console her there. When Carmen had given her the book to return at the elderly woman’s house six days after the incident, she even cried tears for Carmen, although Carmen had a straight face and told her that she felt better. Two weeks after the incident she assured Carmen that the pastor had said nothing about the situation during the Sunday service, but she was very nervous, unlike the previous time that she had been visited. Her voice had a higher pitch and she did not look Carmen in the eyes very much, completely unlike the time they had met before. The elderly woman kept repeating that everything that she said was her own opinion and not that of the pastor. She said that Carmen could attend the church any time that she would like to come. There was no mention of the pastor admitting any error or delivering an apology. By lack of this admission it seems that he conveyed to the elderly woman and eventually to others that the error is Carmen’s in staying away and also that the choice is entirely hers to stay away, although the pastor forbade her to attend in writing and had not revoked this order since then.

The elderly woman also asked whether the tall man in the white car that she had seen leave their complex was Carmen’s husband. If Carmen would have answered the question positively then the elderly woman would have found out what he looked like and what the car looked like. No questions like this were ever asked before. No one ever enquired as to who Carmen’s husband might be or what he may look like. The elderly woman nervously said more than once that only she wanted to know. This seemed suspicious.

The pastor apparently (if the woman was telling the truth) did not tell the congregation even his version of what had happened. There is no indication to date that he has revoked his accusations about her, because Carmen has received no phone call, e-mail or mail from him to that fact. She has received no apology to date nor a direct communication of any sort after the correspondence mentioned above.

Addition April 26, 2006 - recently one new member of the church, "Marco" has told Carmen that her original letter - whether whole or in part is not known - was translated into Italian and read to the congregation not long after it was sent. That may have explained the elderly woman's behavior, perhaps she heard the reading of the letter and may even have been afraid of Carmen or otherwise influenced by a commentary from the pastor that surely must have accompanied the letter. Since the letter was written in some anger and great sorrow, it may have shocked the congregation though it was not meant for their ears, Carmen had not addressed the letter to them. No mention was made as to what kind of commentary accompanied the letter. Marco has informed Carmen that the first letter sent to her (Numbered "2" above) was approved by the congregation. No mention was made of the other letters, whether the congregation was informed of their existence and content or not. According to Mary Alice Chrnalogar, reading the letter of a simple believer, i.e. non-pastor, before the church was not an action that was scripturally based, as the letter itself did not constitute a "grave, Biblical wrong that threatens to affect the whole church" "Personal weaknesses, imperfections, and immaturities are not Biblical issues that affect the faith or morality of the whole church. Therefore there is no reason to trumpet them to the entire church." 20. Such a confrontation may be necessary if the offender is a person of authority and influence within the church, though, as in the case of Paul publicly opposing Peter in Galatians 2.

The elderly woman also inquired whether Carmen would go to the church of another denomination at …….. She replied that she was not sure and might attend it or an affiliated one at ………..

The prodigal is expected to return of her own free will in an act of submission not to God as it would be supposed, but to the pastor.

This excerpt taken from letter 2 is revealing:

"I think that the best thing I can do is to wait for a change in your attitude before continuing our relationship. And even if you should change attitude, your behaviour in this situation will hinder your acceptance as a member of our church for a longer period than was expected when we first met you.”

Considered in the light of much that has been examined above it can also be said that Lifton’s point 5, “mystical manipulation” applies here. Singer states, “The group manipulates members to think that their new feelings and behavior have arisen spontaneously in this new atmosphere….If outsiders hint that the devotees have been brainwashed or tricked, the members say, ‘Oh, no, I chose voluntarily.’”

This excerpt together with the informal invitation of the elderly woman to come back to the assembly is evidence that Carmen should submit to the will of the pastor (which cannot be seen to be equal to the will of God) by going back to the assembly. By returning she would admit “her” mistake, and acknowledge that the pastor was in the right. If she would “submit” at this point she would be under the control of the pastor which exhibits some traits of sect leaders as stated above, tricked of her own free will. Just because she would do it “freely” would not make the situation any more acceptable.

Many churches propagate unity of believers in the Holy Spirit, but when is it transformed from something of the spirit that is done joyfully to something of the flesh and of the mind? “The ‘unity’ required is not only blind obedience at an external level, but also an assent of the mind – so-called ‘unity of mind’ or ‘unity of thought’. 21. Unity with the Body of Christ is desirable for a Christian but not because of anxiety caused by an isolation unjustly enforced or under a yoke of humiliation applied by man.

What word could best define this situation?

“Indoctrination: influence of individuals or whole groups of society by use of psychological means in order to cause the formation of an opinion or attitude.“ 22.

By the evidence above it can be said that psychological means both subtle and overt have been used to try to change Carmen’s attitude, albeit unsuccessfully. [The psychological means may have been more successful if Carmen had been completely bereft of any outside help, and if the pastor had waited until she was on the threshold of joining the congregation or already in it before applying humiliation as a method of control.] Generally this is not acceptable pastoral behavior. Believers that attend any church or church-like organization should be convinced not coerced. Free will, as we have seen above, is different from the “free will” that has been manipulated by sect-like persuasion.

“Indoctrination and brainwashing are both intrusions into the thoughts and feelings of the victim that lead to control of the consciousness.“ 23.

A similar term, "soul-washing," or "Seelenwäsche," would also apply in this case. It is a milder form of brainwashing that, like indoctrination, may be applied with the manipulated consent of the victim. Brainwashing takes place against someone's will and has been used as a form of torture. This does not, however, lessen the seriousness of soul-washing. The effects of soul-washing can impair or destroy individual relationships and futures and lead to serious crimes. 24.

I am not accusing the abovementioned church of being a cult (although this does not exclude the possibility that I think it may become one) even though I do cite a lot of material about the way cults and sects operate. There is a difference between authoritarian groups of which there are many widely accepted examples in both Protestant churches and Catholic and Orthodox orders and the sects that have developed and separated themselves from them or been cast out of them. In this particular case I do not have enough information at my disposal to ascertain whether the pastor teaches hyper-calvinism 25. or not, which doctrine would not be acceptable by the majority of churches. This particular case is an example of the abuse of pastoral authority that can arise within a group that is already very authoritarian. The spiritual abuse did include the use of cultic mind-control methods, whether used consciously or not. This should by no means be considered the rule but an exception to the rule. I hope that church denominations check their pastors and congregations regularly to prevent such catastrophes and the necessity of reporting them. Unfortunately, the pastor in question does not seem to be member of a larger organization that holds him accountable. He does not seem to be accountable to his congregation, but rather in control over those persons. His church is not affiliated with the Reformed churches nearest to it within 20 to 30 minutes away, but with at least one in southern Italy, England and the US.

Why did I decide to make this information public? Here is an excerpt about silences that should be broken, by a victim of a sect-like church movement. I have changed it to omit the name of the movement mentioned and the name of the denomination.

“…………. silences the truth. To squelch discussion inside the Work about the many people who quit the institution, the superiors – perhaps without reflecting on the consequences that their statements might have – have said that those individuals were “sick” in some cases, or “insane” in others; they never try to offer a straightforward explanation as to why they have left.

For me the worst silences are those that hinder personal freedom. …………. silences persons, … deliberately creating a sense of guilt which leads some former members in turn to keep silence about their membership in ………………. “ 26.

I will not be silenced into keeping such a matter to myself, I think that potential or actual abusers and victims may benefit from what I have suffered and may be able to avoid such situations or be freed from them if this testimony is made public, especially those that are still bound in that church. Seeking help from those who could counsel me, especially pastors, has usually resulted in a tendency for them to turn away, even physically, to avoid the subject. The authors of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse wrote their book partly for that reason, because spiritual abuse is a taboo subject that many are not willing to address. Many pastors that might know of such abuse in another church wait for God to solve the problem without intervening in the "territory" of another pastor, but they do not realize that they have the power and even the responsibility to intervene. God doesn't always respond with a miracle of healing when someone is sick, most often a doctor can help with therapy or medicine. In the same way, we shouldn't necessarily expect an act of God in such cases, but do what we know is right and what we can to solve the problem. Many unsuspecting and suffering churchgoers and those with whom their lives are woven could be rescued from harm by such intervention.

Part 2

This is a scriptural analysis of the pastor’s correspondence and actions or lack of them.

From letter 2:

"I ask you to take some time to think over your disagreement with our position and your negative evaluation about our church before attending again one of our meetings."

Are there scriptural reasons for excluding someone from the assembly? Let us scrutinize these carefully.

1 Cor 5:11-13 “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Matt 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Using Jesus as an example, he did not treat pagans and tax collectors in a bad way. He did even eat with them to tell them the good news. It could be that those persons could not come to the synagogue, but Jesus did not treat them with less respect and love than anyone else.

Romans 16:17,18 “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.” Here Paul is talking about those that introduce false doctrine and try to make money with it, not those that are trying to warn the rest, however irritating, that something is amiss. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Eph 5:11.

2 Thess 3:6 “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.”

1 Tim 6:3-5 “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”

2 Cor 11:13 “And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.”

Did Carmen’s letter of reaction caused by humiliation and rejection which expressed grief and anger warrant the pastor’s decision to isolate her from the assembly and from himself?

According to 1 Cor. 5:11-13 she would have to be one of the following things: sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, drunkard or swindler. Only in these cases would it be justified to keep her from the assembly. One reason may also be that she was considered to be one of those “outside” i.e. a non-believer in which case she would be even more in need of salvation, needing to hear the gospel. The gospel was not presented to her. Most Christians I have encountered do treat unbelievers with civility and respect. But often those put out of churches are handled more rudely and cruelly than those who have never believed. Those put out are treated like untouchables.

According to Romans 16:17 she would have to have performed some sort of crime contrary to church doctrine. This action would have to prove that she would be doing this thing for her own monetary profit and purposely to deceive others.

According to Eph. 5:11 she would have to evidence fruitless deeds of darkness. (This phrase is vague enough to be easily misunderstood and can be stretched in any number of directions by a creative mind.)

According to 2 Thess. 3:6 she would have to be idle - not doing anything to learn more about God's ways, not helping others, not living according to the teaching that came from Christ via the apostles.

According to 1 Tim. 6:3-5 she would have to teach false doctrine, not agree to the instruction of Jesus Christ, have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels, engage in malicious talk, and think that godliness is a means to financial gain. In essence she would have to be putting herself up as a false apostle.

According to 2 Cor. 11:13 she would have to be putting herself forward deceptively as a false apostle.

She did give the pastor previously written articles as a method of telling about herself. The fact that she was planning to launch an internet site containing the gospel and articles that might be of assistance to the spiritually deceived does not constitute making herself a false apostle. She wrote out of sincerity, not deception or deceit. She wrote in the spirit of 2 Cor 4:1,2 which addresses the same theme as 2 Cor 11:13 about deceitful workers that, “Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

Moreover and paramount in this situation, the process by which a brother is excluded from the assembly should be analyzed. In Reformed churches, this is seen as an extreme measure. Generally 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, mentioned above, are used as sanctions, to punish, but not fully exclude the person in question, they are only temporary. Let us take a look at the more permanent Matt 18:15-17:

What had the woman done according to the pastor? From letter 2 she had:

“reacted”
“condemned with such harshness”
"it was the “tone in which you wrote and the opinions expressed about the principles that order our church”
“your negative assessment of the principles they chose to practice”
“the letter you wrote seem to imply that you think to know better than the Pastor… to "warn" others against the teaching of our church”

From letter 4 she had:

“You transgressed the word of God becasue you have not been called to spare, to warn and to defend anyone”
“You are not being sincere when you say that you were rejected because we practice close communion”
“you acted contradicting the precepts of the Bible speaking negatively with Marco about us”
“You attended only three of our meetings and you already passed judgemnet on us”
“you want to publish on the web your word of condamnation saying contrary to the truth that you were exposed to a church that practice close communion”
“You did not even mention the document I gave were it is plainly stated that we do not practice closed communion”
“you are the "expert" on heretics, they don't! Shame on you!”
“Carmen you are too self-confident and self-centered.”
“the fact that you feelings determined your behaviour shows the full extent of your immaturity”
“your sin and corruption”

This is quite a long list of accusations. Do any of them correspond to the above scriptures? Offence of the pastor may apply to point 1 of Matt 18:15-17, even though that passage refers to really bad cases, far worse than the one at hand. Did the woman apologize? Yes, twice. Once in letter 3 and once in letter 6. Should this have been acceptable according to the above scriptures? Yes it should have.

These apologies notwithstanding, none of the above accusations were discussed in the woman's presence with two or three witnesses. One church member denied that anything was spoken of in the congregation, but another told the woman much later that her letter had been read in front of the church, without her knowledge and without her having a chance to publicly respond.

The pastor did not accept the apology of the woman nor did he follow correct procedure while telling her to keep away from the assembly. He did not offer a one-to-one meeting as prescribed in scripture but refused her offer to meet with him. Two weeks later one assembly member informally invited her to attend, but according to her words on her own responsibility, and the pastor had not revoked his written ban. He never contacted the woman directly after the written correspondence listed above. She is still getting the silent treatment.

Also, the pastor tried to justify his actions for “restricted” communion but since the woman had taken offence at the way she was notified of this by him, this is quite clear in letter 1 that he received, he should have at least apologized for his lack of tact, which he has not done to date. He has also not revoked his accusations or apologized for them in any way. One consultant in the field of cult education states, "It is interesting to note that, even when abusive disciplers acknowledge their errors (a rare occurence in itself), they seldom apologize." 27.

Carmen, for her part, has no way of taking two or three as witnesses as she has no friends in that church and suspects members of being too loyal to the pastor there. She does not belong to the congregation. Since it is true that she does not belong to another bible church (there are none in the area), who should she then bring in as witnesses in such a matter? She does not think that it would be proper to involve her Christian friends "Marco" and "Maria" since they are not in positions of authority in their church and go to a church of a different denomination and even type than the one in question. Since she does not belong even to the denomination of the church in question, she thinks that a formal report to other sister churches would not be appropriate. She would not want to be one that would “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned,” and so be one to be avoided for that reason (although speaking up in such cases, despite the fact that it is the right thing to do, can cause the person speaking out to be shunned, avoided). Thus, this report without personal names has been issued. She feels that not making a report of some sort would go against her vocation of warning those that may be victims of spiritual or mental abuse and deception.

“Indoctrination is not brainwashing, but torture of the soul.” 28.

Carmen felt justified in her emotions and opinions after the incident, even though she did overreact. Deep down she knew that she had not been treated openly and honestly, that something was dreadfully wrong. Her literary reaction was honestly hefty and her pain was evident. But as is the case in abusive systems, the feelings and opinions that she expressed in letter 1 were taken as an affront against the system and against the pastor, and even the congregation, and turned around in an attempt to abuse her. In letter 4 the pastor wrote: "Carmen you are too self-confident and self-centered. And the fact that you feelings determined your behaviour shows the full extent of your immaturity. I pray that God may humble your heart opening your eyes to your sin and corruption."" This statement was not scripturally based, but an attempt to shame Carmen and deceive her into thinking that she was flawed, corrupt, faulty - as Jesus never would do. She never criticized the pastor as a person, but his judgment and actions or lack of them. She did have a problem with the rules about communion - an opinion about the system. Jesus let his feelings determine his behavior only days before he was crucified, as he cleansed the market of Annas in the temple from those that were robbing the people. He was righteously angry at a type of spiritual abuse and dishonesty going on right in the temple. That anger was even prophesied in the Old Testament, Psalm 69:9, he was consumed by zeal for his Father's house. Being consumed is not just a small emotion, but practically denotes a state of being. Did that emotion and action that resulted show the full extent of Jesus' immaturity? All that Carmen did was cry and write a letter expressing her emotions and opinions - she did not turn any chairs over, did not wreck church furniture, did not shout at anyone, she did less than Jesus did as he was angry. What he did was not a sin, or he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice for sin. God was pleased with Jesus' heart. Likewise, God did not turn Carmen away from himself, but loves her as he does his own son for his son's sake. God is a lot easier to please, hence his grace that he freely gives, than some others that call themselves his children. God is not legalistic, but merciful and compassionate.

Reformed churches believe in disciplinary action in certain cases according to the list of scriptures mentioned above and in extreme cases in expulsion of someone from the church according to Matthew 18:15-17. That may be accepted by members that are fully informed and have joined the church. But I ask you, is it warranted that the pastor, as has been addressed above, unjustly disciplines a sheep that is not even in his fold? What may have been intended as spiritual discipline was a form of manipulation and indoctrination and was really spiritual abuse.

For pastoral responsibilities see “Is Church Membership Really Necessary?”.

What are examples of proper pastoral behavior?

”The most prominent example is Jesus Christ himself: Matt. 20:25-28 “But Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whosoever wants to be first, must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’“ Here we see that ministers should be humble servants, the most humble and giving of us all. The picture that should come to mind is when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, and when he died for us on the cross.

1 Tim 3:1-11 “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”

2 Tim 2:15,16 “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.” V.22-26 “Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

2 Tim 4:1-2 “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction."

If your minister fits this description then that is good for you. Of course not everyone is perfect but he should be a model of the abovementioned qualities for all of us. If he does not conform to the biblical definition at least most of the time and you do not see him trying to conform to it then he may not be someone that should have that high a standing in the Christian group that he is serving." If he cannot even apologize when he notices that someone has taken offense, how can he do things that require more depth of character?

"Duties of Christians to one another: This is of course only a summary and by no means complete.

2 Cor. 13:11 “Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.”

Col 3:16,17 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Heb 3:13 “But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today; so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.”

1 Th 5:11 “Therefore encourage one another, and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” Also Ro 14:19.

1Th 5:14 “And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.”

1 Cor 14:12 “Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church..”

1 Pet 1:22,23 „Now that you have purified your souls by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God.”

Mk 11:25 “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” This, of course, also applies to forgiving non-Christians as well.

"These duties to one another can be performed in or out of a church building. Encouragement and comfort can even be given over the telephone, by mail and e-mail. Usually one has more time and opportunity to be with other Christians when outside of church services and help them on a daily and more spontaneous level. Jesus helped others whenever and wherever they needed him. He was there for them all of the time.” 29.

If we scrutinize the letters and actions of the pastor according to the principles of Christian behavior seen in the scriptures above we see that humility, love, support, encouragement, teaching and comfort are lacking. Not so much as an apology is evident. By his accusations of diverse “transgressions against the word” he does not seem to be “rightly dividing the word of truth.” He has not effectively proven that Carmen was a sinner as accused and that this would be enough to warrant harsh discipline, a discipline that he was not even qualified to administer as she did not belong to his church.

“And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct..." Do the above letters show evidence of kindness, gentleness, patience and meekness? What would be opposition, a disagreement with a “secondary matter of Christian doctrine” or a different opinion?

Even a rebuke can be done with love. Carmen did not feel edified by the rebuke, nor encouraged, comforted, supported or loved. Not only her feelings are at stake here. The rebuke did not edify her. Rather the opposite. It caused a depression so great that she would not have come out of it alone as we see in letter 8. This is not an example of loving Christian behavior, especially coming from a pastor who ought to know better if he has earned the position. Jesus never addressed the poor in spirit as sinners. The account of the adulteress in John 8 is exemplary. Jesus never said SHE was a sinner, that would have been identifying her sin with her person. He even told her that he did not condemn her, but only said that she should stop sinning, thus identifying the sin with her actions and not her person. He did not shame her. He was not legalistic, but compassionate. In this case Carmen's only possible sin was offending the pastor, which she apologized for, twice. Disagreeing with the pastor, having feelings like sadness, depression and even anger were not sins, although the pastor seemed to think they were. These things can only be seen as sins in an abusive toxic-faith system. The woman's actions whether right or wrong could only be identified with her person in an abusive system devoid of the grace of God.

The authority that a pastor has is derived from his authenticity. When Jesus preached with authority, it was different from the authoritarian preaching of the Pharisees. Why? Because he practiced living the truth, practiced what he preached. He demonstrated it every day. But it is not necessary to submit to pastoral authority if it doesn't have the essence of authenticity, as described by the verses listed above. Jesus lived and spoke the truth, that was his authenticity. He did not need to identify himself as sent by God, it was apparent because his actions underlined his words as being Godly, his wisdom was apparent and amazed the listeners. One aspect of a non-authentic spiritual leader is a defense of his role or position in the church community as a justification of his authority. From letter 2: "Moreover, since the letter you wrote seem to imply that you think to know better than the Pastor...." So the pastor always knows better because he is the pastor, that is what this phrase is saying. No one need have a different opinion because they must be wrong, not being the pastor. Johnson and VanVonderen disagree with this form of justification, "If a person's spiritual authority rests on the sole fact that 'I am the pastor,' there is a good chance they have taken that posture because they have no real authority." 30. In an abusive system truth is left by the wayside and replaced with false authority. David Johnson counseled a couple that came to him for advice. They agreed overwhelmingly with everything he said, and being uncomfortable with this (a good sign) he asked questions about their spiritual background. He comments, "People with savvy in every other area of their lives turned to mush when it came time to discern spiritual things. That responsibility was handed over to me. Why? Because I'm the pastor, that's why." 31. He went on to show how twisted and unscriptural such an idea of authority is as we saw above. The couple was not interested in the truth but the pastor's interpretation of it which seemed to be unreachable for them. They were previously in another church where the pastor was not interested in the truth, but only that the congregation take his words for God's words and agree unanimously with him no matter what he said. They did not realize that they could read the Word of God for themselves and receive guidance from the Holy Spirit to interpret it. Truth comes when ANYONE "rightly divides" God's word, not just when a pastor does it. The church is a community where everyone has a gift and function, encouraging one another with the Word means knowing the Word and "rightly dividing" it for oneself. But what if especially people in positions of authority in churches are not doing this? How can they expect the rest to believe they are being authentic, have authority, when they are not speaking and acting according to the truth?

An ex-member of a cult-like G-12 cell group tells of an unloving rebuke that she experienced and gives her own personal interpretation of the events. Even though this is another personal case in another church there are similarities to this one.

“Once when my leader prayed for each one of us individually, I was hurt and perplexed by her prayer for me. It seems she thought I needed to be more rational and be more of a 'team player' to be accepted. Because I personally felt accepted, it was necessary for me to ask my leader why such a prayer. Her response was that it was on her heart to pray that way. At the next regular service, the senior pastor advised the congregation that if your leader prays for a certain change in you, it is because the Lord has showed the leader that this change is desirable or necessary. So even if you don't agree, you should trust in your leader. Again, i felt the accusing finger pointed at me…..

The Lord spoke to me clearly and I wrote down His words: "I permitted that you go through this for a few reasons." I said why Lord? He answered:

1. I want to set you free from the importance of people's opinion, even that of those in authority.
2. If you do something because someone in authority asked you to and that I have not laid it on your heart, you are obeying man and not Me. It is sin and is of no value to Me.
3. I want you to wholly depend on Me and that you learn to wait on Me and obey what I lay on your heart to do.
4. I want you to walk in my rest and be happy in Me.
5. I want you to learn to take a stand and keep it.” 32.

In the above case it was not a series of accusations that were used to manipulate the G12 member, but a prayer. Even if she didn’t agree with the leader, she was expected to “submit” to her. She felt an accusing finger pointed at her as Carmen did. After much soul-searching, anguish and prayer she was given a message specifically for her by the Lord which she was kind enough to include in her testimony.

What of the issue of obedience in this situation? Should Carmen “obey”and “submit” to the pastor (whose church she does not belong to)?

Here is a list of scriptures to the effect of obedience to pastors: “1 Cor 16:15,16; Phil 2:25-30; 1 Th 5:12,13; Heb 13:7,17,18. A good pastor will convince you of a doctrine using biblical proofs. He should not coerce or threaten you. He should not humiliate you. He should be the most humble person in the congregation, not power hungry, controlling, manipulative or overbearing. Authority is not the same thing as control.“ 33. Those that feel the need to control have already lost contact with the truth, they have no authority.

Let us look at a few of the above scriptures in detail.

1 Cor 16:15,16 “I urge you brothers....to submit to such as these and to everyone that joins in the work and labors at it.”

Who are such as those? See verse 10, “If Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying out the work of the Lord just as I am.”

How is a worker in the Lord?

1 Cor 3:6,8 “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow... The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers....”

1 Cor 2:1-5 “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.”

1Cor 15:9,10 “For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.”

Let us see what Hebrews has to tell us about obedience.

Heb 13:7,17,18 “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.….vs.17,18 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.

Observe here that verse 17 cannot be taken alone, but that verse 18 belongs to it. We can obey those that have charge of us “that have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.” Manipulation and purposeful humiliation cannot be considered honest behavior, nor can they be done in good conscience.

The submission that Carmen is expected to perform does not seem right in the light of everything seen thus far, either from secular sources or the bible. Can submission be exaggerated or given to the wrong source?:

“WHILE WE MUST RESPECT AND HONOR THOSE IN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CHURCHES, WE DO NOT GIVE OUR MINDS AND BODIES OVER TO THEM UNQUALIFIEDLY. Yet this is the impression given by McCartney and it is fully in line with the …………….. shepherding model.

IN ADDITION, THERE ARE NO QUALIFIERS OFFERED FOR SUBMISSION "TO A PASTOR." THE PASTORS MUST ANSWER TO THE BRETHREN FOR THEIR BELIEFS AND PRACTICES. AND, IN FACT MOST PASTORS TODAY ARE UNQUALIFIED TO LEAD GOD'S PEOPLE. WE CANNOT TRUST MEN BEYOND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEY ARE IN SUBMISSION TO GOD'S WORD.” 34.

What she is expected to do sounds much like this newfangled twist on obedience from a leading denomination:

“[PowerPoint Slide #8 {Point 4, The Authority of the Obedience}, up]

Jesus’ New Kind of Teaching exercised, also, the authority of obedience.

Discipleship has its costs. There is a cross to bear for every Christ-follower. When the Spirit speaks to us, how will we respond? Jesus was obedient, even unto death. From most of us, God won’t exact such a cost. But the authority of obedience often requires repentance.

[PowerPoint Slide #8 {Point 4, The Authority of the Obedience}, down]

The transformation involved in discipleship often comes in response to conviction.

• If we harden our hearts, deny our sin, and refuse to obey, we retard the transformation of our character and we may grieve the Spirit from speaking to us again.
• But we can be like Jesus, who learned obedience through the things He suffered if we will humble ourselves in repentance and respond in obedience to the Holy Spirit. When we take action as He requires, we are changed from glory to glory.

This is the authority of obedience! As Jesus said in John 15:10-11,14 “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in His love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete… You are my friends if you do what I command.” The blessing of God rests on those who exercise the authority of obedience.” 35.

Above we see that some think that a response to conviction entails a transformation of our character, bringing about obedience, with an added threat that if one does not comply the Holy Spirit may be too grieved to speak with one. That "fact" is never mentioned in scripture. If one would read the whole article at the source, it is too long to print here, however, the obedience to Christ as cited above in John 15 is gradually transformed into the obedience to man. This sort of circular or should we say oblong reasoning (as it is not even logical enough to be considered circular) can happen too easily.

What of loving behavior? Here an excerpt from the love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13.

1 Cor. 13:1-7 tells us, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

“"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’” Zech. 7:9-10

“Love should be the hallmark of a Christian, not exclusion and isolation.

….This lack of love and mercy cannot be justified by scripture. Jesus showed us mercy while we were still sinners. Eph 2:4-5, “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” We will also be judged for our actions, but as Christians that have obeyed or shirked our duties, and judgment takes place after mercy. Jn 5:28-30; Acts 17:31. Should we not do the same with others as Jesus did for us and show mercy before we show judgment? 1 Pet 4: 7-10.” 36.

Mary Alice Chrnalogar in her book Twisted Scriptures knows why mercy and compassion may not be present in abusive church situations. "Mercy and compassion in controlling groups are limited to those who conform and are not for the unrepentant sinner....In abusive discipleship, you generally refuse your heart to everyone who doesn't conform to your standards. That means you don't feel their sufferings to a great degree either." "In abusive discipleships there is much more emphasis on confronting the sinner than on patience or mercy. When this balance is lost, we find disciplers interrogating Christians. They believe churches that don't confront don't care about the sin in their members' lives. They see themselves as caring about your sin. They will change your ungodly ways once you are inside where they will demand you to repent. They see this as truly loving, but they go far beyond what is taught to us in scripture." 37.

What can justify what the pastor had done to Carmen? Job expressed it well in his lamentation in Job 30:24, "Surely no one lays a hand on a broken man when he cries for help in his distress." The letter Carmen wrote at the beginning had a different title when she wrote it to the pastor - it was appropriately called "A Loud Cry of Grief". The pastor of Carmen's parents had read the same letter and recognized her pain. The pastor in question not only ignored that cry but did lay hands on her with his letters.

God, however, responds differently to such cries.

"The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their cry; the face of the LORD is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth. The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. Evil will slay the wicked; the foes of the righteous will be condemned. The LORD redeems his servants; no one will be condemned who takes refuge in him." Psalm 34:15-22.
"(The LORD) heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds." Psalm 147:3.
Jesus' words were in Isaiah long before he came and said them in person, "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners" Isaiah 61:1.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians based on what he heard was going on there, but who will check this pastor and congregation? Without at least minimal accountability for the pastor to someone other than the congregation who seems to be under his control in this case, there can be no intervention by man. Are you (this sentence and the next are addressed to those who are in positions of spiritual authority) who know of the situation are waiting for an act of God? Might you eventually be held responsible for refusing to even check the situation and intervene when you were able? To help a drowning child or a person that is getting mugged would be right, but too many just look away or wait until it is over and someone is injured or dead. To help anyone that is being abused or spiritually abused would also be right, but too many look away because they don't want to see what shouldn't be, especially if it happens in a family or church situation or if a pastor is involved. I challenge you to notice abuse and oppression and not to ignore them. Don't just look away. Feel the righteous anger that Jesus Christ felt before he cleared the temple of those that were robbing and abusing God's people who only wanted to go there to be closer to their God. He didn't just look away or expect his Father to do something about it; he made a whip and used it. Afterwards the blind and lame came to him and were healed, they knew that he had done it for them, that he was a man of authority who practiced what he preached. By speaking and acting righteously he showed his true nature. The children shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!"

You who call yourself "Christ - ian" can follow in his footsteps to help the oppressed in spirit. Your are a part of the body of Christ. Even if you may not be professionally trained in scripture, but especially if you are, you go and tell the good news to the poor and the poor in spirit. You stop the abuse. Don't turn your back on someone that has been abused and stop up your ears, be Christlike, be compassionate, give that person encouragement. Help them get professional counseling. Be there for them. Don't just ignore cases that you hear about. Check those situations, and if it does become apparent that abuse is present, do something about it. You are part of Christ's body, you may be his mouth and his feet and hands, a mouth that speaks out in defense of the weak, and hands and feet that actively do something to help them.

With this article I have done as much as I can at the moment. I have had the humbling and educative experience of having to follow my own advice in the past so I can heartily recommend the pastor in question to re-read his letters and examine his own heart according to what he wrote before the one that examines hearts comes and examines his.

Additions were put on another page, to avoid breaking up the article. If the reader is interested in knowing more about the healing process of the author and further developments in the situation, read on.

Abuse of Pastoral Authority Additions
Addition September 1, 2005
Addition December 5, 2005
Addition February 13, 2006
Addition April 4, 2006
Addition May 4, 2006
Addition July 11, 2006
Addition March 8, 2007

Endnotes:

1. David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse - Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bethany House Publishers 1991) pp. 23,24.

2. Margaret Thaler Singer, PhD, Cults in our Midst (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc., 1995) Table 3.3 p. 63. Sources of table: Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism; Schein, Schneier and Barker, Coercive Persuasion.
Addition Oct. 20, 2005 - For an online version of the table see: The Process of Brainwashing, Psychological Coercion, and Thought Reform.
For some information about Margaret Thaler Singer, PhD, see: The preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century.

3. Singer, p. 65.

4. Hugo Stamm, Sekten (Zürich, Kreuz Verlag AG, 1995) pp. 19,20. Original German: „Potenzielle Opfer von Sekten sind Suchende, die von der Sehnsucht nach einer heilen Welt getrieben werden....Fehlender Lebenssinn, innere Leere, mangelnde Geborgenheit, ein Leidensdruck nach traumatischen Erlebnissen machen aber auch ältere personen auf der Suche manchmal zu Süchtigen.......Labile personen stellen in Phasen psychischer Not keine kritischen Fragen und verdrängen Zweifel über die Heilstheorie oder Gruppenrituale freiwillig, weil sie die von den Kulten und Sekten versprochene Erlösung oder Erleuchtung unter allen Umständen erreichen wollen. Das Ziel ihrer Sehnsucht vor Augen, glauben sie, den Weg zum Heil gefunden zu haben.“

5. Singer p. 21.

6. Singer p. 68.

7. Singer pp. 74, 75.

8. Mary Alice Chrnalogar Twisted Scriptures (Zondervan Publishing House, 2000 - Revised Edition) p. 92.

9. Berit Kjos Re-Inventing the Church - Part 1, reference 4, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/change-agent-1.htm; Doug Murren, "The Leader as Change Agent," Leaders on Leadership (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1997), pages 204-206.

10. Berit Kjos Re-Inventing the Church - Part 1, www.crossroad.to .

11. Maria del Carmen Tapia, Beyond the Threshold, orig. Tras el umbral. (New York, NY, The Continuum Publishing Company, 1999) p. 36.

12. Johnson, VanVonderen pp. 44,45,197.

13. Johnson, VanVonderen p. 55.

14. Singer p. 220.

15. Stephen Arterburn and Jack Felton, Toxic Faith - Experiencing Healing from Painful Spiritual Abuse (Colorado Springs, Colorado, WaterBrook Press, 2001).

16. Singer p. 71.

17. Friedrich Wilhelm Haack Self-Proclaimed Shepherds (orig. Hirten im eigenen Auftrag) Shepherding / Discipling, Bob Weiner's Maranatha & Kip McKean's Boston Church of Christ. Dokumentations-Edition 17 der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Religions- und Weltanschauungsfragen; p. 9. Translation from German into English by Carmen Brill with permission from ARW www.religio.de/arw. For English version of document see: Self-Proclaimed Shepherds. Original German Text: “Der ‘Hirte’ steht für die Schafe and der Stelle Gottes, sein Wort ist Wort in göttlicher Vollmacht. Ihm darf niemals, auch nicht unter Verweis auf die Zehn Gebote oder die Bibel widersprochen werden. Sich dem Hirten zu widersetzen, hieße, sich Gott zu widersetzen.“

18. This and all other quotes from Scripture taken from the King James Version.

19. Tapia p. 317.

20. Chrnalogar p. 219.

21. Gordon Urquhart, The Pope’s Armada (Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1999) p. 52.

22. Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch (Mannheim; Wien; Zürich: Dudenverlag, 1989) orig. German, „Indoktrination, psychologische Mittel nutzende Beeinflussung von Einzelnen od. ganzen Gruppen der Gesellschaft im Hinblick auf die Bildung einer berstimmten Meinung od. Einstellung.“

23. Stamm p. 76. Original German: „Mit manipulativen Methoden überschreiben sie das Bewußtsein mit ihrer Heilslehre oder Gruppenideologie. Indoktrination und Gehirnwäsche sind gleichermaßen Eingriffe in die Gefühls- und Gedankenweit der Opfer, die zur Bewußtseinskontrolle führen.“

24. Friedrich Wilhelm Haack, Kein Blatt vor dem Mund, Von der Religions-Freiheit, Ja und Nein zu sagen, Material-Edition 15, (München, Deutschland, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Religions- und Weltanschauungsfragen, 1981) Kapitel: Die neuen Jugendreligionen - Herausforderung für Gesellschaft, Staat und Kirchen, Subtitel: 6. Indoktrination und Psychomutation. (Translation: Don't Mince Words: About freedom of religion, saying yes and no, Material-Edition 15. Chapter: The new Youth Religions - A Challenge for Society, State and Church, Subtitle: 6. Indoctrination and Psychomutation.)

25. A fairly thorough definition of historical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism can be found at: www.planetkc.com/puritan/Articles/DoctrinalObstaclesToEvangelism.htm in an article entitled Removing the Doctrinal Obstacles to Calvinistic Evangelism by Mitch Cervinka.

26. Tapia p. 319.

27. Chrnalogar p. 224

28. Stamm p. 74. Original German: “Indoktrination ist keine Gehirnwäsche, aber eine seelische Folter”.

29. Carmen Brill Is Church Membership Really Necessary?, http://jamesfive19.com.

30. Johnson/VanVonderen p. 116.

31. Johnson/VanVonderen p. 111.

32. Tricia Tillin G12: Control, in Order to Better Reign By an Ex-member of a G12 Cell Group, www.banner.org.uk .

33. Carmen Brill Is Church Membership Really Necessary?, http://jamesfive19.com.

34. Albert Dager, PK Plan for the Church Revealed by Bill McCartney Excerpted from Al Dager's Report. Contributing to the report are Albert Dager of Media Spotlight, David Cloud who first posted this report, and "Coach" Bill McCartney who has introduced this plan for a one world church. December 1, 1997 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) -- The following is excerpted from a report entitled "Promise Keepers' D.C. Covenant Agenda for Churches Revealed" by Albert Dager, Copyright 1997, Media Spotlight, P.O. Box 290, Redmond, WA 98073-0290. http://www.intotruth.org/pk/pk-dager.html, part of www.banner.org.uk.

35. Dr. Deborah Menken Gill, Commission on Discipleship, Assembly of God, A New Kind of Teaching—with Authority The address is: http://discipleship.ag.org/files/gc2003-dgill.pdf or go to http://discipleship.ag.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 click on Commission on Discipleship and then on A New Kind of Teaching - with Authority.

36. Carmen Brill Guilty Until Proven Innocent?, http://jamesfive19.com.

37. Chrnalogar pp. 154, 155, 76.

If you would like to comment on this article or see further related articles go to the blog section.

All websites, even though publicly available are not public domain. This according to The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Go to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf for a summary or to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/hr2281.pdf for a full version.

You may print, copy or reference this document for your own use but the name of the author, Carmen Brill, must be included and the copies or references must include a reference to this website, http://jamesfive19.com. You may not distribute this document in your name and you may not distribute it for profit.

Back to Index Page | English | Deutsch | Italiano | Links | Blog |