Paranoid Church

"Our church can't be paranoid. We are out there in the community, caring for the homeless, the vulnerable! We are outgoing, unafraid and a blessing to all around us!"

A hallmark of an unhealthy community is that both it and its leadership demonstrate a degree of paranoia. So can a church, which is so focused on the community around it, really suffer from it?

From the inside, it may not be particularly apparent, especially when the church appears to have such a thriving ministry to the poor, the outcast, the homeless. But it is not in its community activities that paranoia will generally be found. Indeed, in that aspect of it, one is more likely to witness a certain elitism.

Paranoia entails a sense of being threatened. And from those who have little experience in christianity, or knowledge of the Bible, or little standing in society, there is little to fear. The church is not afraid of the vulnerable.

It is possible, however,  that a church's 'ministry to the poor' is carried out with rather mixed motives. Welcoming the vulnerable can make us feel 'bigger'. The church becomes the great benefactor. If the Pastor is narcissistic in anyway, which is likely in a dysfunctional church, the vulnerable become his - and the church's - source of narcissistic supply. They become the dependent sheep who are to be nurtured and trained, as they listen with wholehearted, uncritical receptivity to the awe-inspiring 'revelation' of the Pastor. Their ideas pose no threat, as they are uninformed. They allow the church to feel good about itself, providing it with a righteous, biblically endorsed cause and a community which, in all likelihood, reflects the Pastor's view of himself back at him.

If one is seeking for evidence of paranoia in an unhealthy church, that is the wrong place to look.

But what of the educated, experienced Christian visitor to the church? Is he welcomed with open arms? Perhaps, but is there also a sense of wariness that he brings an independent - and thus unwelcome - perspective from his different (less spiritual) background? Is there a sense that the church is on guard against him, lest his contribution does not sit completely under the revelation of the Pastor? Does the church use his submission to the Pastor as a test to gauge whether or not he is 'Spirit-filled'? Or is there a feeling that he has brought a wrong, independent spirit into the church with him?

And what about contact with those who have left the church? Is there a fear that to engage with them 'opens the door to the Devil'? That to do so makes one a partaker in their sin, whatever it is? Paranoia is often the real reason why a Pastor and his church agrees to shun an ex-member, although it is usually disguised as 'godly discipline'.  If a church refuses to investigate the reasons why a member left and agrees only to permit a narrow, one-sided information source, one can be sure that paranoia is the overriding explanation. The excuse of 'protecting the flock' simply does not cut it when it is those who have the most christian experience in the church who are warned. And 'disciplining the offender' does not wash either, when no specific misdemeanours have been mentioned and no route to reconciliation is offered.

The church absorbs the paranoia of the Pastor, who may openly or covertly warn his flock about certain members who are 'operating on their own agenda' and not his.

A paranoid Pastor is likely to preach that he suffers persecution, when in fact he is simply being called to account. Any negative press against the church will be interpreted by the church in the same light.

At the worst, he will believe that a 'subordinate' is after his position. He will proclaim that his 'right hand men' want to 'topple' him. He exhibits the same madness that tortured King Saul, leading him to believe that David was his enemy, a pattern of behaviour which is immediately apparent in all totalitarian leaders.

If reading this, you are aware of paranoid tendencies in your church community, watch out!

Paranoia, like jealousy, nurtures highly destructive and abusive behaviours in those who suffer from it, towards those who unintentionally - and often rightly - trigger it.

Silence - The Law of Love

Those who buy into a cult-like ideology often do so because, at least at surface level, that ideology appears to champion intense 'brotherly love' among its members.

The formulation of that 'Law of Love' seems, at first glance, to reflect very noble, worthy 'Christ-like' aspirations.

The Bruderhof community (in similar vein to other high-demand christian groups) words their 'First Law of Love' like this:

"There is no law but love. Love is joy in others. What, then, is anger at them? Words of love convey the joy we have in the presence of our brothers and sister. It is out of the question to speak about another person in a spirit of irritation or vexation.

There must never be talk, either in open remarks or by insinuation, against any brother or sister, or against their individual characteristics and under no circumstances behind their back. Gossiping in one's family is no exception. Without this rule of silence there can be no loyalty and hence no community. Direct address is the only way possible. It is a service we owe anyone whose weaknesses cause a negative reaction in us.

An honest word spoken openly and directly deepens friendship and will not be resented. Only when two people do not come to an agreement quickly is it necessary to draw in a third person whom both of them trust. In this way they can be led to a solution that unites them in the highest and deepest levels."

Barnabas Johnson, expelled from the Bruderhof at age 14, explains the problems and dangers of such high-sounding sentiments thus:

"...This rule which on its face seems benign, indeed commendable, supported an increasingly unaccountable leadership which, starting in the late 1950s, was becoming what many ex-members believe it has now become: an abusive dictatorship.

During my childhood, I learned that our no-gossip rule meant the following: If I had a criticism of somebody, I should bring the matter to that person's attention, one-on-one, rather than discussing it with others. Discussing problems "behind the back" of the person(s) one was criticizing was considered highly improper. Only when "direct address" failed was it proper (indeed necessary) for the disputants to bring in a "third party" to help resolve matters.

The main problem with this rule is that it is the "First Law" … yet there is no Second, let alone Third, thereby allowing a harmonic convergence of "balanced rules" which recognize that sometimes it is good, indeed essential, for members to pool their observations and insights - to "gossip" - especially about their leaders: to determine whether, and if so when and how, to speak truth to power, powerfully, and thereby to confront arrogant and erring leaders effectively...

The "gossip" (godsyb) was in ancient times a "god-relative" who bore a special responsibility towards his or her "syb"; this responsibility was apparently taken on voluntarily, gossips being "sponsors" and helpers … as needed. Apparently, unlike god-parents, god-siblings were drawn from ones age group and gender; they were sand-pit play-mates; they were best buddies, true friends (friends in need, the best indeed). Thus, if the village was awakened night after night because Joseph and Mary were screaming at each other, their friends and neighbors and gossips would naturally discuss this troubling fact, trying to figure out whether, and if so when and how, to help Joseph and Mary resolve their problems and thereby restore the peace of the night.

True, Henry might (without consulting others) call Joseph aside for a little chat, one-on-one, and that course (a) might be good, and (b) would accord with the Bruderhof's First Law. But, on the other hand, Henry and Tom might discuss the problem together first, and then discuss it with their wives, and then ask James and his sister for their input, before all decide to invite Mary and Joseph over for beer and a neighborly talk tonight, and (arguably, given the value of neighborly consultations, otherwise called "gossip") that course (a) might be even better, but (b) would violate the Bruderhof's First Law. Life is complicated, human relationships are deeply textured, and "talking behind the back" can constitute a conspiracy against but can also constitute a cooperation for … in this case, for the health of the village, which depends on Joseph and Mary to pull their weight, etc., and also depends on everybody getting a good night's rest.

Put differently, there is good gossip and bad gossip, just as there is good cooperation and bad cooperation. Wisdom lies in balanced judgment, in the wise equipoise of "love" and "law" and other precious values. In the Bruderhof, however, "love" and "law" are seen as Manichean opposites: never the twain shall meet, let alone intertwine. As a consequence, the "loving way" is decreed by a leader who is not bounded by the "lawful way"; he is theologically and factually unaccountable (except to "God" as he interprets same), and this leader can therefore dispense unequal justice, unchecked whim, and sheer favoritism, as the spirit (he would say "Spirit") moves him. This is dysfunctional.

The Elder is apparently empowered to expel any member for good cause, bad cause, or no cause. As members have no private property, no savings, no resumes, no references, and often no knowledge of the "outside world" (as members call it), they are reluctant to criticize the Elder one-on-one because, face it, he always wins such face-offs. Yet if two or three gather together to discuss their errant Elder, and then perhaps discuss and strategize with another ten or even hundreds before confronting the Maximum Leader, what can happen? He can cut off the first speaker in mid-sentence and toss him out for having violated the First Law! There is no Second Law. Is there a second speaker? "

In Barnabas' view, the 'first law' was increasingly "focused on averting crises or, more precisely, protecting the dictatorship from successful challenges."

Full article: The First Law of Sannerz by Barnabas Johnson

The 'first law of love', or some wording of it, is often used extremely effectively in cult-like groups to shut down any attempt at whistleblowing.

The recent sex abuse scandal among the Jehovah's Witnesses demonstrates how well this can work, especially when combined with the 'two witnesses' rule:

"Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." 1 Tim 5:19

In many cases of abuse, there is only one witness!

And the victim is coerced  into remaining silent, on grounds of breaking 'God-given' instructions which supposedly entail the 'First Law of Love' and its anti-gossip rule.

Healthy communities do not operate under such high sounding, but false ideals.

The Other Players in the Game

Victims. Outcasts. Enablers. Co-conspirators

(This article is an abridged version of Scapegoating. Spiritual Abuse in Churches part 2 by Rev Andy Little, which includes full quotes and attribution of sources)

In an unhealthy church, each member plays a role and is, to some extent complicit in the abusive system. While the Pastor or leader may display characteristics consistent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the system would not exist without these other players:

Victims: Compliant people who openly support the abusive leader that they perceive as having integrity. In order to be valued by the system, the unassuming victims sacrifice their need to be significant and place total trust in the leader. Those in power assume their blind allegiance because the victims lose themselves in the family or organization. The majority who leave come from this group.

Victims need to belong to something larger than themselves, and their fears of rejection and abandonment compel them to be exploited members of something rather than loners and part of nothing. When and if the toxic faith system is exposed, however, victims must bear the feelings of being used to satisfy the sinful desires of those in authority. Just as in the adage, “The witness of violence is a victim of violence”, victims may reach a point where they can no longer reconcile the unhealthy practices of the church leadership with their own injured faith. Spiritually, victims may suffer abandonment, loss, loneliness and isolation from the church. Since they have been “driven out of the garden where God is experienced” victims may become spiritually homeless, or even devoid of faith, due to the violation of their system of belief.


Outcasts: Of the five roles in the toxic faith system, only one is not a religious addict or a possessor of toxic faith. In the toxic system there is usually someone who can see the problem and confront it. Unwilling to play the games of the persecutors and co-conspirators, the person becomes an outcast.

Some members, usually with significant functions in the church, become aware of the brokenness of the system, but when they voice disapproval they are castigated as troublemakers and treated as pariahs. Within this system, loyalty is inseparable from blind faith and absolute agreement with the abusive leader. Either someone is one hundred percent with the leader, or one hundred percent against him or her. These people then become targets of scapegoating, slurs and even slander in an attempt to defend the system. Many leave the church, but some are able to process their pain and anger resulting from the attacks, envision a better future for the church and themselves, and remain – albeit in the role of outcasts. Outcasts see the system for what it is and, as “lone voices in the wilderness”, pray for and/or promote change. They love God and want to protect His people and His church from willful abuse. The price paid, however, is being ostracized from the church, friends and, sometimes, jobs.

Enablers: participate in victimization, although by taking a relatively passive role. The enablers lose themselves in the life of the abusive leader, but the more they invest the more they resent their role. As the enablers continue to lose self worth, they hang on to their roles rather than break free. As long as the enabler remains convinced there is no hope to change, the toxic system will continue in denial and hypocrisy. Enablers rationalize their role in supporting wrongdoing out of a need to be submissive, and delude themselves that they are being simply obedient and loyal.

Even when confronted with the symptoms of the unhealthy system, the fearful enabler continues to allow the problem to grow until someone else takes care of it. Despite resenting their role, enablers are the most likely to begin the process of scapegoating, due to their need to maintain the peace found in the status quo. The system coerces the enablers to stay in the supportive role – whatever the price.  Other participants of wrongdoing generally convince the enablers that the abusive leader is being persecuted, thereby calling on the enablers’ tendency to assist the helpless or underdog. Most often they are manipulated into allegiance, rather than threatened into compliance.

Co-conspirators: manipulate, plot and plan to keep the abusive leader in power and position. In an errant church the leader and co-conspirators form a cohesive unit, with the latter feeding the leader’s ego and further blinding him or her from reality, thus allowing the continuation of delusional behavior. The co-conspirators take an active role in the victimization of others. Their motivation is in receiving adulation from the abusive leader when they have defended him or her, and their sense of importance comes from seeing themselves as the caretakers of the entire system. If it means that lies and distortions must be propagated to retain the leader in that ministry, lies and distortions will be devised.

The following is an abbreviated list of characteristics of the co-conspirator:
Ultimate team player; shows total dedication to, and support of, persecutor
Feeds persecutor’s ego
Addicted to power granted by persecutor
Willingly deceives to maintain persecutor’s power, rewarded for willingness to distort the truth
Ties personal feelings of value to another instead of God
Protects sense of self-worth by protecting the persecutor
Appears unassuming and grateful to be #2 in the structure
Is sincerely deluded
Lacks the strong charisma and leadership abilities of persecutor
Feels extremely inadequate
Is viewed by outsiders as trustworthy, conscientious, competent, mature, and reliable

Profile of a cult leader

There's a common set of characteristics among those who lead dysfunctional communities.

In a church setting, some of those characteristics can be quite well hidden, or even given a positive 'spiritual spin'

Watch out if you recognize more than a few:

Grandiosity: This entails having a superior view of oneself, together with disdain for others.

In the church setting, it is not uncommon for the leader to promote his own superior access to wisdom, insight and the very voice of God, while speaking disparagingly of other churches, organizations and leaders. If not his superior spirituality, he may proclaim his uncommon education or his deep learning and understanding of scripture.

He may fantasize about the church's (and therefore his) success. He may preach that God will enlarge the congregation to thousands, or that it's influence in the town or even nationally will be far more significant than is realistic.

He is likely to view himself and be viewed as a 'man above men'. Somehow greater, stronger, more compassionate, more radical. He appears unthreatened, unintimidated, wiser than most, and carries a huge capacity to draw others under his wing. Entering a room, he changes it, becoming the charismatic focal point in the conversation. He may entertain with 'larger-than-life' stories about himself from the past.

Consequently, his followers are likely to view themselves as a 'cut above the rest'. The church may believe it has more 'liberty in the Spirit'. Perhaps it prides itself on an unconventional worship style. Perhaps its works of service to the community are perceived to be more effectively run, more 'spirit led'. It may pride itself on the apparent commitment of members to each other, or its radical commitment of obedience to the Pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In everything the church does, there is a corporate view that 'we do it best'.

Because it is a church setting, that superiority may not be often voiced. It is often subconsciously assimilated. There is a danger that such grandiosity will be seen for what it is -  mere pride. Talking about it too often would give the game away. 

One effective strategy to conceal the sense of superiority is for the Pastor to declare that he is (among other firsts) 'the chief of sinners', accompanied by confession of a range of intangible, 'spiritual' failings (never specific faults). Such 'humility', of course, deflects any from raising concerns - the poor man is tortured enough already with his own sin for others to add the pain with their own petty concerns.

Paranoia: Dysfunctional communities are often characterized by paranoia. In the leader, it is often expressed in an unwarranted fear that others are rising up to overthrow him. He can develop a persecution complex. He rallies the support of the faithful against those who wish to 'accuse' him and even legitimate concerns are labelled persecution and divisive criticism.

In turn, the congregation becomes fearful of any opposing voice, either within its ranks or outside them, which it considers to be a manifestation of a bad spirit. They begin to self-censor and withdraw from others, fearful (and taught) that they might get 'infected'.

Haughty, arrogant behaviours are common. He may appear to relish having spoken the 'incisive prophetic' word to other leaders when, in fact, it is possible that he has merely exercised a highly critical, harsh and unfounded judgement. His comments and behaviour towards others can be belittling and humiliating, especially if they don't see eye-to-eye. His response to criticism is most likely to be one of damning contempt, with a good dose of (scripturally based) name-calling thrown in.

Inability to take blame: The leader on his way to establishing a cult-like community will rarely be found to be taking blame. Or if he does so, he will unrealistically 'accept' blame far beyond the misdemeanour in hand. He is extremely sensitive, although presents a strong exterior. He is likely to rage at criticism, even if his rage is, at first silent. He may preach forgiveness, but it will not quash the internal turmoil he experiences - and it will eventually come out in accusations of rebellion, a critical spirit, and taking sides with the Devil. His punishment of those who have thus 'persecuted' him is harsh, while he continues to preach mercy and grace.

His sense of self is derived from the reflection he gets back from others: Such a leader needs others to affirm the image he wants to present of himself, hence his difficulty in living and working with those around him who exercise a healthy sense of independence and autonomy and do not reflect his image back to him. Not only that, he will also assume in others the negative traits he sees in himself. He will deny that others are not like him and that they do not react or behave in the way he does. He projects his own 'sins' and weaknesses onto them. Others must worship God in the same way he does - or they are not worshiping properly.

In a church, followers are consequently channeled into a uniformity of thought and action, which is sometimes mistaken for unity. 'Being of one mind' often means that of the Pastor. Independent thinking is taken to be a manifestation of pride.

He is interpersonally exploitative and manipulative: Common tricks to recruit or maintain followers include 'love-bombing'. This can be especially evident with new visitors, who are showered with gifts and attention. Consequently, they are led to believe that he - and the church, expresses a uncommon love and commitment to one another. Flattery is often employed. He may use the 'gift of prophecy' to tell a follower that God will use him and his gifts in powerful, far-reaching, world-changing ways. He will promote those who 'read his heart', but increasingly sideline and exclude those who appear to see things a little differently, or offer a different perspective. He may ask for commitments from members that are inappropriate in time or cost, thus betraying, perhaps, a sense of entitlement. In order to isolate a 'dangerous' member, he may employ subtle suggestion, privately or in preaching, to persuade others to distance themselves.

The characteristics above are common, to a great extent, in all leaders in all cult-like communities. It is often noted that such leaders appear to have read the same 'manual' of people management, so similar is their behaviour.

Those who demonstrate these qualities are often diagnosed by psychologists as having 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' - the one disorder which is not recognized by those who have it, but often necessitates the healing of those who have been drawn into the vicinity of it but now recognize the need to question, or ultimately, to pull away.


If these characteristics seem familiar to you, the following options could be considered:

1) Remain and comply. Relinquish your independent thought and vow never to question. You are likely to be favoured, rewarded and given much attention.

2) Leave silently. You will be falsely accused and your name smeared. You will have no opportunity to defend yourself. You will be shunned.

3) Stay, but raise objections. You will be considered a messenger of the Devil and will either be covertly pressured into leaving or excommunicated. You will be shunned

4) Choose a middle ground of half-hearted, insincere commitment in order to appease and, to some extent, live an independent life. You may get away with this if other historical factors in your relationship cause him to be lenient towards you. Some can 'get away with murder'.

None of the options are particularly palatable.

Shun the Bullied!

Yes, you read that correctly.

Not 'Shun the bullies.'

Shun the bullied:

"Anyone who uses the words 'they are bullying me, back off from them.

It is wordly, sensual, it is not from the Spirit.

God's people don't use that language because they understand the concept of what that means.

If someone uses it to me, I know that it is the accuser talking. I refuse to listen to them...

The word bully has a drive to it.

If you hear it, stop it. Have nothing to do with that person.

Have nothing to do with anyone who says they are being bullied.

Walk away."

Words spoken by a Pastor as advice to his flock.

The God of both the Old and New Testament, by contrast, is presented as a God who rescues the downtrodden, who defends the cause of the oppressed.

Jeremiah 22:3
This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Psalm 103:6
The Lord works righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.

He is on the side of the underdog, the downtrodden. The bullied.

So why would a Pastor preach a message exhorting in the strongest possible terms to avoid any who say they are bullied? Why preach a message that is so contrary to Scripture?

The most reasonable explanation is that a claim of being bullied entails an allegation that someone is a bully. And no  allegations of any kind are permitted, especially if raised against the leader.

Such a policy, in the case of an allegation which happens to be true, suggests strongly that there must be an interest in protecting the bully. There is no accommodation to verify, nor to alleviate any suffering, so whatever the truth, it is the assumption that the bullied person must be indulging in slander which carries the day. This is, of course, expected policy in abusive cultures.

To instruct a congregation to avoid a person who says he feels bullied is, potentially, to protect an abuser while silencing and ostracizing the victim. Allegations really ought to be investigated!

If, as a teacher, I refused to listen to a pupil complaining of playground bullying, scolding him for making accusations against another pupil and failing to investigate, I would be falling short in my duty of care to a child, failing to safeguard, violating the 'anti-bullying' policy, incurring the understandable wrath of parents and the Head Teacher and possibly contributing to a failed Ofsted inspection, never mind my actions being morally repellent. 

One can only assume that a leader who preaches such a message is afraid that someone might blow the whistle on him. And that such a leader has a vested interested in making the member 'under' him continue to suffer in silence, alone,  rather than have his own actions placed under scrutiny.

It is a matter of wonder how appallingly the 'anti-criticism' message can be twisted, in a cult-like community, into a sickening policy which shames, silences and perpetuates suffering in the victim, while allowing the bully to continue his (often hidden) abuse, unquestioned and unabated. 

Turning the tables

For the unaccountable leader to remain in power, he must develop an arsenal of weapons against any who attempt to call him to account.

Those weapons can be identified in any unhealthy community, although their expression may vary. In a totalitarian state, one might find a victim vilified, with trumped up charges against the state, punishable by imprisonment or death.

In the religious setting, the all-too common tactic of 'turning-the-tables' is more likely to focus on:

1) The supposed ungodly character of the person who has raised objections

2) His supposed broken relationship with God

At the extreme end, our history has seen martyrs accused of heresy and burned at the stake so that their soul may be saved. Somewhat less severely, many churches today practice excommunication and shunning.

In our culture, it is common for spiritual abuse to be limited to false accusation, threat and pressure to 'recant'. If sustained, the stress may be sufficient to trigger mental health problems. Church is supposed to be a safe haven for its members. For some, an unhealthy church can cease to be a place of protection and instead becomes a prison of mental torture.

Shutting down concerns is of paramount importance to the paranoid leader seeking to fortify his position. Turning the tables is a common 'first port of call'.

In the first instance, the one who approaches the Pastor with a genuine call for adjustment is likely to be accused of attitudinal sins, rather than specific misdemeanours.  If the 'victim' has, to date, been a loyal, upright member of the congregation with no obvious bad behaviour, nothing else is likely to stick.

Sins of attitude are difficult to prove or deny, which is why such accusations are so useful. They serve to put the unfortunate member off his guard, questioning himself, rather than pressing through on the important issue raised with the leader. It is enough to silence some.

Initially, one will be accused of pride and arrogance. None of us are without fault, the story goes. The Pastor, like the Apostle Paul is, in his own words 'the greatest of sinners'. And he recognizes it. So he doesn't need anyone to show him his faults - he is only too well aware of them. And that's why it is cruel, heartless and arrogant to 'accuse' him. We should be gracious and silent, rather than critical and unforgiving. God alone will deal with him if it is needed.

Such a response successfully insulates the Pastor against just criticism, while he confesses no specific sin, thus turning the tables on the concerned member as a graceless, proud accuser.

"Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone," he may quote - failing to note that we are not throwing stones, neither are we condemning. We simply seek accountability.

If not pulling the 'superior education card', some spiritually abusive Pastors will attack the 'educated', especially if there were shortcomings in their own schooling and they believe themselves to be men of  'Holy Spirit revelation'. The educated, if they bring any doctrinal correction are, by default, arrogant and prideful. They are men of the 'head', not the 'spirit', and consequently 'set themselves against God'.

A favourite Scripture, which places the 'Spirit-led' Pastor beyond correction is:

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things thatc ome from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment.… 1 Cor 2: 13-15

The very sins which the Pastor denounces: criticism, slander, divisiveness, insinuation are usually those of which he is particularly guilty in his own preaching as he rails against the proud, as he slanders or, at least, insinuates evil in those who call him to account and as he divides the silent 'faithful' in order to isolate his questioning victim.

Having successfully turned the tables on his so-called 'opponent' by maligning his character, he will move on to attacking the poor member's relationship with God - and will find any pretext to do so. 

Simply failing to turn up to meetings is evidence enough that the 'erring' member's relationship to God is in question. A justification for that leap?  Jesus' words that 'whatever you do to the least of these my brethren you do to me' - You are distancing yourselves from your brothers by failing to attend. Therefore, you are distancing yourself from Christ!  Brutal, in light of the fact that one's less frequent attendance at meetings may be entirely due to the emotional manipulation and abuse suffered during them.

Much is likely to be made of  'Covenant'. That resigning a church position, or leaving the church is 'breaking covenant' with brothers and therefore breaking covenant with God. Of course, Scripture says nothing whatsoever about a believer's covenant with his church, or his Pastor.

Believers are called to love, not to be part of an organization 'at any price'. Those who leave are not 'branches cut off from the Vine', fit for burning. 

Having successfully turned the tables against an undesirable member and persuaded the congregation of his 'erring' ways, it remains an easy job for the Pastor to convince his flock not to make contact if he leaves. One wouldn't want to be tainted with the same spirit of criticism and rebellion, after all. To be successful, that convincing is easily done merely through the power of insinuation and suggestion.

And so it is, that an entire congregation shuns a member that has been targeted for speaking up and draws ever closer to the Pastor, lest the same tragedy happens to them. 

Obey them that have the rule over you.

King James Bible
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17

New Living Translation
Dear brothers and sisters, honor those who are your leaders in the Lord's work. They work hard among you and give you spiritual guidance.

Is it always the case that church members must obey the designated leader?
Is it always 'divisive' and worthy of shunning if one does not?

Questions I have found myself asking, especially in the light of the letter quoted above.

I am no greek scholar, but a cursory browse around biblehub.com yields some interesting alternative readings of the above which, perhaps, suggests that translating the original words is not as straightforward as it seems. We often do not pick up the nuance, the social context or the agenda behind the original language and usage:

Jubilee Bible 2000
Listen to your pastors, and do not resist them, for they watch for your souls as those that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17

New International Version
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 1 Thess 5:12

Other translations yield further shades of meaning.

In all cases, however, the point seems clear that honour is due to leaders who exhibit certain qualities; those who 'watch over your souls'; those who 'work hard among you' and 'give you spiritual guidance'; those who 'care for you'.

Not all leaders do so, even if they once started out that way.


There isn't space here to undertake an in-depth study of the greek word translated 'obey' above, but the fact of varying translations indicates that all is not as clear or simple as appears at first sight.

In the case of Hebrews 13:17, the instruction to obey appears to assume that the leader is worthy of imitation. Just a few verses before, we read, "Remember your leaders [Ed. 'those that have the rule over you' is a phrase added in KJV], who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith." Heb 13:7 
Moreover,  the word 'obey' may be more correctly translated as 'be persuaded by'. So what is it about one's leader that should persuade? The outcome of his way of life, surely?

Here's an explanation of a greek word often translated 'to rule' in the New Testament. The original meaning appears more to do with providing a good example to the flock, rather than legislating, enforcing or, perhaps, coercing. It's about character, not hierarchy. And it's evident that good character, track record and leading by example are paramount:

HELPS Word-studies:

4291 proístēmi (from 4253 /pró, "before" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, "pre-standing," referring to a pre-set (well-established) character which provides the needed model to direct others, i.e. to positively impact them by example.
4291 /proístēmi ("diligent to take the lead") underlines the effectiveness of influencing people by having a respected reputation, i.e. one built on a solid "track-record." This happens by setting the example of excellence by living in faith (cf. Ro 12:3,8).


So, does the Bible give us any indication on how to respond to those who appear to be in a position of power in the church, but misuse it?

Does it give us examples in which 'honouring' - by means of obeying - are not appropriate? And does it enjoin us not to obey in some circumstances?

Certainly there are stories in the Old Testament in which those 'under authority' spoke against those in power and found endorsement by God. Sarah and Abraham, Abigail and David, Nathan and David, David and Saul, and a whole host of prophets living under the rule of God's anointed Kings provide a few examples.


Here are a few references which seem to imply that one should disobey, avoid or at least, heed warnings against those at the extreme end of religious abuse, even if they appear to be in leadership.

Jeremiah 23:16
Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD.

2 Peter 2:1
Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies that even deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those workers of evil, those mutilators of the flesh!

2 Corinthians 11:
4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles"...20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face.

(Presumably, Paul was, in so many words, exhorting the Corinthians not to put up with those who claimed apostolic authority but were abusing the flock. Evidence of their false apostleship would include that they were taking advantage of, or 'slapping in the face', as well as teaching erroneous doctrine.)

Revelation 2:
14But I have a few things against you, because some of you hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the Israelites so they would eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality. 15In the same way, some of you also hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16Therefore repent! Otherwise I will come to you shortly and wage war against them with the sword of My mouth.

(The church has a mandate here, directly from Jesus, it seems, to reject false teaching and practice, wherever it comes from, even if it is leadership promoting it.)

Too often, in churches which have developed an unhealthy hierarchy, 'blowing the whistle' on abusive teaching and practice by leadership is conflated with 'failing to honour and obey' / 'divisiveness' and the unfortunate member so doing is consequently shunned.  

In our day, we have seen a number of church leaders called out for child sexual abuse. This is, of course, only right and proper. Those who seek to cover up or excuse, using Scripture to do so, are considered enablers of that abuse. The (misinterpreted) biblical instructions to 'obey' hardly seem appropriate here, especially when read by the offending Priest to the child in order to get him to submit!

And yet there remains the thorny and very similar dynamic of spiritual abuse in so many churches. Abuse which many consider to be just as damaging as anything physical. It can be defined as:

'using religious guilt to keep a person in a toxic relationship where the offending person shows no true attempt in changing their behaviours'.

Should our response as individuals or collectively, as a church, be any different?

The Inner Circle

Cruella Deville and her bumbling, loyal sidekicks.
Scar and his hyenas.
Jafar and his loyal parrot, Iago.

All simplistic over-dramatized Disney caricatures of the narcissist in power and the mechanisms by which he or she retains it.

And yet, each illustrates common characteristics of the group dynamic an abusive leader puts in place in order to protect himself. In the cartoons, the loyal sidekicks do the leader's bidding, often receiving much criticism from him/her in the process. They stand to gain more than they suffer.

In a church setting, such dynamics might be most apparent in the relationship between the Pastor and individual members of the board of trustees, which is likely to consist only of yes-men - those most loyal to the Pastor. Complete loyalty would gain only approval and blessing. Raising objections might provoke criticism, but given the admiration towards the leader, such criticism might be mild, short lived and easily endured.

There can be a codependency between the Pastor and his inner circle. They need him - for emotional reassurance; for validation; for the sense of purpose he gives them; for the feelings of worth they gain from the positions and roles in which they are placed; for the thinking he does for them and the advice he gives. It is safe to say they would find it very difficult to survive without him. They are likely to lack a sense of healthy independence and may suffer from low self-esteem. To a large extent, the Pastor takes on a fatherhood role, which is never outgrown. Some may even enjoy the privilege of being rebuked, chastised, corrected or even insulted by him, in a perverse kind of way. It may provide them with the attention they seek. They certainly stand to benefit from the security he provides.

And, of course, the Pastor stands to benefit. He enjoys the devoted attention, the admiration and the validation they bring.

They are also vital in shielding the Pastor from valid criticism from those at a greater 'distance'. If the Pastor cannot be reached in person, it will be impossible to reach him through his devoted inner circle. The route exhorted by Jesus for dealing with an erring brother simply cannot work in this case:

Matthew 18:15-16  If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. 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 the Pastor will not listen to valid concern and the inner circle won't entertain it, there is nothing left but to remain silent or leave. The unspoken 'no-talk' rule and heavy preaching against 'gossip' and 'criticism' effectively stifles any 'horizontal' communication between the members that are most 'important' in the group.

If a church, or any human organization is to remain healthy, it is vital that a leader includes in his team those with a healthy sense of independence, able to think for themselves and safe in the knowledge that they can express their views without fear of reprisal.

It is simply not the case that a Pastor's position in the church entails that God only speaks direction for the church through him. There lies the route to lock-step thinking and unchecked, unbalanced teaching and practice 'from the top', which is likely to turn a healthy organization into a cult.

What's the Big Attraction?

Cults and other dysfunctional groups are demonstrably places of restricted freedom to think and act independently. They are emotionally, if not physically, abusive and often isolate members from family and the outside world.

One may wonder what is the big attraction. What leads someone to join such a group in the first place or remain part of it?

It's a fair generalization to say that most dangerous groups do not start out that way. Whether a school, a church, or even an entire country, cult-like societies usually start with a heady idealism. Perhaps a truth has been discovered which others cannot yet see;  a 'new' way of  enabling a society to cohere has been found - holding all things in common, in community is often a basis. Or perhaps, the leader seems to have qualities above and beyond the run-of-the-mill. Thus a country's leader or political party may offer some form of national salvation; the answer to poverty or the key to economic success. There is often magical thinking involved. So a leader may be regarded as a god, with mystical powers, or maybe the group has access to the supernatural in unique ways.

Such idealism inevitably breeds elitism. Nobody does it the way we do! And since elitism is often considered an undesirable trait, it may be heavily disguised through, say, a programme of works of service to those outside, leading its members to think of themselves as humble servants. 'Love-bombing' the visitor is a prime tactic used to draw people in and demonstrate the superiority of  'our way'. It is often very effective since it immediately gives the newcomer connections and relationships which may, later, be hard to break. Those within the system, unless they have become cynical or have grown up within it, buy into the idealism and find their identity and purpose bound up in relationship with others.

It's not hard to understand why so many independent 'charismatic' churches have descended into unhealthy dynamics and practice. The charismatic movement began in such idealism. It was a proclamation that 'God was on the move', acting in the 'here and now' in supernatural dynamic ways. People spoke in tongues, others were healed. Some, by report, were raised from the dead. The 'gifts of the Spirit', including prophecy and the working of miracles were being restored to the church. A new breed of leaders, with an 'anointing' to be Apostles or Prophets began to arise. Fresh ways of worshiping were being explored outside the confines of traditional liturgy and there was a major emphasis on 'relationship' rather than meetings and rituals. Charismatic churches became a haven for idealistic christians disenchanted by a mainstream church which appeared to have lost its way and its power.

Cults always grow out of, or at least soon develop an elite society. Within the charismatic movement, it was easy for the 'born-again', the 'Spirit-filled', the 'anointed preachers', the 'healers', the 'Apostles' to think of themselves as supernaturally endowed and somehow more capable, wiser, more gifted than the rest of humanity. Elitist attitudes could be denied, or at least might remain unrecognised on grounds that whatever superior characteristics the believer now possessed, he had received 'by grace alone'. And that his life now consisted of 'pouring himself out for others' so that they could enjoy what he had received. Nevertheless, charismatic theology entailed that those outside did not 'have it' in quite the same way those on the inside did. It made those outside somehow less human.

For those who have been part of an idealist church for a long time but have, however, not seen the ever-promised 'revival' just around the corner, or have grown disenchanted, cynical or weary of false claims of miracle, there often remains huge pressure to stay. Relationships which have built up over the years become not only one's support system, but the opportunity to find one's own identity as a giver. Who you are is bound up with those to whom you relate. It is likely that other family members are part of the group and its very elitism may entail that you will be shunned by them if you leave, unless the church has maintained some healthy checks and balances.

It is often difficult to see flaws in a group from the inside, partly due to years of familiarity and especially so if one continues to hold on to any form of magical thinking about either the group or its leadership. As long as the leader remains 'the anointed man of God', and your dependence on him leads him to shower you with favour, you will simply refuse to see or believe a negative story brought by another. Flaws (sometimes serious) tend to be unrecognized or excused by the most 'faithful'.

Even if we concede the possibility that all the assertions of the supernatural in charismatic churches are true, that dangerous idealism and elitism remains. And if left unchecked, there is a tendency for leadership to become ever more power-protecting, self-serving, self-deceived and ultimately, abusive.

Often it is only when one takes a look from a distance, and begins to call the group or its leadership to account when it has veered off course, that the self-protecting, personal kingdom-consolidating attitudes of those in power become evident. At that point, the apparent beneficence of the leader, which is all that the idealistic compliant member can see, evaporates, to be replaced by bullying contempt or malevolent, underhand manipulation and rejection.

And then, despite the consequent intense emotional pressure to conform and remain, some choose the even harder route of leaving, with all the heartache and upheaval that entails.

The Sheep Trap

Unquestioning loyalty and uniformity of thought are high on the agenda of any narcissistic leader in any kind of organization, be it social, political or spiritual.

Whereas in some cults, open stigmatizing, ostracizing, public humiliation and punishment are common tools to achieve this, churches and religious groups 'on the way down' often start with more subtle means. Once the rot has started, it can be very difficult to stop, since it is self perpetuating and becomes its own means of survival.

All entail some version of the entrapment below, in which the unfortunate member, brave enough to raise concerns, finds himself 'condemned without trial' and consequently 'imprisoned'.

Be prepared to ask yourself some tough questions if you recognize this dynamic in your own community.

Red Flags

This is such a helpful article, I quote it in full:

Source:  Red Flags

AUGUST 13, 2009

Red Flags

No one ever wakes up one day and says, “Hey, you know? I think I’ll shame and abuse the flock today,” or "I think I'll become a cult leader." Instead, gradual changes take place, usually involving the lure of power that slowly takes hold.

If you study spiritual abuse, you can get a feel for how this happens: Despite differing manifestations of abuse in churches, there are common denominators. Several sources cited on this site point out the following traits and show just how it is a church can move from a healthy body to a dangerous one.

ELITISM 

One common finding in cults and spiritually abusive groups is something called “elitism.” It’s a feeling that your vision for the church is superior to that of others. Though most churches  and leaders, feel that they are on the right path, that their doctrines or practices are what God wants, that alone isn’t elitism. Elitism happens when you look at other churches or individuals and believe that your vision or your practices are among the very few that really please God. It is comparative. It is a superiority complex. This initial pride and puffing up – that can begin so very subtly -- ends up justifying any abusive behavior that follows.
Information control 
Another common denominator in cults and abusive groups is something called milieu control. It is an attempt to control the environment of members, and especially the information members are exposed to. This may start out as an innocent desire not to have heretical teachings invade the body. But this control becomes deadly in abusive groups. Before long, only those things approved by church leaders, and only material that portrays the church or leaders in a good light are encouraged. Information is censored. Everything concerning the church must go through the leader to make sure it is "appropriate," "healthy" or “not divisive.” Material brought in from outside is frowned on and sometimes actively condemned.
In the worst cases, such material is simply not allowed.
This discouraging or forbidding of outside sources can lead to tight control of information and eventually isolation from society at large, as much information is deemed unholy or worldly and a danger.
Anything the leadership wants you to believe is allowed. Anything that doesn't support the leader's position or perspective is discouraged or banned. If it is something harmful to the image of the church, no matter how accurate or useful, it is kept from members. In some cults, only certain translations of the Bible are allowed. In others, only “correct” interpretations of scripture are tolerated. In some groups any information not originating from the headquarters is deemed unsafe.

When you hear pastors or leaders complaining about "murmuring" or "gossip" in an abusive church, it can sometimes be nothing more than fear that reliable information unfavorable to the leadership is leaking out. Some leaders will actually use the pulpit to denounce the free flow of information, but they will call it something negative and preach against it.
How does this start? How does this control over others’ lives and minds begin?
With a desire to control. It may perhaps at first be only a healthy desire to keep doctrine pure – but control over information and thoughts escalates and gets out of hand.
Sometimes it begins as a shortcut to keep the hassles from members to a minimum. Innocent beginnings, but they can lead to tragic endings.

Image, image, image
Milieu Control is strongly related to another red flag: Image Consciousness. Abusive churches are concerned about image. Sometimes, image is everything. This church has a vision superior to other churches. To preserve that lofty status, anything negative must be quashed immediately, even if it is true. If a leader is caught in sin, the sin is quickly swept under the rug. If many members have left, no one is allowed to talk about it. The church “represents Christ to the community” and you can’t let the public know that the church has a problem or people will think Christ does. This is COMMON practice in abusive churches and is close to idolatry, equating the church, or church leaders, to Christ himself.

Shame, flattery and manipulation

Image Consciousness, in many abusive churches, leads to harsh treatment and manipulation of members. To keep negative information from leaking out of the body, members are sometimes shamed or spoken against -- sometimes from the pulpit. Ministries are whisked away from those who begin to ask questions, and ministries are used as rewards to “loyal” members who know how to keep quiet about the misdeeds of leaders, or who prove useful through slavish work or flattery of leaders. And in abusive groups, flattery goes both ways. Leaders know how to flatter selectively. They flatter those they can use. But they also shame. They will use flattery and shame very deftly to keep the image of the church polished and gleaming and to keep in total control.

Authoritarianism: I'm in control; You shut up

Another red flag is authoritarianism, the concentration of power in the hands of a few or sometimes even one person. That power can start out used well. The maxim “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” is especially true in churches. It corrupts leaders in different ways.

Two kinds of corruption

Some are lured by the financial aspects of power and begin to lavish on themselves gifts and luxuries. How does this happen? Possibly, these once godly leaders have sacrificed much over the course of their lives while watching other Christians live luxuriant lives. When the church begins to do well, they see this as a sign that it’s “their turn now,” that they deserve some blessings because they have served so long and so hard for very little. Soon, that feeling of dessert takes over and they feel entitled to more and more. Eventually some may even feel they deserve other men’s wives or multiple wives.

More dangerous, though, than leaders who fall to hedonistic ways are those who believe that because their vision for the church is unique, superior and direct from God that God’s mind and their mind are becoming fused. They soon begin to see their own actions as God’s. Anyone who opposes them is opposing God. When this happens, watch out! They won’t phrase it that way. They may not even realize what they are doing. They feel they have a special place as God’s best spokesperson. Because they are so special, they will steamroll over anyone in their way. Because they are anointed, they soon feel they have a role in rooting out imperfections among lesser Christians, and they can do it with gusto. 
Excellence, or legalism?
These leaders can become more than just haughty; they can become harsh and demanding. They look down on others around them and puff themselves up, all the while stressing the need for humility. They begin to practice a perfectionism that kills. It won’t be called perfectionism. It might be called “striving for excellence” or “pursuing a holy life” or “giving God His due.” It becomes legalism and it drains the life out of individuals and churches, as members try harder and harder to meet standards that become out-of-reach. While members are whipping themselves for failing to perform, the preaching will be on grace. While members are burdened and shackled to legalistic aims, the sermons will be on freedom. But members are not feeling free or forgiven. They are loaded down with guilt and work and feelings of failure.

Calling concern "divisiveness"

Another red flag is a false call to unity. When authoritarian pastors want to quell dissent, they label even legitimate questions “divisive.” You are interfering with the unity of the brethren if you raise issues of concern. This tactic ensures a lockstep, zombie-like following and cements the cult leader or abusive pastor into his place at the top. Who wants to be divisive? Who wants to cause trouble? Who wants to be spreading heresy or harboring a critical spirit or injecting division? (These are common phrases used against those expressing concerns about abusive leadership, and they serve as giant, fluttering red flags.) Most humble, sincere Christians concerned about wayward leadership will be cowed by such tactics. The abuses of the leader will continue unchecked.

When people slink out

The final red flag in this short overview is the telltale indication of trouble signaled by people leaving a congregation. If spiritual abuse is taking place, you might not catch on right away. People in manipulative groups will have been warned – subtly or otherwise – not to talk about church problems. They will be called weak or gossipers or immature if they mention why someone left. Those who leave also may suffer residual effects of controlling mechanisms in the church and say little about why they left.

If you notice an exodus of people from a congregation, it’s a sign to dig further and check for other signs of spiritual abuse.

These are just some of the roots of spiritual sickness to watch for in your congregation, but they seem the most common.

The Leviathan Spirit

One of the most common characteristics of cults and cult-like churches is the misuse of power by those in authority, often based on twisted Scripture, to control those within. Ron Enroth's definition of that misuse of power is:

"“Spiritual abuse takes place when leaders to whom people look for guidance and spiritual nurture use their positions of authority to manipulate, control, and dominate.” 

We see it in every human institution, from the family unit, sometimes controlled by a narcissistic father or mother who demands and manipulates obedience at all costs, to churches, schools, cults, to the political arena, all the way up to totalitarian leaders of communist states, such as Kim Jong-Un, where dissent is punished ruthlessly and the people exist to feed the leader's ego.

Speaking truth to power is vital as part of the process of maintaining checks and balances and thus a healthy community.

Where power has become corrupt, such truth speaking, from those 'under authority', is vilified as critical, divisive and satanic. In a religious environment, twisted scripture is used to justify ungodly retaliation which isolates, torments and finally ejects those who stand firm. Take Tyndale, Galileo,  Luther, Cranmer or Wesley as examples.

While there may be some worth in the article below, endorsed in Colin Urquhart's Kingdom Faith Church (no accusations intended), I would suggest that a common use to date has been to protect a wolf in power, in the guise of a humble shepherd, through false calls to unity, humility and honour.

 It is sorely in need of balance!

In the hands of the unscrupulous or self deceived it becomes a means to stigmatize the objecting victim, exonerate the controller in power and engender fear and conformity in the community.

I make a few suggestions in red, below.....

Full teaching article here:  Leviathan Spirit

"Defeating the Leviathan Spirit
The enemy is opposed to the work of God and it is not surprising that we should experience attack from him at both a personal and corporate level. We have nothing to fear because Jesus has defeated all the powers of darkness by His blood, He has given us His victory and is our Mighty Warrior. However we need to be wise and vigilant so that we do not allow the enemy to take advantage without realising what is happening. He is a deceiver and likes to appear as an angel of light. This means he can work in ways that are not immediately obvious. He is both cunning and devious. So it is important to know our enemy!

In recent months Kingdom Faith has been under spiritual attack and we can praise God that, by His mercy, the enemy has not been able to have his way. It is as well that the situation was first addressed publicly last October, because the corporate response at that time has prevented the spirit sent against us to have much influence. I also spoke in January of the way that another major church was ruined by this same spirit that was sent against us, and I was determined that this would not be allowed to happen here.

Subsequently we have discovered that a number of strategic churches in different parts of the world have come under similar attack from the same spirit. One of those churches in America is pastored by Dr. Ron Phillips, who has produced a teaching on this spirit that we have found most beneficial, although it only came to our notice recently. He confirms much that we have discovered about this spirit, principally from scripture, but also from our own experience and from talking with other international leaders. I have incorporated this material in the explanation that follows.

Leviathan 
In scripture this spirit is called Leviathan, which means "twister", for reasons that will become obvious. The nature of this spirit is described in Isaiah 27:1 and more extensively in Job 41. The Lord uses an animal to describe the activities of this spirit, probably the Nile crocodile that steals up on its prey, snatches it, takes it into the water and literally twists the life out it until it can then be consumed. In Isaiah it is referred to as the "twisted serpent." Having consumed its prey it then flees.

This demonstrates the vile nature of this spirit. In Job 41:34 it is described as "king over all the children of pride," and it is pride that gives this spirit access into people's lives. Its influence is spread through those who are guilty of pride and self-righteousness.

Who is to judge these attitudinal sins? It is common for accusations of pride and self-righteousness to be leveled, falsely, at questioning members by paranoid leadership.

Like the crocodile this is a hidden spirit that can be lurking in the life of a church, ready to strike when given the opportunity. When it is exposed for what it is, it loses its power and hold over people as soon as they repent for coming under its influence. So there is nothing to fear from Leviathan because our faith is in the victory that the Lord Jesus Christ has already won over all the powers of the evil, the victory that is ours through His blood!

However, there is a big difference between those who inadvertently come under the influence of this spirit and those who are carriers of this spirit because of their continued pride and their refusal to repent. Some serve Leviathan whether they realise it or not; others are merely unwilling victims. The description in Job 41 shows that this is a formidable opponent that cannot be captured and kept as a pet; the normal person would not want anything to do with such a spirit. Although hidden it can be very powerful in its effect on people, marriages, families, churches and even nations, bringing division for reasons that at the time can seem mystifying. There is no apparent reason for such division. "An enemy has done this!"

At this point in the article, the Leviathan Spirit is only identified as something which brings division. There is no hint at who may be carrying it.

We note that it causes division. Is there a balancing statement which recognizes that not all division is wrong? This was acknowledged by the Apostle Paul: "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." 1 Cor 11:19. 

When the leader himself is in error - and has surrounded himself only by 'yes-men', and has no accountability outside the church, where can the needed truth come from?


 Apart from being king of the proud, Job 41 mentions other characteristics of this spirit:

1) You cannot play around with this spirit; it would be dangerous to attempt to do so. It cannot be tamed and has therefore to be renounced completely.

2) You cannot enter in covenant with this spirit (v. 4). It encourages people to break covenant by encouraging those under its influence to leave churches. [Ed. Bold] It can destroy marriages and break up friendships.

Red Flag. Leaving church?  Is the implication here that only those 'under authority' can be taken with this spirit. We'll see...

 Is it always wrong to leave a church? 

Perhaps item 2) might be better put, "It encourages people to leave churches for the wrong reason." There are plenty of good reasons to leave some churches. Some may leave to attend University, or to pursue a career. When a Pastor is an unaccountable narcissist - a wolf in sheep's clothing - bent on abusing and devouring the flock (many exist), leaving may be the only option. 

'Leave' would, of course, be the best advice to those struggling within such a church. Leaving David Koresh's cult, a 'bible'-based group which eventually perished in flames, would surely have been within the will of God? 

No doubt, if David Koresh had access to this teaching, he would have used it as part of his arsenal to keep his followers in step. In one form or other, it is recognized as being part of the common teachings of abusive cults. And of unhealthy churches freewheeling into cult-like behaviour. 

Scriptures are replete with examples of men and women exhorted by God to flee both spiritual and physical abuse. Mary and Joseph under Herod, for example. Elijah under Jezebel. In many churches, the words of Jeremiah are apt: "What sorrow awaits the leaders of my people--the shepherds of my sheep--for they have destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for," says the LORD"

There is a clear danger this teaching can be used (and it surely has) by controlling shepherds to vilify upright, sincere saints, who have done all in their power to address erring leadership and failed. Such teaching is frequently used to demonize those who can see.

3) Leviathan twists the truth. It misrepresents what has been said, causing people to sometimes believe the very opposite of what was said. Those under its influence hear things in a twisted way, and then pass on this twisted version, often believing it to be the truth. So this is definitely a spirit of deception. It is this twisting of the truth that makes it a difficult spirit to deal with.

Is it acknowledged here that this spirit can affect the leader of a church, as much as the flock? Or is there just a one-sided application? Can only the rank and file sheep be affected? 

We note that it is a spirit of pride. Anointed leaders, in Biblical literature, are notoriously susceptible to such a spirit. King Saul gives us, perhaps, the clearest example. Was David divisive in fleeing from him? Or calling him to account? Or surrounding himself with men for protection?

And are David's 'divisive' actions towards Saul to be equated with Absolom's self-serving actions towards David? This teaching does not distinguish between the two. And in a spiritually abusive church, David is taken to be Absolom and he is punished as David was by Saul. 


4) You cannot reason with this spirit because it blinds people to the truth. In fact those under its influence can be so deceived that they do not appreciate that they are deceived or are twisting the truth.

It must be acknowledged that in all well-known cult-like groups, such twisting has come from the leadership, not the victims. 

The Bruderhof, a christian community which historically abused its children and punished dissenting adults, ejecting them from the community with nothing, after life-long service is one such example.

Or the Exclusive Brethren, who practise similar excommunication and shunning, banning good people from access to their own parents and even failing to inform of their deaths, simply because a member was unable to conform to the legalism expected within the group.

5) This spirit can only be overcome through the supernatural activity of God's Spirit, not by any human means.

6) "His breath kindles coals," meaning that their words have a destructive, negative effect. Those under its power become very critical, especially of those in authority [Ed. bold] They become judgmental and their words have the effect of pulling down rather than building up.

At this stage, the attribution of a 'Leviathan Spirit' seems to be primarily to those who are, supposedly, 'under' authority. There is a huge danger that this teaching may be used to vilify genuine, concerned members of the congregation, falsely accusing them of being taken by an evil spirit, when in fact they are merely voicing what needs to be heard, in a spirit of integrity.

The Bible is replete with examples of the calling of God on men and women to speak Truth to anointed, erring Power. 

Sarah challenged Abraham, Nathan challenged David, Paul challenged Peter. We are admonished to entreat our elders as fathers, if needed. 

There is huge potential for paranoid, self-serving leadership to misuse this teaching against brave members, standing up for what is right, their own welfare and the protection of the flock. To re-phrase the quote: "Those within its power become very critical, especially of those who call leadership to account. They become judgmental and their words have the effect of pulling down rather than building up."

7) This spirit produces a hardness of heart in people (v. 24) making it even more difficult to bring those being used by this spirit to the repentance they need.

8) Because of its pride, and because it has access into people's lives through their proud hearts, this spirit wants to be in control. So those under its influence want to control situations in which they are placed. They resist submission to true spiritual authority. [Ed. Bold]

'Resisting submission to true spiritual authority' is a triggering phrase for those who have suffered under unaccountable, wayward leadership. This is a spiritual abuser's dream teaching! 

Spiritual authority, whatever it is, does not exist to require submission. True spiritual authority exists and gains its 'authority'  through meek, entreatable, self-sacrificing service. 

Diotrophes still exists today: "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church" 1 John 3

Many find themselves in a position in which they must resist false, or self-serving authority. 

Given the few examples of errant communities highlighted so far, and the acknowledgment that so many 'free' churches lack the essential accountability systems, it ought to be evident that it is irresponsible to present this teaching without providing  much needed balance. To fail to do so is to play into the hands of narcissistic leaders, of which the church has plenty.

9) This is a mocking spirit, and uses mockery as one way of attacking others. It will mock those who walking in obedience to the Lord or who disagree with them, so important to them are their own opinions.

Mocking is usually unhelpful, although it is noted that Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, seemingly with God's approval. 

It might also be suggested that most mockery is found, not coming from the 'rank and file' member, but in regular preaching. Mockery of other denominations, mockery of the 'unsubmissive', mockery of those considered unwise, mockery of traditions and views held by those outside the camp. It is often a manipulative tactic of the insecure leader to coerce and consolidate agreement. 

10) Not only do people become hard-hearted under its influence, they become thick-skinned in the wrong sense. The truth bounces off them!

It would be wrong to omit that leadership is just as susceptible. And who is there to hold it to account, if needed?

If your church shows signs of any of the following, despite its apparently sound theology, it may be reasonable to suggest that truth is bouncing off the leadership. 

Link:  Could Your Evangelical Church be Called a Cult?

Because of its deceptive nature, those under its influence can mistake its voice to be from God. Typical phrases that are used by those under its influence are: "The Lord said to me..." and "I felt in my spirit..." But when you check out what is said it does not tie in with either the scriptures or the way in which the Holy Spirit leads people. Remember that its intention is to encourage people to break covenant and to bring division into the church. It opposes covenant and wants people to excuse themselves from contracts and other commitments. [Ed. Bold]

Historically, it is often a Pastor who, left unchecked and thinking that his mind is fused with mind of God, is most guilty of imposing his will on a congregation under the guise of 'God said to me'. Often what is said does not check out or tie in with Scripture. Instead it imposes legalistic, lock-step behaviour and a false call to unity, which serves only the Pastor and the shoring-up of his kingdom, maintaining a steady course towards cult-hood. With nobody 'from the floor' to speak up, the slide is surely inevitable. 

Proverbs  actually exhorts us to remove ourselves from abusive covenants. 

My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor,
if you have shaken hands in pledge for a stranger,
you have been trapped by what you said,
ensnared by the words of your mouth.
So do this, my son, to free yourself,
since you have fallen into your neighbor’s hands:
Go—to the point of exhaustion—
and give your neighbor no rest!
Allow no sleep to your eyes,
no slumber to your eyelids.
Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter,
like a bird from the snare of the fowler. Proverbs 6

The Bible teaches that believers have a Covenant with God. 
What, however, is the status and enduring nature of any other covenant? 
Is there a covenant between a Pastor and his flock? What are its terms? No doubt, David Koresh played the 'covenant card' with his own followers, resulting in their demise.

I would be forgiven for thinking that the above is more the language of dictatorial authority and heavy shepherding than true service to the body of Christ.

Surely even a marriage covenant, in which a wife is repeatedly battered and abused by her husband is not beyond dissolving in the eyes of God? Or do we ban her from remarriage because she has been a victim?

Not all covenants are binding at all costs...

 Typically, this spirit brings false allegations against people, especially those in leadership. [Ed. Bold] Often outrageous things are said that are a complete distortion or twisting of the truth. We are warned in scripture not to bite or devour one another, or we will be consumed by one another. The honouring of one another is essential to prevent this spirit from gaining any foothold in the church.[Ed. Bold]

And typically, some errant Pastors, wolves in sheep's clothing, bring false allegations against those who call them to account. No, we are not to bite and devour one another. There is a respectful way to speak truth to power. But there is no honour where there is no truth. The 'honour card' is one of the most commonly played in an abusive system. It often deflects from the addressing of very pressing issues.

Truth is not to be trumped by 'loyalty-at-any-cost'.


 Leviathan defeated Those who have advertently or inadvertently been used by this spirit need to repent and ask the Lord's forgiveness. Those who have been carriers of this spirit will need to be broken of their pride that has given the enemy opportunity to bring so much disruption into their own lives and the lives of others that they have influenced. The longer this is left, the more difficult it becomes to take the necessary spiritual steps to be rid of its influence. There has to be a humbling and a breaking of proud, self-righteous, independent attitudes.

 Where there is such repentance there is nothing to fear from Leviathan, for the Lord is then able to restore people. During their time under Leviathan's influence they have not been able to prosper spiritually, but once forgiven and restored they can again flow with the Holy Spirit, the right Spirit. A true sense of direction and purpose is then restored to their lives, instead of the disruption they previously experienced

 It is good for everyone to stand against being under any influence from this spirit by praying in the following way:

 "Lord, I ask you to remove from my life any influence from the spirit of Leviathan. I reject this spirit completely and whole-heartedly. Forgive me for any ways that I have served this spirit either intentionally or inadvertently. Forgive me for any ways in which I have been twisted or have twisted the truth, that I have listened to distortion of the truth or have distorted the truth. I devote myself to bringing unity, not division, into the church and will therefore honour other members and those you have placed in authority. By your grace I will speak the truth in love and dedicate myself to expressing the truth of your word in my life, in the precious name of Jesus. Amen." "

Is there an equivalent prayer here, to be offered sincerely by those 'in authority'? I can't see it. 

I suggest, "Lord I ask you to remove from my life any influence from the spirit of Leviathan. Where I have knowingly or unknowingly used my authority to protect myself from truth, to seek my own kingdom, to damage those to whom I am accountable in order to save my own skin, I repent. I will go to them and ask for forgiveness for my specific sins and yield to any process of accountability that will keep my self-serving pride as a leader in check."


After Leviathan

After the Lord had described this spirit to Job, he was humbled before the Lord: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted." His response was to say to God: "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Following his repentance and after he had prayed for his friends, Job was then restored by the Lord who "made him prosper again and gave him twice as much as he had before" he possessed before he came under attack from the enemy.

Life after deliverance from Leviathan is much better than it was before! We are told to submit ourselves to God, resist the devil and he will flee from us, precisely what God promises concerning Leviathan. So it is important to repent before God and to put yourself right in the relationships that have suffered while under the influence of this Leviathan spirit. So the effects of freedom from this spirit are corporate as well as personal.

In Isaiah 27, after the Lord has promised to deal personally with Leviathan, He tells the people: "Sing about a fruitful vineyard: I, the Lord, watch over it; I water it continually; I guard it day and night so that no one may harm it." (v. 2-3)

So your security is to be found in the vine. Do not allow this spirit to isolate you by drawing you out of this place of the Lord's security, [Ed. Bold] and thereby making you vulnerable to the enemy's tactics.

As this teaching recognizes, a believer's security is to be found in 'the vine.' Spiritually abusive churches preach, as also implied here, that leaving their community draws them out of the Lord's security. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Although some at Kingdom Faith have shown a lack of understanding of these spiritual realities, most have been wise in guarding themselves against this deceiving spirit. Leviathan has failed in its attempts to influence them. Some have had thoughts that they should leave Kingdom Faith, although they have not wanted to do this, nor do they have any good reason for doing so. Some have heard false rumours about the church or the leadership. Some have been confused by conflicting things they have heard: The truth on the one hand and a twisting of the truth on the other that is the result of Leviathan's influence.

At the same time people have had dreams, visions and words from God that have described accurately what has been taking place, warning them not to break covenant and make themselves and their families vulnerable to this twisting spirit. Some have actually experienced a physical twisting in their stomachs that is overcome when they come against this in the name of Jesus.

As a church, by the grace of God we emerge triumphant, for God always leads us in His triumphant procession in Christ Jesus! The Lord has shown people that a cleansing and a purging of the Body has been taking place and that this is a prelude to the time of much greater blessing and fruitfulness that lies just ahead of us.[Ed. Bold] In fact there is a sense of fresh anointing and vibrancy in so many areas of Kingdom Faith life.

This line of reasoning, that God has purged the body of impurity when people have left, is standard doctrine within all cults, without exception. It entails the assumption that the ones who are left do not need to examine themselves. It leads to ungodly and cult-like shunning. It separates families due to the guilt entailed associating with one who has left and who must, no doubt, be impure and an 'agent of the enemy'. It assumes that leadership is without fault and that the purity of the community is now somehow enhanced. It has, historically, justified the burning of martyrs at the stake and the devastating excommunication of those unable to conform. In cults and cult-like churches it entails false accusation towards those who have come to their senses and it maintains the Utopian myth for those who remain. 

This kind of self-protection smacks of pride and is open to shocking self-deception. It ought, at least, to raise questions in one thinking of joining such a group.


The promises of harvest and abundance shall be realised and this attack from the enemy cannot prevent this. As Job said to the Lord immediately after being told about this twisting spirit: "No plans of yours can be thwarted."

You may have come to the brink of a major breakthrough with God, only to sense that something has stood in the way of the breakthrough. That something is now being dealt with and you can be free to enter fully into the Lord's destiny for you personally and for Kingdom Faith corporately.

Of course we shall remain vigilant in prayer and in praise for our Mighty Warrior God who has gone before us to give us the victory over this and all the works of the enemy, in the name of Jesus.

Only a very few have been taken out from among us, and we continue in prayer for them; that they will restored to us having been set free from all the effects of this spirit. We do not want to see anyone robbed of the inheritance that was theirs as part of Kingdom Faith,[Ed. bold] and we pray God's peace upon them and their families.

The inheritance of a Christian is his because he is part of Christ, according to biblical teaching, not because he is part of a specific church. A christian does not lose his inheritance when he leaves the local church.

Taken together, the teachings promoted here serve, intentionally or unintentionally to insulate leadership from accountability and to prevent appropriate challenge being made when it is imperative to do so. Yes, a church may contain its Absaloms - and it is incumbent on the church to manage them with care, consideration and grace. The outcome of this teaching's emphasis, however, is to tar all objectors with the same brush and to insulate leadership.

For those who find it difficult to recognize spiritual abusive teaching and practice in churches, perpetrated by leaders and justified by unbalanced teaching such as this, I suggest a good look here:  Red Flags

And to those leaders who insist on preaching this dangerous message (as it stands) I plead for balance.

Or is it possible that you, too, carry the spirit of Leviathan?