Why 'good-hearted' church members shun.

 

Add caption

Christians are, on the whole, not people given to mean-spirited nastiness and outright hate. After all, the bottom line of Christianity is to 'love with all your heart.' Most aspire to be charity-orientated, considerate people who put others first.

So what explains the brutal shunning by apparently good-hearted people that is characteristic of some Christian groups, when an influential member leaves?

The friends we had in our church were indeed kind-hearted, caring people who looked out for each other. And yet, unless on the fringes of the church, they refused to allow any communication with us after we left.

Shunning becomes group policy when it is promoted by the leader. Its primary purpose is to supress what he perceives to be negative facts and influences which undermine his position. It serves to keep truth under wraps and silence whistleblowers.

There are a number of tools which contribute to the successful implementation of the Pastor's goal.

Primarily, Scripture is weaponized against the victim. 

Verses which warn against fraternising with 'divisive' people are deployed. (No mention that the Apostle Paul acknowledged there must be divisions, at times, to show who was in the right) And a theology is promoted which warns that if you associate with divisive people, that bad spirit will overtake you,  and you too will become infected with a critical spirit, opening yourself up to all the supposed consequences that brings.

Those  include (so the message goes) losing the protection from Satan that the 'body of Christ' provides. You will suffer physical and mental loss. Satan will be allowed to bring catastrophe on you - if not in this life, then in the next. You have 'departed from the ship'. You are 'cut off from the vine' and are chaff only fit for burning. The only way back in is to 'recant.'

In the average member's mind, fear of this is compounded by the huge emotional risk of damaging the relationship with the one person on whom you rely for security, affirmation and love and risking isolation from your friends. 

Shunning is not primarily driven by hate but by fear, cleverly orchestrated by a leader believing his status is threatened. That fear is expressed in hatred.

Shunning is his perfect strategy since it shuts down every communication channel and is very effective in suppressing truth. It is often taught that shunning is ultimately an expression of compassion, since its supposed goal is to induce the wayward brother to repent.

It is tragic that so many 'good' people within unhealthy churches do not, or cannot see shunning for what it really is, and unwittingly continue in this evil practice all the while convinced they are doing the work of God or perhaps, too fearful to speak up.

The False Call to Holiness

Every cult-like institution, without exception, has its own 'call to purity'. A member's loyalty is measured by his or her adherence to the standards and expectations of the group, however bizarre. The institution prizes conformity over individuality and lavish praise is given to those who excel in meeting the leader's expectation.

In totalitarian states, for example, there might be an expectation for all men to wear the same hairstyle or clothing. To do otherwise may be punishable as an expression of disloyalty to the leader.

In legalistic churches, the requirements can be equally stringent: Perhaps women may not wear trousers. Jewellery or make-up may be considered 'worldly', modern technology may be forbidden, including not only the internet, but also television, Sat-nav, mobile phones and so on.

Charismatic 'free' churches, on account of their historic rejection of legalism, liturgy and religious, 'external' codes of conduct and regulations, tend towards a more subtle, apparently spiritual legalism in their slide towards the cult-like.

Traditionally, charismatic churches are strong on the theology of Grace - that God not only freely forgives, but also lavishes on his children every blessing He can give. - and that these blessings can be enjoyed through simple trust, rather than as a reward for service. We did nothing to deserve them.

But that message becomes warped over time in a church 'on the slide' into a shaming message which demands ever increasing work or 'spirituality' and ever continued begging of God for forgiveness for obscure shortcomings which even God does not consider sin. It is often successfully presented as drive for 'holiness', twisting and manipulating Scriptures to justify its ever-increasing demand for effort and uniformity. A congregation tends not to object. After all holiness is a good thing, isn't it? To object demonstrates that one does not want to be holy!

The message of God's forgiveness and His free gift of the Holy Spirit is turned on its head: If God has been so good to us, giving us everything He has, how much worse sinners we are if we fail to take advantage of it. If God has empowered us to live like Him, through faith in His strength, how much more worthy of condemnation are we when we simply behave as 'normal' human beings?

Such a message is often tied to the lack of evidence of  'revival', which God has, according to the teaching, promised to those who will pay the price for it.

So a congregation is shamed for not praying enough. It is told that its worship is half-hearted. Its members are told that if they miss meetings they are 'spacing out on God' as well each other. Members may be taught that there is virtue in rising punishingly early in the morning to 'meet with God'. They may be berated for not singing in tongues loudly enough, or shouting praises to God extravagantly enough, or confessing their sins frequently enough. Members who do not conform may be berated in the preaching, even if their names are not mentioned. That word 'enough' is a sure sign of legalism! Those in the congregation would be forgiven for thinking that the Christian life is just too hard.

The consequences of such 'spiritual' legalism include a condescending, although often unspoken, attitude from those who consider themselves to be doing better, but are nevertheless weighed down with intolerable, unnecessary guilt and shame as to their own failure.

Those who buy into it live with the cognitive dissonance of living one kind of life but believing in another, since this particular brand of 'Christianity' simpy cannot be maintained moment by moment.

Worse than that, it provides a foundation for the leader to destroy whomever he likes, if they cross him in any way, especially those who raise concerns about the slide away from the message of Grace.

It becomes an easy matter for the leader to select any apparent lapse in meeting the unrealistic expectations and use it to accuse. Such accusation may be done through preaching, in which the Pastor attempts to manipulate obedience, conformity or 'recanting' for raising legitimate concerns. He may coerce through public humiliation and shaming, whether names are mentioned or not.

The fear that such tactics engenders can be intense, especially applied in conjunction with rules which shut down communication between members in the name of stifling gossip. These leave the victim isolated, compounding his or her fear.

And that is how abuse so often works - isolating and intimidating the victim.

Membership of a cult, if one falls out of favour with the leader for legitimate 'whistleblowing', can lead to severe spiritual, emotional and mental abuse.

And that abuse is often conducted secretly - in plain sight.

Pastoral Accountability

Within the Charismatic Free Church wing, there is an epidemic of lack of accountability in leadership. It is estimated that since 1970, tens of thousands of new religious movements have started. Many are churches, and those that are not affiliated with denominations or larger groups have no stabilizing influence. It is no wonder that in the UK alone, there are well over 1,200 recognized cults, many of which began as churches with an orthodox theology.

Most denominations, like any secular institutions, have recognized accountability systems in place. Just as school Heads are accountable to Governors, in many churches the Pastor is accountable to a board of trustees. In the Anglican community, the Vicar is accountable to the Diocesan Bishop and so on.

Such systems are vital to prevent a situation in which a leader becomes a law unto himself. 

And yet they most often require that leadership makes itself answerable to someone or something outside the community it as actually leading. Within the Charismatic Free Church, this person might be regarded as a modern day Apostle. The drawback of such accountability, of course, is that any outsider is unlikely to have an in-depth knowledge or understanding of the group and its dynamics. There is also a danger of a pyramidal hierarchy developing. To whom is the man at the top accountable?

Scripture's instruction appears to be that a Leader, first and foremost, is accountable to those he leads.

"Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave" Matthew 20:26-27

The word for slave here is 'doulos':

Helps Word Studies:

1401 doúlos (a masculine noun of uncertain derivation) – properly, someone who belongs to another; a bond-slave, without any ownership rights of their own.

Properly understood then, a leader belongs to his flock and gives up 'ownership rights' of his own.

This is not to suggest that a church ought to function by placing restrictions and legislated obedience on its Pastor. 

On the contrary, the passage in Matthew suggests strongly that such 'placing under' is done willingly and voluntarily. It is what true leadership entails. It is a matter of the heart.

And that voluntary submission to the congregation ought to encompass both doctrine and behaviour.

Just as a good 'lay' teacher would ask the Pastor, having preached, whether or not anything needed adjustment, a Pastor with the same humble attitude would welcome honest feedback and appraisal from his flock. 

Once a community begins to fear offering honest feedback, or the possibility of reprisals for offending, a Pastor has disqualified himself from leadership.

Once a board of trustees concerns itself only with matters of the fabric of the building or the mechanics of running the church and not with an appraisal of the Pastor's teaching or practices, allowing serious faults to go unchecked, the Pastor has become unfit to lead. It is his responsibility to ensure that such a dangerous dynamic does not occur.

Once a Pastor preaches that he should not be corrected, because God is the one who corrects him, he is no longer a true Pastor, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

It is common for Pastors to set up boards which consist of loyal 'yes-men', who will declare their absolute trust in the Leader as the 'Man of God', and whom God will correct if need be. Such a board often considers that holding him to account amounts to a lack of trust. This sentiment, while sounding very noble, allows a Pastor to absolve himself from accountability and potentially places his community in danger. According to Matthew 20:27, a Pastor who does not confront such an attitude, disqualifies himself from true leadership.

The Apostle Paul, according to Scripture, was a man who was taken up into Paradise and saw things that can barely be uttered. And yet, Paul insisted on submitting his revelations to other men of standing in the church, lest he 'run in vain':

"I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain." Gal 2:2

A Pastor who is unwilling to do likewise is not fit to lead and such an attitude should serve as a Red Flag to those in his church community. 

If you are in a church, you are well advised to ask questions such as these:

1) To whom is my Pastor accountable for what he preaches and teaches? 

2) To whom is my Pastor accountable in his actions?

3) From whom will he accept correction if it is needed?

4) Does my Pastor seek out honest opinion  and appraisal?

5) Does he make adjustments when matters concerning his preaching or practice are addressed?

6) Does he label sincere concern as criticism and preach against it?

7) Does he withhold information from me, on the grounds that it is for my welfare?

8) Does he advise me not to seek out all sides of a matter, but to simply trust his own account?

9) Does he discourage me from talking to ex-members?

10) Does he foster a dynamic which protects himself, surrounding himself with a close-knit group of dependent 'yes-men'.

11) What is my Pastor's response when entreated to change behaviour not befitting his role?
12) Does my Pastor allow me to develop into a thinking, independent adult, respecting my differing views - or does he coerce and manipulate my continued obedience and submission to his perspectives.

Such questions, rather than being antagonistic, are not only reasonable but imperative if a religious community is to remain a safe place.

No genuine servant-hearted Pastor would resent them, especially coming from members who have consistently demonstrated wholehearted loyalty.

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.