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.