Normal hypocricy vs spiritual abuse

[analyzer]

I don’t expect to find the perfect church on earth, all I want is to discern the fine line between “normal” hypocricy and spiritual abuse.

Hello again, everybody

I would like to develop my thought from "my story part1" a little bit further: the fine line between “normal” hypocricy and spiritual abuse. Taking human depravity into account, which is universal (Psalm 14, Eccle 7:20, Rom 3:23) we all fit into the category of a "normal hypocrit”.

If you have read "my story part1" (thank you for your patience) you will see that at one point this fine line was crossed and most of those who have been with us from the beginning, got hurt. Until then we were boastfully looking down on other churches, especially to those that lost their members to our church, looking for a "refuge". Little did we know that our time hadn't come yet. So far the crap didn't hit the fan, even though we subconsciously sensed that things were less than perfect. I like the idiom "the crap hitting the fan" because it describes a church situation very graphically and accurately. It implies that there will always be some crap (=normal hypocricy), but it is not always reaching the "fan level". Funny note on the side: the "fan level" can be understood as the level, where even the "fans", ie the uncritical followers will get hurt by the leader.

I am asking myself, if churches can be found, that will always stay within the "limits" of "normal" hypocricy, or will all churches, at a certain point in their existence, become abusive. Will all Christians that attend a church long enough, have to go through the cycle of "love bombing", "putting up with things" and then "getting abused" at the end?

Again I don't want to throw out the baby with the Bathtub water. We are told not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together", Hebr. 10:25, because in churches there is (hopefully) a great potential to be edified and encouraged.

But when (not "if", because it will) the crap is hitting the fan" we have to decide:
1. To stay, because we are (sometimes) appointed unto affliction, (1.Thess 3:3), to win the leaders "without the word" (1. Pt 3:1), "not rendering evil for evil" (1. Pt 3:9).
2. To look for another church, hoping that it will take a long time until they complete their "cycle".
3. Leaving church life alltogether, meeting in autonomous groups or house churches.

As I was forced to view free evangelical church life from a more critical perspective, I understood for the first time that many evangelicals fail in the same area as those they criticize the most: the catholics. What is the benefit of having a better theology (Rom 2:17,18) when I practice the same things as those with an "inferior theology", things like giving too much autority to one man, over-emphasizing secondary doctrines and "excommunicating" dissenters by considering them as "dead wood"?

I am not looking down on my catholic brothers and sisters with disdain, but on the contrary I am respecting them in their own right, believing that they have the same problems that we have as "free evangelicals", but also believing that there is a remnant in their midst that is on fire with God.

To wrap up this thought I would like to qoute the probably most witty statement that is appropriate for this situation: I got it from one of the books of the late Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured for 14 years during solitary confinement and who also has suffered under the hand of Christians:

"The christian church is like a boat that is filled with water to the brim, yet it doesn't sink"

I hope I was able to encourage at least some of you :)

cheers
Gerald

[Reg]

Hello again, everybody

I would like to develop my thought from "my story part1" a little bit further: the fine line between “normal” hypocricy and spiritual abuse. Taking human depravity into account, which is universal (Psalm 14, Eccle 7:20, Rom 3:23) we all fit into the category of a "normal hypocrit”.

If you have read "my story part1" (thank you for your patience) you will see that at one point this fine line was crossed and most of those who have been with us from the beginning, got hurt. Until then we were boastfully looking down on other churches, especially to those that lost their members to our church, looking for a "refuge". Little did we know that our time hadn't come yet. So far the crap didn't hit the fan, even though we subconsciously sensed that things were less than perfect. I like the idiom "the crap hitting the fan" because it describes a church situation very graphically and accurately. It implies that there will always be some crap (=normal hypocricy), but it is not always reaching the "fan level". Funny note on the side: the "fan level" can be understood as the level, where even the "fans", ie the uncritical followers will get hurt by the leader.

I am asking myself, if churches can be found, that will always stay within the "limits" of "normal" hypocricy, or will all churches, at a certain point in their existence, become abusive. Will all Christians that attend a church long enough, have to go through the cycle of "love bombing", "putting up with things" and then "getting abused" at the end?

Again I don't want to throw out the baby with the Bathtub water. We are told not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together", Hebr. 10:25, because in churches there is (hopefully) a great potential to be edified and encouraged.

But when (not "if", because it will) the crap is hitting the fan" we have to decide:
1. To stay, because we are (sometimes) appointed unto affliction, (1.Thess 3:3), to win the leaders "without the word" (1. Pt 3:1), "not rendering evil for evil" (1. Pt 3:9).
2. To look for another church, hoping that it will take a long time until they complete their "cycle".
3. Leaving church life alltogether, meeting in autonomous groups or house churches.

As I was forced to view free evangelical church life from a more critical perspective, I understood for the first time that many evangelicals fail in the same area as those they criticize the most: the catholics. What is the benefit of having a better theology (Rom 2:17,18) when I practice the same things as those with an "inferior theology", things like giving too much autority to one man, over-emphasizing secondary doctrines and "excommunicating" dissenters by considering them as "dead wood"?

I am not looking down on my catholic brothers and sisters with disdain, but on the contrary I am respecting them in their own right, believing that they have the same problems that we have as "free evangelicals", but also believing that there is a remnant in their midst that is on fire with God.

To wrap up this thought I would like to qoute the probably most witty statement that is appropriate for this situation: I got it from one of the books of the late Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured for 14 years during solitary confinement and who also has suffered under the hand of Christians:

"The christian church is like a boat that is filled with water to the brim, yet it doesn't sink"

I hope I was able to encourage at least some of you :)

cheers
Gerald
Thanks Gerald for explaining this.

What I see is the real problem is the Institutionalization of Christianity. We have a tendency to lump all the people who go to a certain church and paint them with the same brush.

No matter where you go you will find Christians. They are all over the place. By their fruits you will know them. I know in the relatively healthy church I attend I still need to exercise discretion and righteous moral judgement to discern this.

[luttrell03]

Hello again, everybody

I would like to develop my thought from "my story part1" a little bit further: the fine line between “normal” hypocricy and spiritual abuse. Taking human depravity into account, which is universal (Psalm 14, Eccle 7:20, Rom 3:23) we all fit into the category of a "normal hypocrit”.

If you have read "my story part1" (thank you for your patience) you will see that at one point this fine line was crossed and most of those who have been with us from the beginning, got hurt. Until then we were boastfully looking down on other churches, especially to those that lost their members to our church, looking for a "refuge". Little did we know that our time hadn't come yet. So far the crap didn't hit the fan, even though we subconsciously sensed that things were less than perfect. I like the idiom "the crap hitting the fan" because it describes a church situation very graphically and accurately. It implies that there will always be some crap (=normal hypocricy), but it is not always reaching the "fan level". Funny note on the side: the "fan level" can be understood as the level, where even the "fans", ie the uncritical followers will get hurt by the leader.

I am asking myself, if churches can be found, that will always stay within the "limits" of "normal" hypocricy, or will all churches, at a certain point in their existence, become abusive. Will all Christians that attend a church long enough, have to go through the cycle of "love bombing", "putting up with things" and then "getting abused" at the end?

Again I don't want to throw out the baby with the Bathtub water. We are told not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together", Hebr. 10:25, because in churches there is (hopefully) a great potential to be edified and encouraged.

But when (not "if", because it will) the crap is hitting the fan" we have to decide:
1. To stay, because we are (sometimes) appointed unto affliction, (1.Thess 3:3), to win the leaders "without the word" (1. Pt 3:1), "not rendering evil for evil" (1. Pt 3:9).
2. To look for another church, hoping that it will take a long time until they complete their "cycle".
3. Leaving church life alltogether, meeting in autonomous groups or house churches.

As I was forced to view free evangelical church life from a more critical perspective, I understood for the first time that many evangelicals fail in the same area as those they criticize the most: the catholics. What is the benefit of having a better theology (Rom 2:17,18) when I practice the same things as those with an "inferior theology", things like giving too much autority to one man, over-emphasizing secondary doctrines and "excommunicating" dissenters by considering them as "dead wood"?

I am not looking down on my catholic brothers and sisters with disdain, but on the contrary I am respecting them in their own right, believing that they have the same problems that we have as "free evangelicals", but also believing that there is a remnant in their midst that is on fire with God.

To wrap up this thought I would like to qoute the probably most witty statement that is appropriate for this situation: I got it from one of the books of the late Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured for 14 years during solitary confinement and who also has suffered under the hand of Christians:

"The christian church is like a boat that is filled with water to the brim, yet it doesn't sink"

I hope I was able to encourage at least some of you :)

cheers
Gerald

Hi Analyzer.

I appreciate your honesty and sensitivy not wanting to falsely point the finger or not distinguish improperly. Your attitude is right on....'Lord change me, FIRST. That's awsome and sooo-like you.:)

It's actually quite complicated because the whole characteristic of an abusive church is that it's wrapped up in deception (wolf in sheeps clothing principle)so often it's hard to bring things into focus and detail.

Could one of the acid tests be that......once a brother/leader has been confronted by a 'multitude' of witnesses concerning his behavior, hypocrisy, his words, sin, etc...and he refuses to listen (after all, to the Body of Christ) after many, many, confrontations, over a long period of time.....that would then be in a quite different league than just normal hypocrisy? Not only that but those who do bring their concerns are exposed from the pulpit, character assasinated, excommunicated, sometimes emotionally shunned by others in the Body ??etc..etc...

You're right, we all have hypocrisy, but can I be checked on it by the Body or not? 'The meek will He teach'.

Therefore, although we all know that all hypocrisy is sin....I think the real issue is the DENIAL OF HYPOCRISY, and all the covering up, scheming, lying, false humility,,etc. etc...that goes on to lead the congregation astray, thus coming dangerously into the 'hireling', wolf in sheep's skin category.

I think the 'Body' (where we do relationship) should be the biblical place for growth and healing of all our hypocrisies and junk. Then what for ?(besides evangelism)......we are already saved and destined as sons to be with Him in Heaven. Otherwise the weekly gathering could just end up being a very superficial social club with nice music, shiny smiles and 'good to see yous' etc..
In our relational struggles and doo-doos between each other, God already gave us the tools, through His Death and Resurrection to 'fix' things (confession, repentence, forgiveness, reconciliation). If we don't use those there are no other options.

If the members are getting an example from the leadership that hypocrisy is tolerated and can't 'really' be Checked, what will happen do to the rest in the church, especially those new in the faith, the children, teens, those that are the most impressionable etc...?

Don't forget, spiritual leaders have even a greater responsibility to be examples of reconciliation, repentant hearts, honesty. Not perfect examples but honest about their own depravity and short comings kind of examples.
They also have a responsibility to hold up the truth, not use it(even occasionally in the form of the Bible) to hide the truth from the congregation.
God holds teachers, those who teach in His name, to a higher accountability because of the damage that can be done and because He's the exact antithesis of abuse.

Jesus came to deliver us from abuse! There's no where in the Word where God applauds or supports abuse.

1. To stay, because we are (sometimes) appointed unto affliction, (1.Thess 3:3), to win the leaders "without the word" (1. Pt 3:1), "not rendering evil for evil" (1. Pt 3:9).
2. To look for another church, hoping that it will take a long time until they complete their "cycle".
3. Leaving church life alltogether, meeting in autonomous groups or house churches.

Again, great sensitivity.....it made me have some questions.

1. I think church leadership is the last place on earth where one should discover abuse(I'm thinking more the deceptive kind that just keeps living on and goes unchecked) , so I'm asking than what does 1Thess. 3:3 mean in light of that? WE know that affliction is the norm for all believers in this life, but is God here saying that we were appointed for abuse, 'IN the church under deceptive or dishonest leadership? Maybe?, I'm just really asking that as a question.
Then I think of other verses where I'm told to avoid teachers who twist the truth, cause division amongst the Body, and deceive the hearts of the simple through flattering speech (Rom. 16:17).
Actually what kind of teacher is Rom. 16:17 talking about? Only those teachers outside the Christian Orthodoxy camp ? Christian teachers who only twist the essential doctrines of the faith (salvation, etc.), or can it be a teacher who teaches a lot of truth but twists areas that support his opinions, protects his authority and keeps people in fear of speaking negatively about him and the church????

I also don't think that we are rendering evil for evil (1Peter 3:9) by simply deciding to walk away from an abusive situation,,,,that is if I can and God has given me the green light to do so.

3. I think analyzer, only God can tell you in your heart the next step to do once you've exercised your God-given right as a child of God to test/examine a ministry's behaviour and teaching according to the Word.
I understand that there's so much to take into account and it's very scary and difficult,,,especially when you bring in the whole family and what you need to do that's best for them, etc...
I know it's a very difficult period but I believe God has HIs best in store, still to come for you.
Here's another article that talks about these issues if you still have the capacity to read. http://batteredsheep.com/abusive_02.html

Hoping and wanting the best for you and your family.

[luttrell03]

Hi. These again are some great thoughts to ponder and its made me think a lot (especially after I'd alread posted, too late:o).

I think though Reg is really hitting some root there. Maybe it's possible that much of the problem is that a large segment of the church has become institutionalized and that appears to be the normality,,how we view church. I think Doug wrote some excellent posts on the Corporate CHurch model.

I think that maybe when a church does that, or has a system that sets up a CEO and is not accountable (Body Life), than yes, it could be inevitable that a church in it's histroy will probably enivitably 'cross the line' from just being imperfect into becoming abusive and continuing on unchecked. At least there's great potential. But is that the norm or how the church should function? Was that God's intention for the church or how it should/could look like? I personally don't really see it as the norm in the NT although I don't know what something 'healthy' could look like because I've been in the same system for almost my whole life as a Christian.
It's also interesting to see that Paul, also in his ministry spent a lot of his time trying to keep the churches healthy and keep the wrong leaders from coming in and destroying the church.

I really don't know the answer but I'm hoping the answer to that would/could be no, since there is soo much Christ gave us through Redemption to take care of and heal our relational struggles.
But then, there we are back again. What does a healthy church look like so that it can check itself when it's starts to cross the line into hurtful behaviour? Is there an example of a healthy church in the NT?
I do tend to believe that there are some healthy or healthier churches out there that don't stress the CEO leader, practice accountability, reconciliation, encourage the Body to maturity and to excercise their gifts instead of, for the most part, watch one man, etc.

But again, if the norm is the institutional, CEO, corporate model, since that model seems to allow the right environment for a bad leader to operate and go unchallenged in many cases, than maybe abuse could be inevitable in such systems. But, I think if you were to do a word study on the word 'pastor' and then study the definition of a CEO you would find a huge world of difference.

Just throwing more thoughts out there. Don't mind being corrected.:)

[Anna Marta]

But, I think if you were to do a word study on the word 'pastor' and then study the definition of a CEO you would find a huge world of difference.

Just throwing more thoughts out there. Don't mind being corrected.:)

This is a thought I can chew on while away... :)

Now I get to determine if I am a normal or an abnormal hypocrit? I'll take a poll and let you know what my groupies think.

[Reg]

Hi.
I think though Reg is really hitting some root there. Maybe it's possible that much of the problem is that a large segment of the church has become institutionalized and that appears to be the normality,,how we view church. I think Doug wrote some excellent posts on the Corporate CHurch model.

But then, there we are back again. What does a healthy church look like so that it can check itself when it's starts to cross the line into hurtful behaviour? Is there an example of a healthy church in the NT?
I do tend to believe that there are some healthy or healthier churches out there that don't stress the CEO leader, practice accountability, reconciliation, encourage the Body to maturity and to excercise their gifts instead of, for the most part, watch one man, etc.

Just throwing more thoughts out there. Don't mind being corrected.:)
Here are a couple of previous links where we discussed this luttrell. They should give you a good idea what to look for....

Forgiveness & Signs of a healthy church?
http://www.christianrecovery.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5570&highlight=healthy+church

“Top Ten Leading Indicators” of a Healthy Church results
http://www.christianrecovery.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7269

[analyzer]

1. I think church leadership is the last place on earth where one should discover abuse(I'm thinking more the deceptive kind that just keeps living on and goes unchecked) , so I'm asking than what does 1Thess. 3:3 mean in light of that? WE know that affliction is the norm for all believers in this life, but is God here saying that we were appointed for abuse, 'IN the church under deceptive or dishonest leadership? Maybe?, I'm just really asking that as a question.

I don't think that applies to our specific situation. I was applying this to a wider scope to encourage people to hang in, while there is still hope

Then I think of other verses where I'm told to avoid teachers who twist the truth, cause division amongst the Body, and deceive the hearts of the simple through flattering speech (Rom. 16:17).
Actually what kind of teacher is Rom. 16:17 talking about? Only those teachers outside the Christian Orthodoxy camp ? Christian teachers who only twist the essential doctrines of the faith (salvation, etc.), or can it be a teacher who teaches a lot of truth but twists areas that support his opinions, protects his authority and keeps people in fear of speaking negatively about him and the church????

That is a very accurate point. It revealed to me how much our thinking had been conditioned in the past. We were only trained to view Rom 16:17 in the context of a righteous majority marking a rebellious minority. Until now it has never dawned on me that this could be very well applied to an aberrant majority. Remember Anna Marta's Profile Qoute:
"There were 2 roads... and I am on the one less traveled"

I also don't think that we are rendering evil for evil (1Peter 3:9) by simply deciding to walk away from an abusive situation,,,,that is if I can and God has given me the green light to do so.

I think that part of God's plan for us is to be ordained unto (undeserved) suffering, which may include abuse in the church. Members are (usually) not consciously aware of it and they cannot define why they lack spiritual health until God is revealing an abusive situation which is a signal for a believer priest to walk away from it.

3. Leaving church life alltogether, meeting in autonomous groups or house churches
I should have said: Leaving Churchianity (institutionalized Christianity with the CEO Type of Leadership). There is nothing wrong with meeting in house groups. Due to the Internet this form of gathering is on the surge.

Well thanks for your input, it's very much appreciated. It's like iron sharpning iron .. (Proverbs 27:17)

[analyzer]

Here's another article that talks about these issues if you still have the capacity to read. http://batteredsheep.com/abusive_02.html

Especially the two points below are ringing so true to me:

Second, is there a system of accountability or does the pastor keep full control? Authoritarian pastors do not desire a system of accountability. They may have a board but it consists of yes-men whom he ultimately selects.

Sixth, is the group preoccupied with maintaining a good public image that does not match the inner circle experience?

[simka2]

To me the difference between Hypocrisy and Abuse comes down to power. When someone is put in a place of power over someone else...what might have been normal hypocrisy becomes abuse. There is a huge difference between to people on equal footing...and those in Pastor/Sheep or Controlling Board/pastor.

In institutionalized church there is this obsession with "spiritual authority"...chain of command...fulfilling a leaders vision...things of that nature.

[luttrell03]

That is a very accurate point. It revealed to me how much our thinking had been conditioned in the past. We were only trained to view Rom 16:17 in the context of a righteous majority marking a rebellious minority. Until now it has never dawned on me that this could be very well applied to an aberrant majority. Remember Anna Marta's Profile Qoute:
"There were 2 roads... and I am on the one less traveled"

Thanks Gerald. Thank you for your wisdom also. Concerning Rom. 16:17 that's still an open question for me because I have mostly only seen it used (I think)by leaders to mark those that were opposed to them, their authority, position, viewpoints, etc...Usually then some of the church fans (which I was one also) would then mark those people also by emotionally shunning them in some way to show them that they were, 'off'.

Now I think many of us are very allergic to this particular verse because of its obvious misuse. It is a pretty 'dogmatic' statement from Paul, but I'm wondering, since it is still in the bible, who exactly is that verse addressing? What kind of teacher? I tend to think now that it applies better to some of the leaders who used it against their adversaries; mostly because of some of the characteristics portrayed there.....they cause division, and use flattering speech. I'm not thinking of the majority of folks under those leaders, but specifically the leaders. Are the false teachers there...false, counterfeit believers...... or those (including believers) who twist major doctrines like salvation, Deity of Christ, etc,,,,or can it include christian teachers who doctrinally have a lot going for them but twist certain passages mostly IN PRACTICE that allows them to keep their control and go on unchecked?
So, if anybody might have an idea??? Maybe that's another thread? After hearing that verse used in somewhat of a wrong way for and seeing its fruit for so many years I'd like to understand it better.

Thanks again Gerald.









[/QUOTE]

[luttrell03]

To me the difference between Hypocrisy and Abuse comes down to power. When someone is put in a place of power over someone else...what might have been normal hypocrisy becomes abuse. There is a huge difference between to people on equal footing...and those in Pastor/Sheep or Controlling Board/pastor.

In institutionalized church there is this obsession with "spiritual authority"...chain of command...fulfilling a leaders vision...things of that nature.

Excellent! I think that's key also Simka. Jesus said, ....talking to potential future leaders, 'You are all brothers'. No pecking order here. I think the hypocrisy with the capital H starts when someone thinks they have a head's advantage over another brother and therefore they are in a different category with God then their brother. Believers (including me) then sometimes add to that demension by 'enabling' (like that word) and confirming to the leader this high status.