₦airaland Forum

ril19:
I call it mundane.

It goes without saying that the pastoral leaders we have examined here are power-seeking individuals. In their attempts to control and manipulate others, they reveal much about their own personality and identity. Behavioral scientists view the desire for power as the result of a deep- seated insecurity or need. It is my impression that abusive pastors often come from troubled backgrounds and are very insecure persons despite the "take charge" image they may project. They are power-hungry people who crave visibility. Leaders who inflict spiritual violence often hide behind the smoke screen of authority to gain power.

A central theme of this book is that spiritual abuse can take place in the context of doctrinally sound, Bible preaching, fundamental, conservative Christianity. All that is needed for abuse is a pastor accountable to no one and therefore beyond confrontation.

When authoritarian churches are subjected to what they perceive to be negative press, they invariably interpret the results as the "work of Satan." This is true even if the report appears in a Christian periodical, or when Christian observers are quoted.

Criticism, whether its source is Christian or secular, sincere or superficial, is always viewed by fringe churches as an "attack" — dismissed as more evidence of Satan trying to discredit "a good Christian work." In no way would I defend all that is passed off as investigative journalism aimed at Christian organizations. But I am aware of numerous instances where carefully researched, accurate reporting has been totally rejected by the evangelical Christian community without ever considering the possible merits of the reporting. It is almost automatically attributed to Satan. That is unconscionable.

The ultimate form of discipline in authoritarian churches is excommunication or disfellowshipping, followed by strict avoidance procedures, or shunning. As MacDonald correctly notes, "Once the deviant is labeled as factious and is denounced, he is cast aside as thoroughly as one would throw out a dirty diaper . . . [the deviant] is no longer considered even to be an ex-member, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is referred to and looked to as how not to be."3 When a rebellious individual leaves an abusive group, he is labeled as a traitor, a reprobate, a sinner, a backslider, or, in the case of Set Free Christian Fellowship, an "outlaw." The congregation is told to disassociate from such persons. "Friends of long standing will ignore him. They will turn their faces away. They will go to great lengths to avoid him. They will walk on the other side of the street, hang up the phone, or not answer the door . . . "4

Members of all abusive churches soon learn that the pastor or leader is beyond confrontation. As one former member of an abusive congregation put it, "Since no one in the church was allowed to murmur and complain, or to disagree with the pastor, there were many, like myself, who suffered in silence lest we incur God's anger." All problems that befall the group are the fault of members who violate the infallible rules. Accordingly, members experience increased self-doubt, helplessness, and insecurity.

Preface
This has been a difficult book to write because it is a book that is critical of other Christians. One always runs the risk of being misunderstood and labeled "judgmental" or arrogant when you make evaluative statements regarding Christian believers and organizations outside your own immediate circle. The book is about churches and other Christian organizations that inflict psychological and spiritual abuse upon members through the use of fear, guilt, and intimidation.

However, when we refuse to pass judgment on any religious phenomenon for fear that such judgments might violate the norm of tolerance so prevalent in our culture, we abdicate our responsibility to the body of Christ to sound a warning where a warning is justified. Some boats need to be rocked, even Christian boats. The years of research that have gone into this book have validated for me the truth of a placard I display in my office: "Those who make it hardest to be a Christian in this world are the other Christians."

I can safely predict that not one of the groups discussed in these pages will agree that they deserve such mention. They will protest that they have been unfairly portrayed, that I have listened to "a few disgruntled former members" whose words should not be trusted, and who are not representative of the membership.

Let me assure the reader that the information I convey in this book is based not on my own fanciful imagination, but on the actual experiences of real people whose accounts can be independently verified and who, to the best of my knowledge, have been truthful about their encounters with churches that abuse. Despite the defensive protestations of authoritarian leaders that ex-members of their churches lie, distort the facts, and are "accusers of the brethren," there is abundant evidence that a serious problem of abuse exists in the Christian community.

Researching and writing Churches That Abuse was often a depressing experience because in recounting their days in abusive environments, the survivors I talked with had to relive the pain and confusion, and, yes, the anger. Sometimes they were embarrassed to admit that they had allowed these things to happen to them. They felt the absence of understanding people willing to help them "pick up the pieces."

It is my hope that this book will provide a context for understanding. If we have basic information about a subject, we can sometimes take preventative action. Regrettably, it is not always possible to "get through" to people already caught up in abusive churches. They do not see themselves as being manipulated, or in any danger of spiritual abuse. Hence, the frustration of parents, relatives, and friends who try to reach or "rescue" them. There are no easy solutions to this problem.

In the final analysis, the book presents a hopeful outlook. Not only can individuals leave abusive churches and achieve recovery and restoration, but there are encouraging signs that some groups are themselves recognizing the need for change and are moving away from the fringe toward the center. May their numbers increase.

Ronald Enroth
Santa Barbara, California
July 1991

From the Jacket of the Book

Churches That Abuse

When does a church cross the line between conventional church status and fringe status? What is the nature of the process by which any given group devolves into a fringe church or movement? What are some of the signs or indicators that a given group is becoming abusive of its members and is headed for the margins? When should a member consider bailing out?

Churches That Abuse answers these and other important questions about abusive churches and groups that operate in this country — organizations and churches that are not necessarily characterized by doctrinal deviation but have particular traits that make them behavioral and sociological outsiders. It also helps readers identify and beware of abusive tendencies in more "normal" Christian churches.

Ronald Enroth identifies what is meant by "abusive churches." Then, he describes abusive churches, using the ten identifying traits of control-oriented leadership, spiritual elitism, manipulation of members, perceived persecution, lifestyle rigidity, emphasis on experience, suppression of dissent, harsh discipline of members, denunciation of other churches, and the painful exit process. Finally, he shows readers how to discern fringe churches and offers several "red flags" that can be discerned when conventional churches drift toward the fringe.

Churches That Abuse tells who the abusers are, how their techniques operate, and what the consequences are for marriages, small children, and teenagers. Where most books stop after reporting problem areas, this one continues and offers suggestions for those helping victims of abuse. And it can be read beneficially by those who are involved in abusive churches and have no one to turn to.

GraceInUSA:
So a very good friend of mine asked me this question last week and I was speechless. Can anyone, the pastors, bishops, evangelists, bible theologians and co give me answers with bible references please?

EVarn:
Hebrew was talking about "messangers",the original meaning of angel is messanger.
Hebrew 1 was referring to the prophets of old.
Why would the old testament refer to angels as "sons of God",and the new testament say otherwise?.

Filmdirect:
Because our religion is without balance and is mixed with our ancestral animist worship which was steeped in fear and a passive response to gods that do everything and demand so much. We have just substituted Christianity but it is the same approach. We pacify God,giving tithes, fasting etc and then wait for Him to be pleased with us and do it for us. If it does not happen we wonder why and blame our family members.

The whites did this in ancient Europe until they threw off the shackles of catholicism, which was the dominant religion at the time, as well as the monarchy. Also currently they do not think religion means God handles everything in life, but helps them as THEY handle the affairs of life. We are contrary. We do not understand theology in the practical sense and so we suffer.

EVarn:
The old testament refers to angels as "sons of God",the books of Genesis 6:4,Job 1:6,2:1 referred to angels as "sons of God",was the old testament referring to Jesus(using plural "sons")?.

Appleyard:
Wrong! The rapture shall mark the begining of the great tribulation. The tribulation shall be the punishment for the foolish virgins who did not make it during the first flight, and they will now have to pay with their blood under torture for 3 and a half year, to deny Christ and accept the mark of the beast to live freely, work, buy and sell: which they must have to refuse to be saved.
The bride of Christ will never go through the tribulation period, otherwise the purpose of the salvation paid by Christ on the cross, would amount to nothing. But thank God, it won't be.

Raymondenyi:
your assertions are largely false;

Image123:
Visitor700 agrees with you, remember.

Raymondenyi:
This Question has always been bothering my heart. The Caucasians are not as religious as the blacks, but are doing very well economically and in standard of living, why?

Abroad, churches over there are still populated by black immigrants... Yet they(blacks) are still very backwards why? .

Image123:
vooks blood dey hot like yam, why? You're one funny fellow, you're not willing to learn or discuss na, you already set the conclusion, you're the referee and you're also playing and shifting goalposts, creating theories and doctrines, insulting everything and everyone on the way etc. Take am easy, Life is beautiful.

Image123:
Yes i'm fine and you? BTW, i answered all the questions you asked, maybe you do not like or agree with the answers though.

Jesus is INDEED the FIRST begotten from the dead, it is no wordplay. And like you have shown, it is because "He rose again to never die again". That makes His resurrection unique, He was glorified, and so will all believers at the resurrection. His is indeed FIRST of that order, others follow.

This is unlike the 'first resurrection' or 'second death' which are phrases related to each other not to some other second or third resurrections, or some first or third deaths.

What is "global resurrection", hope it's not one of those theory of men?(in vooks'voice of course).

The term "first resurrection" is simply a phrase used in comparison to the "second death".

There is no second resurrection in the sense. It's just like "first Adam"and "last Adam". The emphasis is more of contextual than numeric.

The church age is simply the period we are in now. It is a reality and not a conjecture as we are living in it. We are the church and this is our time, our age. The church age is the period of the church on earth before the rapture.

Like i have stated, i already answered these questions. The rapture event is different from the event in this text.

The rapture event takes place in Revelation 4:1, which is immediately after the church age(Revelation 2 and 3).

i answered this here when i said "At what point do we have Rapture, that's chapter4v1."

Answered already, the rapture happens before the tribulation, and before Revelation 20.

The terms "the second coming", "the coming of the Lord", "the day of the Lord", "the last day", all bear broad and related/relative meanings. They refer to a long phase of events.

i already alluded to this, referring to Christ's first coming to earth. The first coming included many events in about 33years, there is His Birth, His Life, His Death, His Resurrection and His Ascension for instance.

His second coming also has series of events lined up, and some are mysterious and symbolized.

For instance, the rapture event is a mystery. It's not plain or open for everyone to catch or understand.

And of course, neither does understanding of it make anyone more qualified before God or whatever.

And so, Revelations 2 and 3 is what we are experiencing till date. Another phase comes in at 4:1

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

After this, heaven, hereafter, trumpet, these are all pictures that indicate the new phase. In this phase, saints are in Heaven before God, His throne, the Lamb, angels etc, worshipping and praising.

Between chapters 4 to 7 or so, you see men and elders in Heaven, different from the souls who will resurrect in the famous Revelation 20.
Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

These were different from the elders, angels and saints busy before the throne and the Lamb in worship.

As we later see, some of the angels are fellow humans.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Somewhere in chapter 6 is where the tribulation begins, recall that already in chapters4 and 5, saints are in Heaven already worshipping, and they are different from the souls killed in tribulation.

The Beast is first mentioned chapter 13 i think. So, there are some people in Heaven already before the beast or his mark.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Like i said from my initial post and have restated, the coming of the Lord is an event spanning a long period.

Holistic study of the Bible helps to understand the context, time and event of each passage.

The Lord will first "come" FOR His saints(the rapture) before coming WITH His saints/angels/army.

One happens in a twinkle of an eye, the other every eye will see Him.

The fianl stage of the resurrection will be the resurrection of the tribulation souls as seen in Revelations 20. However, all saints will reign with Christ, and the second death has no power on them.

For the umpteenth time, the phrases "the first resurrection"or the "last day" are more of symbolic and contextual, not literal or numeric.

The so called last day is not a last 24 hour day. It is a period spanning many years that include resurrection, reigning, and judgment. From all of scriptures, and chronologically looking at Revelations, we see that the Resurrection(call it first resurrection if it makes you more comfortable) is not a single one time event. It is a period, a package, like in government when we say the first republic, that lasts or spans events in about four/five years.

jared007:
Wouldn't it be wiser 2 prepare 4 a pre-trib rapture dan a post-trib rapture? Its only a fool dat chooses 2 go to hell to proove if hell is really eternal. Now in the rapture, the church departs d earth to meet christ in d clouds without a single battle(satan will be present on earth). In the second coming, Jesus returns with d church to battle d beast and false prophet (satan would be thrown into d bottomless pit so therefore he will be expelled 4rm earth) after d 1000 year reign of Christ, satan would be released and eventually defeated by God himself.

Image123:
Hehehehehehehe, vooks blood dey always hot not warm, adonknowwhy.

trapQ:
My nigga..... vooks won't see this

Joagbaje:
This choice of language is unecesary. Communicate humbly . just in case you were wrong you can take it with grace .

Gombs:
This is the singular reason I find it difficult to communicate with him!

Scholar8200:
So could you throw more light on Romans 11?
A heathen is not an Israelite after the flesh bro. Nobody here is advocating judaism!!! Why not take a tour through Romans11 etc?

Scholar8200:
Alright what is the message of Romans 11? Why the emphasis by Paul on the fulness of the Gentiles in that chapter? The Church consists of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ however Romans 11 agrees to the prophecies in the OT on the subject of God's plan and programme for the Israelites (after the flesh). Besides the 70 weeks of Daniel was concerning God's programme with Israel (Daniel 9:24a) however, the period of the Gentiles (described by Paul as a mystery in Ephesians 3) was not included but is the break between the 69th and 70th week.

Joagbaje:
Thanks for your contribution. Firstly the scripture you quoted was 2thess 2. And not 1Thessalonians 2. As you indicated.
Secondly Paul was not making reference to the rapture but rather the second coming which will be 7 years after the rapture. He did the teaching to clear the air about the erroneous teaching about second coming. He firstly made know the preceding events to the second coming as you indicated but if you observe he also pointed out the mysterious event that must take place before all these. Which is the fact that the church will first be taken out of the way before emergence of the anti Christ .it's the presence of the church that is preventing the anti Christ from being made manifest. And this son of perdition will be revealed as soon as the church is taken up out of the way.

2Th 2:6 — 2Th 2:7
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.