church

On Spiritual Abuse (with Michael Kruger)

Kirk E. Miller

What is spiritual abuse, and how should we respond to it in our churches? In this episode of Logos Live, I talk with Mike Kruger, author of Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church.

Check it out!

4 key insights from the conversation

1. Spiritual abuse often won’t be obvious to onlookers

[S]piritual abuse isn’t always obvious. It doesn’t appear with twirling mustaches and overt villainy. … Sin is universal, and as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said, ‘The line separating good and evil passes … right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.’ A problem with assuming spiritual abuse will always appear obvious is that we blind ourselves to its many less-than-obvious occurrences. As Jesus himself said, wolves won’t appear as wolves, but as those dressed in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). And often our own self-interest and confirmation bias make it difficult to acknowledge that a beloved leader would act so harmfully.

2. Abusers often manipulate by appealing to sound principles

Good principles can be weaponized: calls for unity can stifle dissent; appeals to authority can be used to demand trust rather than earn it; submission can be coerced instead of cultivated. The result is a spiritually oppressive environment, often masked by theological correctness, appeals to trust leadership, and a sense of legitimacy.

3. Spiritual abuse is deeply damaging

[Consider] the deep damage spiritual abuse can cause, taking things that are so vital and good (e.g., Scripture, one’s relationship with God, the church) and twisting them into a source of agonizing pain and confusion. Symptoms can include the following: physical symptoms (e.g., PTSD-like stress), emotional and relational trauma, social ostracization from their church, [and] doubts about God, faith, and the church.

4. We must prioritize people over reputations and institutions

Many victims never come forward—and those who do often regret it. Time and again, … the ecclesiastical process (e.g., investigations) proved more traumatizing than the abuse itself. Victims are often disbelieved, maligned, attacked, or pressured to remain silent. Churches often protect their leaders or institutions rather than those abused for the sake of “carrying on with the mission.” [Churches must] put people above institutions (see Isa 1:12–17). Protecting the church’s reputation cannot come at the expense of the wounded.

Ecclesial Crossbreeding: When Elders Answer to No One

Kirk E. Miller

Exegetical and theological differences aside:

Elder (presbuteros)-rule church government (polity) historically developed within an ecclesial ecosystem of broader presbyterian accountability structures. In other words, when the elders of a particular church (its “session”) functioned as its utmost governing body—as opposed to the congregation—those elders (session) were nonetheless governed by and accountable to its broader ecclesial system of accountability (e.g., its local presbytery, consisting of elders from other local congregations). Thus, although elder-rule existed, those elders’ authority in their church was not unchecked or absolute.

On the other side, congregational (e.g., Baptist) churches are autonomous, meaning each local church completely governs itself. It may affiliate with other churches (associations, conventions, etc.). But the church remains self-governing; there is no ecclesial authority that exists over it and governs it.

These churches have historically been congregationally governed, i.e., the members of the church (congregation) serve as the utmost governing body of the church. Certainly its congregationally appointed elders exercise a measure of delegated authority, but they remain accountable, in this case to the congregation.

In short, historically speaking both forms of elder-rule and congregational polity maintained mechanisms of accountability for its elders. Elders were never a pure, independent, unaccountable governing body in either system. In elder-rule, they had outside accountability from the elders of other churches in their denomination (known as presbyterianism). The accountability came from “above.” In congregational churches, the church (the congregation, the members) itself held them accountable. The accountability came from “below.”1

A dangerous—and from what I understand, historically aberrant and novel—iteration then are those churches that borrow from both these worlds, but thereby isolate pieces of these polities that were never meant to exist independent of their larger ecclesial commitments. Thus you get churches today that are autonomous but elder-rule. In short, the elders are not accountable to anyone, neither the congregation or an overseeing presbytery.

It’s dangerous and ripe for abuse.

Notes

  1. I mean “below” or “above” in terms of hierarchy, not value. ↩︎

Higher Suicide Rates Among Autistic Individuals Due to Exclusion—Churches Are No Exception

Kirk E. Miller

Trigger warning: Some of the following quotes mention suicide.

Some quotes of interest from some reading I was doing today:

Conner, Caitlin M., Amy Ionadi, and Carla A. Mazefsky. “Recent Research Points to a Clear Conclusion: Autistic People Are Thinking About, and Dying by, Suicide at High Rates.” The Pennsylvania Journal on Positive Approaches 12, no. 3 (November 2023): 69–76.

“[A]utistic people are more likely to die from suicide than non-autistic people. Autistic people are also more likely to have suicidal ideation and to make attempts.

Based on rates from a recent meta-analysis (statistical analysis to combine rates from published studies on the topic), 20% of autistic children and teens reported suicidal ideation in the past year, and 10% reported suicide attempts. Non-autistic children and teens comparatively report rates of 14.2% for suicidal thoughts and 4.5% for suicidal attempts. This suggests that the rates of suicide attempts are double in autistic children and teens compared to non-autistic children and teens.

The comparisons for adults are even more striking. For autistic adults, 42% reported suicidal ideation in the past year, and 18% reported attempts. In studies of people who were first diagnosed as autistic in adulthood, over 60% reported having suicidal ideation. Comparatively, non-autistic adults reported rates of 4.8% for suicidal ideation and 0.7% for suicidal attempts. Therefore, available data suggests that autistic adults are 25 times more likely to make a suicide attempt than non-autistic adults. …

One reason for higher rates of suicidality in autistic people might be that many known risk factors (that increase a person’s risk) for suicide are also more likely in autistic people. The most commonly cited examples of these risk factors are depression and lacking social support, but other risk factors common in both suicidality and autism include rumination (getting ‘stuck’ on negative thoughts and emotions), loneliness, difficulties with problem solving, difficulty using coping skills when upset, experiencing trauma or abuse, and being impulsive. …

Studies have also examined protective factors (related to being less likely to have suicidal thoughts or behaviors) like social support, finding that autistic adults’ feeling of having supportive social connections is associated with a lack of suicidal thoughts or attempts. …

Additionally, research has shown that there are potentially unique risk … factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in autistic people, like masking their autism characteristics, autistic burnout, and sensory overload. … [O]ften autistic people experience suicidality as a reaction to repeated negative social experiences.”

Cynthia Tam, Kinship in the Household of God: Towards a Practical Theology of Belonging and Spiritual Care of People with Profound Autism (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2021).

“Among the different disability groups, Ault et al. found that individuals with autism were the least likely to receive welcome and support in the faith communities [Ault et al., “Congregational Participation,” 58].”

“[B]y examining the data of church attendance in the American National Survey of Children’s Health over the ten years ending in 2012, Andrew Whitehead discovered that young people living with autism were consistently the least likely to be attending a church [Whitehead, “Religion and Disability,” 387.].”

“People with autism are commonly portrayed as people living in their own world, not interested in social relationships, and unable to empathize with others’ emotions. … This way of understanding autism is constructed based on societal norms for acceptable behaviors.”

“However, if we listen to the voices of people with autism published in recent years, we will hear that they do want to have social relationships with others. More often than not, we, people in society, are responsible for the communication breakdown and the failure to connect with those living with autistic experiences.”

“What does it mean to be a church for everyone? It is, to state the obvious, to suggest that church communities are not always as welcome and loving towards those whom they consider to be ‘strangers.’ Despite the fact that the central doctrine of the Body of Christ informs us that we should be a community where difference is present, but never divisive, many congregations still struggle to include people with particular forms of difference. Time and again we find stories of people with disabilities being excluded from congregations… The church has become a place of struggle rather than welcome.” (John Swinton, “Preface”)

“Thomas Reynolds calls the church that sets up social boundaries between the abled and the disabled, the ‘cult of normalcy’ [Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 59–60]. ‘Normalcy,’ according to Reynolds, is a ‘cultural system of social control’ [Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 49]. It presumes a certain bodily appearance and the ability to be representative of a community’s identity. As such, it marks out who can and cannot belong to the community. To belong, they have to be like us.”

“Once we understand how the perception of people with autism is socially constructed, examining how we currently belong as a church … will show sharply the societal norms that have crept into the church. Instead of valuing all members of Christ’s body, the church has adopted societal standards such as independence, productivity, physical appearance, and appropriate behavioral etiquette in how we welcome and value each other. … Discovering how we perceive and receive members with unique differences will also cause us to re-examine the nature of the church and how we belong as a community. The ultimate goal is to reimagine the Christian community as God’s loving family in which members, regardless of differences in abilities, stand in solidarity with each other.”

Michael R. Emlet, Autism Spectrum Disorder: Meeting Challenges with Hope (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2023), 15–16.

“[W]e who are more neurotypical must not jump to conclusions about what is sin and what is not. Our tendency may be to shade the truth a bit to protect our reputation, or to tell someone what she wants to hear to avoid a conflict. … There is something to learn here from someone on the autism spectrum. After all, they find it difficult to be sneaky or deceitful, and their honesty catches us off guard.

Let’s not forget the strengths that individuals with ASD can bring to the table: unique and creative insights, passionate and exhaustive knowledge of particular subjects, ability to think visually and systematically, intelligence, and a quirky sense of humor, to name a few.”