As individuals we stockpile weapons for defending ourselves against
not just the things and people that threaten us
but against the very things and people that seek to . . .
make us better and more human than we are.
–Fredrick Buechner
*You can find the previous post in this series here.
Sowing Doubt and Confusion
Gaslighting—manipulating a person into questioning her perception of reality—is just one of many tactics utilized by false shepherds when the sheep under them poke holes in their superiority narrative. When well-meaning sheep ask thoughtful questions or express concerns regarding the methods or character of the leadership, rather than engage those concerns, these shepherds cause the sheep to doubt their opinions and even their sanity. Sowing doubt via gaslighting is done in a variety of ways, but primarily through manipulating language.
When questioned or confronted on wrongdoing, false shepherds frequently accuse the sheep of failing to live up to biblical characteristics like grace, forgiveness, authority, submission, mercy, family, unity, honor, and obedience. In other words, the shepherd “flips the narrative,” and makes the sheep, not the shepherd, the one in the wrong. For example, if a congregant comes to a pastor saying, “I’m concerned about how we are picking small group leaders. It appears to be based on personality more than character. Can we talk about this?” The pastor might respond, “Thank you for your concern. I’ve been reading a lot lately about how American Christians are averse to authority and submission. We live in a culture of mistrust of leadership, and I’m wondering how that might be influencing how you view me and the small group leader selection?” What just happened? The pastor deflected from the congregant’s legitimate concern regarding how small group leaders are selected and then accused the congregant of being un-submissive to authority. The pastor flipped the narrative from “The small group leader selection process is problematic” to “The questioning congregant is the problem.”
Since genuine sheep, more often than not, sincerely seek to be grace-filled and submissive to leadership, they walk away from interchanges like these focusing not on how the shepherd deflected from their concerns, but on themselves and their weaknesses and sins. They may buy the lie that “It’s wrong of me to question my leaders because the Bible says to submit myself to their authority.” When false shepherds consistently send the subtle message that the sheep and their questions are the “real problem,” the sheep feel mounting pressure to conform to the shepherd’s perspective.The sheep may begin to think things like, “Well, it’s true that I’m not always grace filled. Maybe I am being too critical, and I’ve got it all wrong.” The result of this type of psychological manipulation is the sheep begin to doubt their perspective that the shepherd’s behavior and words are wrong. When the sheep doubt their own perspective, they lack the clarity and conviction to confront the shepherd. The shepherd is then free to continue using and abusing the sheep to assert his superiority. In other words, the end goal of sowing doubt and confusion is power and control over the sheep.
Flattery, also called love-bombing, only intensifies the confusion of battered sheep. On the one hand, these sheep are accused of being divisive and un-submissive, but then on the other hand, they are often publicly flattered as “so service-oriented, Christ-loving, merciful, and, by the way, so talented at ______.” How can sheep be both divisive and Christ-loving? The contradiction is disorienting and keeps sheep doubting their negative perspective of the false shepherd’s character. This flattery is often spoken in public settings among witnesses. Why? Public flattery accomplishes two things: 1) confuses the wounded sheep and 2) makes the false shepherd look kind and humble in the eyes of others. Witnesses to public flattery might think: “Look at that! He’s giving _____ (the sheep) a public compliment! He is such a good, humble pastor!” Sometimes the public flattery comes in the form of over-the-top gift-giving. For example, I counseled a female teacher through a situation in a religious homeschool co-op where she was “let go” after her students began openly sharing stories of dysfunction in their religious families. This teacher went to the co-op leader asking how to handle these troubling—and public—student confessions. Wisely, this teacher refrained from sharing that one of the students confessing to dysfunction in his home was the co-op leader’s very own son. Not long after the teacher sought clarity on how to handle student confessions, she was called into the office by the co-op leader and fired for ambiguous reasons that had “nothing to do with your job performance.” A few days after firing this teacher, the co-op leader—without warning—burst into the teacher’s classroom carrying a gift basket the size of Noah’s ark and handing it to her in front of a large classroom of students. There is cunning evil behind this public flattery. If the sheep shares that she has been harmed by the false shepherd in private, she looks ungrateful and petty. Others often think: “What does she have to complain about? Clearly, ______ (the shepherd) thinks the world of her! What is her problem?” The result of public flattery: isolating the sheep and cutting off avenues for expressing her negative experiences of the shepherd.
Minimizing the emotional responses of the sheep is yet another tactic wielded by shepherds to sow doubt and confusion. Sheep under false shepherds are habitually made to feel unworthy, insignificant, fearful, and hypervigilant. Why? Because these shepherds habitually place heavy loads on the backs of the sheep, expecting them to work hard to make them look good and shaming them when they inadvertently make them ‘look bad.’ When sheep slip up or execute their responsibilities imperfectly, the shepherd often responds in either hot or cold anger. Years ago, Jon and I witnessed a mega-church pastor become visibly angry and publicly mock the sound man—a volunteer—when the sound system glitched during his sermon. As the man fumbled around in his booth with about five hundred eyes on him, the pastor made a couple terse comments about the evils of technology. As the seconds ticked by and the microphone remained glitchy, the pastor marched down the aisle like a drill sergeant, leaned over the side of the booth at the back of the sanctuary, and demanded a new microphone. The sound guy’s head hanging low, he thrust the microphone into the pastor’s hand. The pastor did a sharp about-face, and marched back up the aisle cracking sarcastic jokes about those who can’t do their jobs “right.” Meanwhile, the audience tittered uncomfortably. If that poor sound guy approached the pastor about his experience of being publicly shamed and demeaned, he would most likely be written off as “dramatic” or “too emotional.” This minimization might be followed by spiritually oppressive language like: “Emotions aren’t reliable. You are just being far too sensitive. Scripture says that we are to focus on whatever is true and honorable and trustworthy.” The effect? The sound man and others like him come away distrusting their emotions—God-given messages that carry truth—and believing that perhaps they really are “too sensitive” and need to get their act together.
Downplaying harm or suffering is another common tactic utilized to confuse and silence sheep. This down-playing sends the message that the sheep is not actually suffering at all. Downplaying harm deflects the focus away from the false shepherd’s cruelty and paints the sheep as making a “mountain out of a molehill!” The sheep’s response is often to slink away, hide, and never speak up again. To downplay suffering, a shepherd often compares the sheep’s experience of harm to others who “have suffered so much more than you have!” The subtle message is something like “Who are you to think you’ve suffered so much?!” In more than one instance, I’ve heard shepherds call suffering sheep “Ridiculous!” for daring to think their experience qualifies as legitimate suffering.
If these sheep dare leave the fold and choose to share their story—watch out! They are frequently hounded and harassed by leaders and congregants still trapped in the fold. For example, in one situation a couple left their church after being spiritually abused and excommunicated. Since they’d already been publicly defamed and kicked out of their church, they chose to share their story via a social media platform (without names or identifiers) to help other wounded sheep. The elders and their wives who played a role in abusing and excommunicating this couple harassed them repeatedly via text and email in an attempt to shut them up. One elder’s wife had this to say: “You speak publicly like you have suffered so greatly. Even if all your claims [of abuse] were true, this just isn’t the case. In a world full of real suffering, is this really what needs to take up space in your heart and mind? It makes even less sense because so much of [the abuse you claim] simply didn’t happen.” Wow! Did you catch it? This elder’s wife declared spiritual abuse not real suffering. She had zero training, background, or education in assessing abuse, yet elevated herself as judge and ruler over the nature and degree of this couple’s suffering.
False apologies tend to be last ditch efforts on the part of shepherds to silence the sheep and save face. “I’m so sorry you feel that way” really means “I didn’t do anything wrong, you just feel that I did.” Another common false apology reads like this: “I’m so sorry. I’m such a sinner and need so much grace.” Confessing to being a “sinner” is ambiguous and owns no wrong while demanding “grace” is like flashing a ‘pass card’ for sin. Perhaps the most insane apology I ever received from a pastor went something like this: “God gifted me with a great intellect, but sometimes it gets me in trouble because others can’t track with me. I’m sorry for how my intellect may have harmed you.” In that back-handed “apology” the pastor declared himself a genius and then apologized for my inability to “get” his intellect. In other words, he didn’t apologize for anything at all. The variations on false apologies are endless but the one thing they all have in common—no ownership of specific wrongdoing.
False apologies are often used in tandem with playing the victim. In a variety of ways, these shepherds blame past trauma, an absent father, their wife, their kids, demanding congregants, and literally anyone or anything that gets in their way for doing them harm. They paint themselves as the innocent victim and anyone who confronts or questions them as the perpetrator of harm against them. For example, one of my clients confronted a pastor regarding how he labeled her “dangerous” for merely asking a question. He responded, “I don’t recall saying that you are dangerous, but in my frustration and anxiety, sometimes I can mix up my words and say things I don’t really mean.” In other words, “If I said you were dangerous, my anxiety did it, not me.” This shepherd, like so many others, claimed he was victimized by his own anxiety.
These tactics—false apology, playing the victim, gaslighting, flattery, minimizing emotions, downplaying harm—elevate the shepherd to the position of judge and ruler over truth and reality. That is, these tactics reinforce the shepherd’s superiority narrative as the defining narrative. Though he claims to live by Christ’s gospel narrative—which includes the fact that he’s human and a sinner—he lives according to a narrative of his own making in which he stands over others and demands their unquestioning loyalty. In the position of judge, the shepherd asserts his view of reality for the purpose of maintaining power, and in that position, he takes on a dangerously God-like role where his perspective goes unchallenged in the church.
Reflection:
As you read through the above power and control tactics, could you identify the tactics utilized within your own story of church trauma?
- Where, when, and with whom did these tactics show up? Note these on your timeline along with specific examples.
- What effect did these tactics have on you emotionally, mentally, spiritually?
*You can find the rest of the posts in this series here.
[1] The tactics utilized by false shepherds aren’t limited to these six described here. However, I’ve found these six to be consistently applied over time and helpful in bringing clarity to wounded sheep suffering under the oppression of narcissistic shepherds and churches.
Pursued 