We stockpile weapons for holding each other at arms’ length,
for wounding . . . and hostilities
toward other people, toward ourselves, toward God.
–Frederick Buechner
*You can read the previous post in this series here.
Shunning
In instances where sheep identify that something is off in a shepherd’s behavior and manner (or uncover clear incidents of wrongdoing) they have three choices: keep conforming, leave the church quietly, or confront the shepherd. If this is the first time a congregant has experienced oppression, she will most likely give the pastor the benefit of the doubt, thinking, “Maybe he’s just not aware of what he’s doing. He’s got a good heart—so all I need to do is just help him see that what he’s doing is causing harm.” However, the mere act of offering constructive criticism is a direct assault on a false shepherd’s superiority narrative. To consider owning fault is to admit he’s not as superior as he’d like to believe. The more narcissistic he is, the more he believes himself to be above questioning and the quicker he moves to silence the questioning sheep. One common silencing method is shunning. My husband and I frequently hear stories of sheep who confront a shepherd on how he speaks in a demeaning manner towards women, doesn’t follow through on his promises, or fails to pursue the weak. The shepherd’s response to the confrontation is often a mix of gaslighting and blatant lies like, “Oh, you misunderstand me. I love women and desire to encourage their flourishing. If I remember correctly, your father mistreated you. So perhaps you are projecting your past hurt onto me?” The sheep then mistakenly thinks if she could just “explain better” the shepherd could understand her point. What she misses is the disconnect between them has nothing to do with a cognitive misunderstanding. The real issue is the false shepherd sincerely believes he can do no wrong. He sincerely believes he is right, and the sheep’s dissenting views and opinions are dead wrong. If the sheep continues to approach the shepherd in hopes of bridging what she wrongly assumes is a communication issue, the shepherd may grow increasingly cold, dismissive, and withdrawn. Over time, the sheep may notice that not only is the pastor coldly withdrawn, but so are other leaders and congregants. Increasingly, the sheep feels “held at arm’s length” or merely tolerated by the leadership. The purpose of this shunning? To cause the sheep to back off, drop her concerns, and submit.
Gossip and Slander
Shunning is often coupled with a more insidiously evil tactic—slandering the dissenting sheep’s character among others. Slander and gossip sow seeds of doubt in the wider fold regarding the character of the sheep. These seeds of doubt are most often thrown out in subtle insinuations like these: “I’m not sure _____ (the sheep) is really equipped to serve as a small group leader because of her past.” Or “Pray for _____ I’m really concerned about her.” Most people don’t follow up with questions to ferret out the facts that led to the “concerns” or seek to understand just how the dissenting sheep’s “past” disqualifies her from being a small group leader. People who hear these negative insinuations are left to make sense of them on their own. Over time, as these small character assassinations add up, the shepherd paints a negative picture of the sheep. Naturally, this causes others in the congregation to distrust and even back away from the sheep.
The use of gossip and slander to discredit dissenting voices is common in narcissistic systems. Ironically, many of these systems openly preach and teach against gossip. For example, one counseling client processing through her church trauma brought me a form she was required to sign prior to becoming a member of a church in our area—an Anti-Gossip Covenant. This covenant basically stated that any differing opinion expressed by one person to another was gossip and grounds for church discipline.[2] A question that gets at the purpose behind an Anti-Gossip Covenant is this: why is gossip the only sin prospective members are expressly forbidden to engage in? What about lying, adultery, pride, murder, and jealousy? Forbidding ‘gossip’ serves the false shepherd’s desire for power and control by silencing church members and fostering fear regarding the sharing of personal opinions. Also, if the pastors or leaders share information, it’s regarded as truth because “they would never gossip! They signed the Anti-Gossip covenant!”
In another situation, a couple who’d been spiritually abused, slandered, and forced out of their church chose to share their story (without names) via a podcast. Most of the church staff who forced them out chose to listen to the podcast and then proceeded to harass and accuse the couple of gossip via text and email. In one email, a woman from the church declared “all second-hand information is known as gossip.” According to her definition, every human who browses the web for work-out tips and then repeats them to friends is guilty of gossip. So why make the ludicrous assertion that all second-hand information is gossip? To trigger false guilt, shame the couple into silence, and protect (control) the flow of information. The untenable paradox here is that false shepherds use gossip to discredit those they view as a threat while at the same time forbidding gossip. False shepherds often see themselves as above the rules they preach.
Excommunication or Forced Exile
After being shunned, if the dissenting sheep persists in her attempts to help the shepherd see the error of his ways, what follows depends on both the wider church culture and personality of the shepherd. False shepherds with more covert, passive-aggressive bents tend to persist in shunning the sheep to the point that they simply leave the church. Shepherds with more dominant, charismatic bents tend to turn on the sheep in a more public manner and enact some form of church discipline. Church cultures that pride themselves on being “loving” tend to sanction conflict-avoidant measures to preserve their “loving” image. More authoritarian churches that pride themselves on their “rightness” tend to choose more combative approaches to conflict. Most unhealthy churches use some combination of the two approaches.
In more authoritarian denominations, a shepherd may go so far as to declare the dissenting sheep divisive and unrepentant, and excommunicate her. Kicking the sheep out of the fold accomplishes four things: 1) the dissenting opinion is silenced, 2) the sheep’s character is publicly defamed, 3) other congregants refuse to listen to the sheep’s account of what went down, and 4) a culture of fear is established in the church.
A friend of mine once attended a church where excommunications were frequent. She was flabbergasted when the pastor moved to excommunicate congregants for missing church several weeks in a row with no explanation. There was no grace and little communication as to the process and purpose of such excommunications. Frequent excommunications infused the church with a hypervigilent atmosphere where congregants feared slipping up on some unspoken rule and getting kicked out of their community. Historically, excommunication (church discipline) has been a means of grace to help a member in unrepentant sin see the error of his ways and turn back to Christ and fellowship with other believers. Tragically, in narcissistic church systems, excommunication becomes an act of hate, a form of “murder” utilized to eliminate the voices of dissenting sheep (John 3:15). Excommunication enacted by a false shepherd to silence opposition is essentially an act of violence against a brother or sister in Christ.
In one horrific situation my husband and I investigated, an assistant pastor leveled an accusation of spiritual abuse against the senior pastor. The assistant pastor and his wife documented extensive evidence of the pastor’s abusive behaviors: emails, text threads, official church letters, and more. There were multiple witnesses to the senior pastor’s bad character, including a congregant who testified to his “condescending, passive-aggressive, and hostile remarks, refusal of repentance, avoidance, and smugness.” Yet despite documentation and multiple eyewitnesses, the elders surrounding the senior pastor found “no grounds” for the accusation of spiritual abuse. None of these elders were trained in the dynamics of abuse, let alone the subtleties of spiritual abuse. All those elders had been hand-picked by the senior pastor. The assistant pastor asked for a third party to intervene and bring new eyes to the situation—the elders refused. So, the assistant pastor resigned his position. Rather than simply allow the pastor his opinion and let him leave in peace, the elders relentlessly attacked him, demanding he recant his opinion and threatening formal church discipline if he did not.
When the assistant pastor refused to recant, the elders said they had no choice but to excommunicate him and his family. This pastor had already resigned and left the church, so what good would excommunication do at that point? Nothing except publicly declare him a non-Christian and ruin his hopes of a position at another church. In this context, excommunication became a tool of power and control to condemn the pastor for having a negative opinion of church leadership. Excommunication also sent a frightening message to remaining members: “Submit to your leadership or face being cast out of your community!” The cruelty of the senior pastor and elder board didn’t end there. They rescinded the severance pay of the assistant pastor—a husband, father, and primary provider for his young family. The manner in which the leadership conducted the excommunication mirrored that of a witch-hunt, not a loving attempt at restoration. Manner reveals heart. Therefore, the heart of the senior pastor (and his complicit elders) was hell bent on destroying anyone who dared expose their sins or inadequacies.
Modern-day American church attenders understand on some level that Christian leaders, parents, and pastors are supposed to be characterized by humility and tenderness, so when they experience the previous tactics—silencing questions, controlling the narrative, sowing doubt, shunning, slander, and excommunication—they are fearful and confused. These sheep often blame themselves for what they experience, question their salvation, and think God, like the shepherds who used and abused them, must be disappointed in who they are.
Reflection:
As you read through the above power and control tactics, can you identify the tactics utilized within your own story of church trauma?
Wade in:
- Where, when, and with whom did these tactics show up? Note these on your timeline along with specific examples.
- How did these tactics affect you emotionally, mentally, spiritually?
Deeper Dive:
- Do you sense any resistance in your heart to identifying these tactics? Do you find yourself making excuses for the false shepherds in your story? If so, why do you think that is? What might you be afraid of?
Note: Having categories helps bring clarity to our experiences, but that clarity often triggers the scary reality of our human vulnerability. It’s common for wounded souls to feel foolish that they didn’t see these tactics sooner, which can trigger intense feelings of shame. To avoid those feelings of shame, it’s normal to feel some resistance to identifying the specifics of the harm done to you. But to truly lament and heal, this part of recovery—naming the specifics of the harm—is essential. If you feel resistance, step away, pray, seek support, and come back when you are ready to embrace and move through the discomfort of this step. It may be helpful to ask a safe person to help you process through this section.
*You can find other 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.
[2] Biblically speaking, gossip has nothing to do with the actual information being shared. Gossip is all about heart motive. If information is repeated with the intention to cause harm or stir up dissentsion, then that is gossip.
Pursued 