When Churches Abuse

I've been reading survivor stories from people who were abused by Mars Hill Church (pastored by Mark Driscoll--possibly my favorite person ever).

It's brutal stuff.

One of the more OT (Old Testament) methods Mars Hill used was "shunning," which is exactly what it sounds like. A person or an entire family would be formally ostracized from the church with all their remaining friends (or, if you like, brothers and sisters in Christ) instructed to go no contact--all in the name of biblical discipline and restoration.

I read one account by Jonna Petry, whose husband was abruptly fired from leadership in 2007. She describes how the church turned on her and her family, and the devastating spiritual, emotional and relational consequences.

It might not be physical, but it's still violence, and all in the name of God. Petry writes:

Spiritual abuse occurs when someone uses their power within a framework of spiritual belief or practice to satisfy their own needs at the expense of others. It is a breach of sacred trust. Christians are commanded by Jesus to love one another. When that is projected, articulated, enjoyed and then treacherously betrayed, the wounded person is left with “a sense of having been raped, emotionally and spiritually” – not by a stranger, but by someone who was deeply trusted. (See Recovering from Church Abuse by Len Hjalmarson)

One of the biggest selling points of today's evangelical Christian church is "family"--belonging and love and connection and acceptance, as in "You belong here."

I've talked to friends about the almost mythical nature of "community" in Christian churches. There's this idea that real community can only happen in the context of church-that a church is the only place that you as a Christian will ever belong.

Your sewing group? Heathens. Your coworkers? They want your promotion. Your college friends? They've moved on. Your biological family? They may or may not be there for you when you need them.

When these expectations for community aren't met--or when you never really feel like you belong in the first place--the emotional pain can be devastating. After all, churches often hold this out as an enticement: One church I attended had as part of its mission statement, "To give every orphan a family."

Furthermore, when Christian community is the only genuine community, it can take over your entire life. Often, members are encouraged to become more and more invested in their church, particularly by serving or by taking on a leadership role. The underlying assumption is that this is both a means to and a sign of spiritual growth.

Church Bubble

The people you worship with Sunday are the people you community group with Tuesday are the same people you party with Friday. If you are single, often you expect to date and marry within your church. Don't get me started on how depressing that can be.

Christians are encouraged to make non-Christian friends, but only from the standpoint of evangelism--convincing them to join the family (wow, that sounds creepy).

When you spend all your time with the same people, you tend to get attached.

Petry reflects on her own culpability in the abuse, in a narrative that I've heard many times from other Christians, and from myself:

I have come to understand that I was wrong in the way I entrusted my heart to people, looking to them for approval and affirmation, finding my identity in my relationships and in my ministry instead of completely and solely entrusting my heart to the Living God and finding my identity and security in Jesus Christ alone, who loves me and died for me and calls me His own. For we are all capable of great sin. And, no doubt, the wrong way I entrusted my heart to others coincided with the depth of my pain at their betrayal and rejection.

In sum, "I didn't love or trust God enough. If I had, I would have avoided some of this pain." I disagree. To me, it seems perfectly human to entrust your heart to other people--especially people that you have laughed with, cried with, served with, suffered with all in the name of Christian community. Emotional and relational attachment is less a conscious choice than a gradual, organic process that happens when people spend a lot of time together.

Hyper-vigilance about loving God more than I love my friend, my  boyfriend, my spouse, my children, does not solve the problem of human attachment or somehow make betrayal hurt less.

We were meant to love and trust other people. It's one of those things that makes us so incredibly vulnerable.

How many times have I emerged from a relationship feeling broken and empty, only to conclude that my mistake (or sin, as Petry characterizes it) was growing attached to a person instead of to God.

I can't tell myself this story anymore. It doesn't hold up.

I will say that based on Petry's story, I would advocate for diversifying your social portfolio--don't invest all of yourself in any one social group, whether it's a church or a motorcycle gang. Diversify. Make friends with people who don't share your religious or political or sports affiliation.

If you are embedded in a single group, when and if abuse does happen, it can be even more overwhelmingly devastating. Not all churches are abusive, but any church can let you down.

What's striking about Petry's account is how doggedly her family sought healing and reconciliation with the church that destroyed them. Some of it was just shock and disbelief--that those who had "loved" so much could now be so cruel. It reminds me of a woman who returns again and again to an abusive relationship before finally leaving for good.

You never know who will be there for you when everything falls apart--it could be someone you only have a tangential connection with, a friend of friend, an atheist, a Republican, a Lakers fan, a devout Christian, someone who watches Bachelor in Paradise for fun. We just can't predict these things.

Inspiration:
Jonna Petry's account
My friend labullets for calling my ideas "blog-worthy"

More about church:
Why is church cliquey?
Why is church cliquey? Part 2
Why is church cliquey? Part 3
Why is church cliquey? Part 4

Dating the abuser who isn't

I dated someone who turned out to be emotionally abusive, much like the relationship I wrote about in this post. And so in the aftermath, I'm left wondering how it could happen again, particularly when this relationship seemed so safe and loving in the beginning.

I want to tread lightly here, as I am neither a therapist nor an expert on abuse of any kind. But after reading about Ray Rice (sports, physical abuse) and Mark Driscoll (church, spiritual abuse) and having several conversations with friends, I wanted to write about some of the dynamics of an emotionally abusive relationship that is initially--on the surface at least--not abusive.

But first, a caveat or observation: I think abusive dynamics can happen with someone you are not in a relationship with. They can happen with a friend, a pastor, a coworker, an ex. Also, this is a very limited perspective on abuse and applies only to emotional or psychological abuse, not physical or sexual abuse.

I'll add another note here to say that the tactics that this person used to harm me were initially used to cultivate attachment and build trust in the relationship. It was only when the method was "flipped" that the manipulation became apparent. [i.e. harsh criticism instead of generous praise, both put the abuser in a one-up position, one builds up, the other tears down, they both serve a purpose.]

I'm avoiding putting a moral spin on these tactics or trying to discern the motives of the abuser. I don't know what the motives of the abuser were, honestly, other than to re-establish or maintain control and to continue to abuse. I'm not sure I really care. He (meant generally) did not use these methods because they were good or bad. He used them because they work.

I'm interested in the mechanics of manipulation.

"Alfred" in these scenarios is the abuser.

Triangulation - "He loves you /  she hates you"

Triangulation is initially used to make you feel really good about yourself, as in, "John really likes you. He thinks you're great" or "Everyone thinks you're doing a great job at X." In particular, Alfred will likely cite the approval of those you want to think highly of you. He might call upon someone in authority, someone you respect or admire, or a peer group ("the cool kids") that seems just out of reach.

He might know or sense that because of your past, you tend to seek approval from those in authority and proceed to indirectly give you the approval you crave, "You're a success! Everyone loves you." This increases both your emotional attachment to and dependency on him and gives him just a little more leverage over how you feel about yourself.

Triangulation could also include talking about another person negatively in an "Us v. Them" sense to build rapport: "Stu is doing terribly. I heard he's going to fail the class." This helps build common ground and a shared sense of  "We are above Stu. We are above failure."

The flip side, of course, is when this "feedback" from other people becomes negative, often with the corollary that "I still think you're awesome" (I'm the only one that still "loves" you) and the manipulative twist of "Do what I want you to do and I'll help you fix this."

Example:

"Everyone else thinks you're an arrogant know-it-all, but I know better. If you only let me help you, I can change your image."

Alfred wants you to believe that HE is the only one who really gets you. Everyone else hates your guts.

I would be especially wary of this tactic if you tend to be a people-pleaser or if you are wounded in the area of belonging. Alfred can use your susceptibility and sensitivity to rejection, abandonment, or disapproval as emotional leverage, manipulating your past wounds to meet his own needs.

Idealization - "You're perfect" / "You're worthless"

This one can be tricky: a certain amount of idealization is the norm at the start of most romantic relationships. Even most employer-employee relationships have something of a honeymoon period.

However, the level of idealization that you experience from Alfred can be pretty intense. He might convince you that you are a unique source of happiness, nurture, and empathy for him. You understand him and make him feel better about his [pathetic] life. Never before has he felt so alive. So happy. So filled with a sense of purpose.

Never underestimate the power of praising someone else's comforting aura, example:

"I feel such peace in your presence." or "Spending time with you makes my day brighter."

On the surface, these statements don't appear manipulative, but there's another part to this equation.

It's probably important to mention here that Alfred is usually a sad sack, So, maybe we will refer to this half of the maneuver as Sad-Sacking:

Sad-Sacking - "You are the best thing in my life."

"No one understands me."
"I'm so unappreciated at work."
"Why is it always my fault when something goes wrong?"
"My ex-girlfriend cheated on me."
"I've been feeling really down lately. Nothing in life is going right."
"I would be successful by now if..."

BUT

"You understand me."
"You make me feel appreciated."
"You listen to me."
"You inspire me."
"You are the best thing in my life."

Oh dear. If a sad-sack says that last one, run, run for the hills, or he may sad-suck the life right out of you.

[Note: Sad-sacking can also happen in a group context. Alfred/Alfreda dominates the floor every week with his/her tales of woe, eliciting sympathy and "poor you" responses from the group members, particularly tugging the empathy strings of those with strong nurturing or savior tendencies.]

[Second note: Sad-sacks do not always come out as sad-sacks right away. They may seem relatively happy and productive. They may have strong care-taking skills. They may even buy you lunch before launching into their tale of unpaid bills and victimization. Everyone goes through hard times. Beware the man or woman who is always slogging through the muck, particularly when it never seems to get better and is always someone else's fault.]

To state the obvious, those who practice sad-sacking generally have a victim complex. His ex-girlfriend was a "bitch." His roommate is an asshole. He's under so much pressure at work that of course he makes mistakes. He hasn't booked a feature yet because his agent is an incompetent moron.

Here's the problem with Alfred and his victim mentality: Nothing he does is ever his fault--including hurting you. He always has an excuse and he's incapable of offering a sincere apology, see below.

Why do sad-sacking and idealization work?  They work because you are human. Giving and receiving empathy can feel amazing. It's one of the most emotionally intimate things you can experience with another person. I'll call this the Empathy Trap: 

You become emotionally bonded to the other person and start feeling responsible for their emotional well-being whether they're happy, sad, angry, anxious, or stressed out--after all, you have the power to make it all better.

I would be especially wary of this tactic if you are inexperienced with emotional intimacy, recovering from an abusive family system, or are just beginning to practice vulnerability in your close relationships after reading Brene Brown. An abuser will use this naiveté to emotionally reward you for being attentive, open, and empathic toward his emotional needs. You can easily forge an emotional bond that feels like love. Because whether or not his sad-sacking is manipulative, your empathy is real.

All the more devastating when idealization turns to devaluation, and he doesn't just take you off the pedestal, he smashes you and it to the ground, grinding the little bits that are left with the heel of his brand new high top sneakers. It's akin to being hit with a shame sledgehammer--a shame sledgehammer aimed directly at your deepest insecurities, vulnerabilities, and wounds.

You realize that he built you up only to tear you down when you disappointed, angered, or abandoned him.

Mirroring - "Now you're making me cry"

How is Alfred able to target your deepest insecurities, vulnerabilities, and wounds?

I feel like I need to make a distinction here between empathy and mirroring. Alfred is possibly incapable of genuine empathy. However, he is capable of reflecting your emotions back to you, and this can feel like empathy.

After all, when you cry, he cries. And you think, "Awww, what a sensitive guy! He's so comfortable and open with his emotions, unlike the stereotypical macho dude-bro."

You are correct. He is not the stereotypical man. But he is also not genuinely empathetic, because true empathy would involve seeing the Other as a separate, equal human being and not just as an extension of the Self.

Co-opting someone else's emotions is not empathy. If you find yourself comforting him for having hurt you, something might be off.

But the mirroring that Alfred gives you is powerful. He's already opened up about his struggles without shame (sad-sacking, emotional dumping, too-easy transparency), so opening up feels safe and natural. The grief, sadness, vulnerability, or pain you are expressing is real. And experiencing these emotions in the presence of another person can be deeply healing. This is what vulnerability does: it bonds us emotionally to other people. It's supposed to do that.

But instead of empathy, Alfred possesses uncanny emotional intuition, as mentioned in Triangulation and Idealization. He somehow knows instinctually what will make you feel good and what you will make you feel bad. He has to. This is how he creates the emotional attachment that he can use to manipulate you to meet his needs.

This explains the wildly insensitive things that he will say and do, sometimes to deliberately evoke a certain emotion in you (negative). Example:

"What? Why are upset? I know you're vegan, but I thought you might really enjoy this article with graphic slaughterhouse images about how animals don't have souls and deserve to suffer. Why are you mad? I'm just trying to start a conversation."

[Remember, he is always the victim and he can rationalize any action, no matter how hurtful.]

Unfortunately, this might be part of a cycle in which Alfred hurts you "unintentionally," bringing up painful emotions and triggering wounds from your past, then tearfully begs for your forgiveness, ironically bringing you closer together when you make up. It sounds sick because it is.

But if you get angry and refuse to forgive and forget, he gets angry. Alfred appropriates your anger as his own and projects the blame for it back onto you. You get emotional vertigo, as his mirroring throws you off-balance and puts you on the defensive (a plus for him).  Example:

"You totally overreacted. You never understood me at all." (Sad-Sacking, victim complex callback!)
"What happened to forgiveness?"
"You don't give a **** about my intentions!"
"I can't believe you would think I'm a ___."

Wait. Weren't you the one who was angry? Now he's angry? What the heck just happened?!! This is a level of emotional jiu-jitsu that few have mastered.

His anger is meant to distract you from the original cause--after all, how do you normally respond when someone gets angry at you? Answers might include shock, surprise, defensiveness, sadness, hurt, trying to figure out why they're angry and trying to fix it. All of these responses are far less empowering and direct than your original anger.

The underlying message: You are not allowed to be angry and you are definitely not allowed to stay angry or set real boundaries. Essentially, you do not exist for Alfred as a separate, equal human being. This is perhaps the root of his abusiveness, manipulation, and control.

Of course, anger in and of itself is not bad or wrong. The problem with the abuser's anger is that its goal is to control you. Beware any sense of entitlement in his anger, or these messages, whether direct or indirect:

"You have to forgive me." [Because God says so, because I apologized, because I need you to]
"Your boundaries are stupid and unnecessary."
"Your anger is invalid."

Apologies - "I'm sorry for causing you to hurt" 

Ah, the glories of syntax: "Me not hurt you, but you hurt. Me sorry." I seriously want to create a line of infuriatingly passive-aggressive "Sorry I'm Not Sorry" Hallmark cards:

I'm sorry you slipped on that banana peel and fell into my fist.
I was having a really bad day. Lots of stress at work.
You were PMSing and irrational.
In my defense, you were pressuring me to eat the banana in the first place. 
Can we just agree that we both made bad choices. 

P.S. You totally over-reacted. 

Alfred is really, really good at apologizing. Too good. It is a very useful and necessary tool, as the apology only has to sound sincere to work. He doesn't have to actually feel genuine remorse or have any intention of changing. Example:

"I know that where there is smoke there is fire. But I do not have a problem with women."
"I am working every day to become a better man."
"I'm sorry you feel that way. It was never my intention to hurt you."

How do you tell a sincere apology from an insincere apology?

Well, for one, how does the apology make you feel? Do you feel even more infuriated than before? This is a bad sign.

Does Alfred actually take responsibility for his words or actions, or does he have an excuse or rationalization?

Does he minimize your complaint or use the words "I was just" as in "I was just doing my job" or "I was just trying to start a dialogue" or "I was just having a bad year."

Instead of an apology, you might get a fruit bowl of colorful yet nonsensical excuses for his words or actions, the tactic of Denial. Example (translation in bold):

"I am not a misogynist."
I have no idea what that word means.

"I can't believe you would think I'm racist."
I'm turning the blame back on you for hurting me with your baseless accusations so I don't have to take responsibility for any racist statements I've made.

"I respect you."
I violated your boundaries but I'm hoping you'll let me back in anyway. 

"You pushed me into saying those things."
I have no idea why I said those things. I really don't remember that night at all.

"I still love you."
Despite everything you've put me through, I still want to control you and use you to meet my emotional needs. 

If none of these defenses or explanations make any sense, it's because they don't make any sense. Attempting to apply logic to denial, rationalization, and minimization is a fruitless endeavor. There is no apple nor pear to what the abuser says. He could say one thing today, then deny it completely tomorrow.

The Grand Slam of Emotional Abuse

"I'm sorry for causing you to hurt. I can't live without your forgiveness. I still love you as the amazing person that you are! I don't want to see you suffer, so that's why I'm using your fear of rejection, abandonment, and failure to coerce you into letting me back into your life. Don't you see that we should be friends so I can keep hurting you over and over again?"

What do you think? Are there other tactics of emotional abuse?

Resources:
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
Who's Pulling Your Strings?
The Path Forward
8 Ways to Spot Emotional Manipulation
Psychopath Free

An Unwritten Post About Masculinity

Men, men, manly men

• There seems to be a lot of anxiety about masculinity these days. 
• Witness "Last Man Standing," "How to be a Gentleman" (cancelled), and "Man Up" (cancelled). 
• Compare "New Girl," "Two Broke Girls," "Whitney." 
• The shows with "Man" in the title are imperative (man up!), prescriptive (how to), or direly descriptive (last man). 
• See also The Art of Manliness, a blog about the "lost" art of manliness.
• See also John Eldredge and Wild at Heart. 

No boys allowed

• What is the definition of a real man? 
• Does a real man have a certain physical build? 
• Does a real man hunt and fish?
• Does a real man ask girls out on dates? 
• Does a real man provide for his family and hold down a steady job? 

Answers, please

• Mark Driscoll on Marriage and Men
• Pickup Artists
• Hugo Schwyzer on "The Opposite of Man is 'Boy' not 'Woman'"

Summaries for the lazy

• "Get married. Have kids. Work hard to support your family. Buckle down, son." 
• "Have sex with as many women as possible." 
• "If we really are in a 'man crisis' in America, I suspect it’s rooted as much as anything else in this fundamentally mistaken belief that manhood needs to be about rejecting anything that smacks of the feminine" - Hugo Schwyzer

"Masculine Malaise"

• Men were dominant, now they are not (or not as dominant). 
• They are sad about this. 
• They are unable to express this sadness forthrightly or publicly. 
• They resort to misogyny or masculine malaise. (See also Schmidt in "New Girl")
• They write shows with titles like "Man Up." 

In which I have opinions

• I think Driscoll's vision of masculinity is kind of a drag. Plus, if your wife has to work to help support the family, you've pretty much failed. As a man. 
• Machismo is not masculinity. 
• I don't believe in a platonic ideal of manhood any more than I believe in a platonic ideal of womanhood. 
• Women feel a good deal of pressure to look a certain way. They feel less pressure to measure up as a "real woman." 
• I think fundamentalist Christianity might be the exception to the previous bullet point. Proverbs 31 anyone? 

An unwritten conclusion 

• Prescriptions or imperatives about being a real man or woman should be approached with skepticism. 
• Certain culturally specific gender roles tend to engender passivity--or, if men would only start acting like men or women like women, I could get on with my life. 
• If you need to do something, do it. Man up. Woman up. Ask him/her out. Provide for your family. It's doubtful that whatever you're supposed to do in this moment is directly related to your gender identity.