Tony Alamo is leaving leaflets on my car.

Well, he is not doing it himself, but one of his followers is.

The point is, my windshield gets cluttered every few months or so with fundamentalist propaganda.

For those unfamiliar with the “good” “Pastor” (the terms used loosely), Tony Alamo is a fundamentalist Christian preacher— Pentecostal, to be precise. Er wait, he is Jewish. Maybe he is a polygamist? No one knows for sure—his religious beliefs seem to change in every leaflet he writes.

He is definitely Christian. Then again, maybe not, because in one of his leaflets he wrote, “I am a Jew (one of God’s people).” On top of that, Alamo himself may not have been a polygamist, but he certainly was not against the idea— he’s promoted it in several of his leaflets.

At least two things are known for sure about Alamo.

For starters, he is certain that Catholics are agents of the devil and that the U.S. government is run by a satanic cult of Catholics. Oh, and that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic himself, was assassinated by our satanic/Catholic government.

The second is that he is a convicted child sex offender.

Sorry, probably should have mentioned that earlier. In 2009, Alamo was convicted on 10 federal counts of transporting minors across state lines for sex and was sentenced to 175 years in prison.

Alamo still claims he is innocent and that the 8th Circuit court of Appeals will vindicate him. Oh, he also says that he is “just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel.”

While it’s true that over the 1,000-plus-year history of Christianity, some who espoused its values in unpopular times have been jailed, but it certainly was not for having sexual relations with minors.

I am not sure what part of the Bible that whole “child sex” part is in, but Alamo knows, apparently: “I have never done anything that would be considered evil by God,” he wrote on his Web site.

But sex with children was not the first of Alamo’s run-ins with the law.

There is the minor weapons charge that he served time for. Next in 1994, Alamo went to jail for tax evasion and remained there for four years.

Then, in 2008, came the charges of physical abuse, sexual abuse, polygamy and underage miscarriage from some of his followers, which resulted in the 175-year jail term he is currently serving.

Unfortunately, all of that is only a part of the oddness that comprises Alamo Ministries. After his first wife Susan died in 1982, Alamo claimed that she would be resurrected. For six whole months he kept her body on display in front of his followers while they prayed over her.

As can be expected, Susan did not resurrect or reanimate. After 16 years of waiting for it to happen, Alamo eventually gave her remains to her family for a proper burial.

Long terrible story short, Alamo is one of those huckster preachers who epitomizes the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do way of life. To him, everyone who does not agree with his view on religion and life is a Satanist, and woe unto them!

Nowhere in Alamo’s leaflets are there any mentions of Jesus’ teaching of “Love thy neighbor as thyself”— because that kind of drivel would run entirely counter to the atmosphere of xenophobic hatred he has fostered amongst his followers.

What boggles the mind is that despite the fact that Alamo is in jail for having sex with children, he still has people dedicated to him—dedicated enough to print up hundreds of leaflets and put a couple on my car every few months.

While no religion is free of its deviants— even the Catholic Church is not beyond reproach, as has been shown in recent days—it is typically one of the followers who commits the sin, not the founder.

If it looks like a cult, sounds like a cult, and puts inane leaflets on my car like a cult, it is probably a cult.

Right?

Andrew Seal is Staff writer for The Current.

by

Lawrence A. Pile

Twenty years ago I left what had been a warm, exciting Christian fellowship, but which had become an authoritarian, restrictive organization. I reached this difficult decision after months of wrenching deliberation and several talks with the group’s leaders about my concerns at the direction the fellowship was taking. I had joined the movement 5½ years earlier in another city, had served as one of four leaders of a church-planting team that brought the movement to Columbus, Ohio, and had led Bible studies and held other positions of responsibility in the church. I literally had expected to remain with the movement the rest of my life. To see it degenerate was, to say the least, a disillusioning experience.

I found myself saying good-bye to men and women I had considered my brothers and sisters. I felt like a part of my soul was being cut out of me. What was I going to do now? I had developed no contingency plans to fall back on in such an unforeseen situation.

My immediate decision was to return to my parents’ home in the Cleveland area, and to the church in which I had grown up. I rejoiced to find a warm welcome and, what was especially important to me, new opportunities to minister after having been increasingly restricted in Columbus.

However, this was, in my mind, only a temporary solution. I still needed a new full-time job and my own place to live. What was I to do for the long term?

After a summer in Cleveland, I decided to move to the San Francisco Bay area to spend some time with a more balanced church, acquiring experience and knowledge that would be useful in later church service. The membership spanned all ages, races, and many nationalities. There was a multiplicity of opportunities to minister for those who desired, and a collective leadership who exercised sincere pastoral care without abusing their authority.

Four cities and churches later, and after 12 years of helping cult survivors, I offer several suggestions for those who currently may be in the process of looking for a new church after a painful experience. These suggestions, in conjunction with the very helpful description of a healthy church given by Rev. Richard Dowhower in the spring 1994 issue of FOCUS News, should help you in your search. Let me add here that you need not think you should quickly jump right back into another church, and that if you don’t there’s something wrong with you. At Wellspring we often recommend that victims take a sabbatical from church for a while until their spiritual wounds have healed a bit.

But first, what are some things to keep in mind or look for when choosing a new church? Most people who have had bad experiences with churches or other types of organizations know several things they don’t want:

1. They don’t want a church with a lot of rules, or whose pastor thinks he’s God’s gift to mankind, God’s mouthpiece on earth.

2. They don’t want a church in which normal, legitimate pastoral care has been replaced by meddling in the members’ lives.

3. They don’t want a church in which the opportunities to serve God or others arerestricted to just a few officially sanctioned activities, or in which they are considered “unspiritual” or “carnal” if they choose to limit their involvement in the church.

But what should one do when going about the usually tentative and confusing task of finding a new church home after months or years of enduring spiritual abuse? Initially, you may wish to do what I did: return to the church of your pre-cult life, if you had one. You may find it is just what you are looking for, or at least that it provides a comfortable temporary spiritual oasis.

Beyond that, some of the things I would suggest are:

1. Take an inventory of why you want to join another church, and what you want in a church.
In his book How to Find Your Church, Christian researcher George Barna asserts that “it is important to be completely honest with yourself. Identify exactly why you want to be involved with a church, and your expectations of the church. If you do not know why you are pursuing a church, or what specific characteristics and qualities you are looking for, the chances are great that you will not find your ‘ideal’ church.”

If you are looking for another church because you believe you can’t really be “spiritual” without one, or because you feel God won’t love you as much (or at all) unless you are attending church, then you need to re-examine what it really means to be spiritual, and you need to (re)acquaint yourself with the concept of the grace of God.

If, however, you want another church because you long for warm, accepting fellowship, spiritual encouragement, and/or opportunities to serve others, then you are on the right track.

2. Make a list of the things you want in a church.
These things will differ from person to person, depending on what he or she considers important. However, writing as an Evangelical Christian, some of the things I would look for are:

a. sound biblical footing.
A church that teaches anything and everything but the Bible seems to me not to be a church at all. When I was employed as a printer in Kent, Ohio prior to joining the staff of Wellspring, I used to drive past one particular church on my way home. Out of curiosity I always read the sign in front as I drove by. Invariably it advertised the next Sunday’s “sermon” as “Slides of So-and-So’s trip to Russia,” “Book Reviews,” “Buddhism’s Contribution to Christianity,” or just “Picnic in the Park.” It struck me that this was more of a social club or a cultural society than a church. That’s fine; if you want to join a social club, join one. But call it that, not a “church.”

While living in California, my wife, Linda, and I became acquainted with a family who attended another church and were part of a Bible study group made up of members of that church. Eventually the pastor decided he should attend it in order to ensure that everything was in order, but he admitted he didn’t really know the Bible; all he knew was the official prayer book of the denomination, since that was what was taught in seminary. I thought to myself, “What business is this man in?”

Further, I would look for a church that not only teaches the Bible, but also takes it seriously. By that I mean, the pastor(s) and Bible teachers don’t attempt to make the Bible say things it clearly doesn’t, either by reading into it what is not there, explaining away what is there, or spiritualizing everything. There is no need to read the Bible any differently from the way we normally read anything else, whether the daily newspaper, the novels of Mark Twain, or the poetry of William Shakespeare. Whatever we read, we need to adhere to a minimum of commonly accepted principles of interpretation. One of the most basic is simply that if the text does not explicitly say something, we must not insist it does. For example, there is no verse in the Bible that explicitly says, “Thou shalt not smoke.” Now, for health and cleanliness reasons it is a good idea not to smoke, but it is absolutely wrong to say the Bible forbids it. You can probably think of numerous similar examples.

b. welcome that is warm and accepting without being smothering.
If you can walk in the front door of the church without anyone noticing or greeting you, that certainly should be a red flag. On the other hand, if you are immediately mobbed by members effusively welcoming you, that also should be a red flag.

c. congregation size that is comfortable to you.
Many people who have had unpleasant experiences in churches often prefer large churches, a few hundred or more, so they can melt into the congregation without feeling like an obvious newcomer. They want to just sit in the pew and be a “spectator” for a while until their comfort level rises. There is nothing wrong or “unspiritual” about this. Others are eager to find new opportunities to serve, and it is often easier to find these in small churches, which frequently have difficulty finding enough people to teach Sunday school, help out in the nursery, or serve in other ways.

d. pastor who is a “gentle shepherd,” not a “lord over the flock.”
Pastors ideally should be models, examples, and mentors, not dictators or despots. An ex-elder in my former abusive movement stated that the leaders of the movement were not shepherds out in front leading the flock but were “cowboys riding herd.” Is the pastor open to questions, or does he demand unquestioning obedience? Does he permit diversity and freedom within the church, or does he expect and require conformity and uniformity (even though he calls it “unity”)?

One of the characteristics of a healthy church offered by Rev. Dowhower is a propos here. He wrote, “Healthy congregations do not play ‘bait and switch’ games with God’s grace, but treat it with utmost respect. To offer divine and unconditional acceptance (God’s grace), and then to make additional conditions of conformity to the organization necessary to continue receiving that grace, is to compromise the unconditional in a most reprehensible manner. Healthy congregations strive to keep the experience of divine unconditional acceptance from being qualified, compromised and contaminated by organizational expectations.”

e. encouragement to find God’s will for your life independent of the control of the leader(s).
It is normal and natural to be concerned about what God desires one to do with one’s life. However, one must be permitted the freedom to seek that will on one’s own, without interference by anyone else, including one’s pastor. Most Christians will voluntarily seek out advice and counsel to help them in this endeavor, but they must be permitted to reach their own conclusions. Any advice offered must remain advice and not metamorphose overnight into directives. One man who was a member of my former movement asked a leader for advice on purchasing a particular car. The leader advised him against buying it. The member went ahead and bought it anyway, and then was disciplined by the leader for disobedience. The member headed for the door.

f. adequate childcare, Sunday school, and other activities for children, if you are a parent.
Couples with young children will want to ensure their kids will not be neglected if they decide to join the church. They will be concerned that their children are well cared for and taught, not just entertained. Does the church take the care and teaching of children seriously, devoting prime facilities and teachers to their care?

g. openness about how the money is spent.
Any church that is not open and aboveboard about its use of funds should be avoided at all costs (no pun intended!). Regular accounting should be given to the members, preferably in writing, and the books should always be available for inspection by any member. After all, a sizable proportion of the funds is contributed by the membership; therefore, they have a right to know how it is being used. They also have the right to approve of such use through secret ballot at regular church business meetings (at least annually). In the Book of Acts (chapter 6), the church members, not the apostles, chose the men they wanted to oversee the distribution of food to their widows.

3. Visit numerous churches in your area that seem like they might offer what you’re looking for.
Names of churches can be found in the Yellow Pages, usually listed according to denomination. Visit each church several times; a one-time visit might catch the church on an “off” day. Further, don’t confine your visits to Sunday morning worship services only; those are usually the most “benign” meetings of the average church. Attend also on Sunday and Wednesday evenings (and adult Sunday school if offered), when the congregation is usually smaller and more “committed” to the church. It is often during these meetings that you can really sense the “spirit” of a church, and pick up on any red flags.

4. Talk to church members.
Ask them how long they’ve been attending, what attracted them to the church, what they like the most about the church, what they like the least about the church. Make an appointment with the pastor to ask him about his philosophy of ministry, what his goals for the church are, what he likes most and least about the church. Ask for a printed “statement of faith,” a list of the church’s doctrinal beliefs. See if it conforms to your own religious beliefs, or if you can at least be comfortable with it.

5. Call the local ministerial fellowship.
Most cities of any size have an association of ministers of the area who meet on a regular basis to share their church experiences, including trials and successes, as peers. If a church in the area has acquired a reputation as one with problems (legalism, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, etc.) these ministers will usually know it and should be willing to tell you. You could also talk to the minister of the church down the road from the church you’re checking out.

These few steps should prove useful in finding a new church home. If you see any red flags at all, one additional step might help to confirm whether those things are true indicators of problems. This last suggestion occurred to me as I was responding to a letter from a woman who was a member of the church in Columbus I had left several years earlier. She wrote that Paul Martin’s description, in his book Cult Proofing Your Kids, of his experiences in other churches of the same movement were totally unlike anything she had so far experienced in the Columbus church. She wrote that before she decided to join the church, she attended many meetings, talked with many members, including the pastors, and studied the church’s statement of faith. She found nothing out of order. She seemed to imply that Paul must simply be a “disgruntled ex-member” or be making mountains out of molehills. In my reply to her (Paul usually asks me to reply to letters dealing with our former movement) I told her that she had done many of the things I would recommend people do when they are looking for a new church. However, there was one thing she didn’t do that I would also recommend. And that was:

6. Talk to ex-members of the church you’re interested in.
Ask the pastor for the names and phone numbers of former members of the church who still live in the area so you can call them and ask them why they left. This might seem awfully bold, maybe even brash, and perhaps it is. But any good pastor will be glad to give you such names and numbers. If the pastor declines your request, that should be taken as a red flag.

There are legitimate reasons for leaving a church that would not necessarily indicate the church is unhealthy. Some of these might be: inadequate services for children, music style one does not prefer, inconvenient meeting schedule, etc. But other reasons for leaving would indicate problems:

“I’ve been a Christian for many years, but I always felt condemned by the pastor.”

“I never felt accepted by the other members because I’ve been divorced.”

“I felt like unless I participated in all the meetings and activities of the church I would never really fit in.”

“The pastor seemed to promote the attitude that only his church was where God was.”

“All the women [or men, or members] looked and talked alike; it seemed like The Invasion of the Body Snatchers!”

Finally, a few reminders. The cult or abusive church you fled may still color your thinking regarding what a healthy church should look and feel like. If your former group was characterized by enthusiastic meetings with energetic singing, dynamic preaching or teaching, and open displays of emotion, you may find groups or churches that are more contemplative dull and boring; or conversely, spirited churches may feel too similar to your old group to be comfortable. The opposite may also be true. If your former group was sedate and meditative, more demonstrative churches may seem frothy and superficial. But, again, groups too similar to your former group may make you uneasy. Neither upbeat nor laid back meetings are necessarily bad, however. Time and patience (on your part) will usually alleviate this type of difficulty.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the church is not to entertain an audience, but to help believers in their worship of God, teach them God’s Word, and stimulate them to live godly lives. George Barna says, “That does not mean church should be boring. Any place that helps us to understand the God of creation, the Savior of mankind, and provides an outlet for the use of our talents and skills, should be exciting.” He goes on to caution against “evaluating [a] church on the quality or entertainment value of a religious performance, how perfectly the choir sang, or how eloquently the preacher spoke. Instead, think about what impact the sermon had upon your life, or how well the singing led you to worship God.”

Above all, don’t forget that there is no such thing as the “perfect church.” That is no excuse, however, for shoddy administration, haphazard meetings or schedule, aloof or cold parishioners, and certainly not for outright spiritual abuse.

Barna concludes his remarks by reminding us “that as with any family, there will be a time of transition. In a way, you become like an adopted child. Despite the family’s happiness to have you, they will have to change some of their ways to accommodate your needs and you will have to do the same, to become an accepted part of the family. A church, like an individual, cannot be all things to all people. But it can become a loving and caring unit that makes your life better.”

Though that last sentence may seem remote or dubious to you at this time of grieving what you lost in your former group or church, it is true and can be your experience as you follow these suggestions and trust your God-given ability to discern, on the basis of your painful experience, the elements that make for a healthy and rewarding one.

At my local bookstore on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, 1960s nostalgia is in high gear. A display table is stacked high with pricey coffee table books, each with its own variation on psychedelic rainbow lettering, each claiming to reveal the untold story of the “peace and music” festival. I understand the lucrative business of selling those hazy memories — the Woodstock museum, Cherry Garcia ice cream, even the new movie “Taking Woodstock.” I just can’t buy into it.

It’s not because, as a Gen-Xer, I feel slighted that I missed out on all the fun. It’s because for me and many other children of the flower children, our rose-colored glasses are not just slightly tinted, but darkly tainted.

Along with the iconic music and fashion of the era came myriad new religions and a foolish rush to embrace peddlers of spiritual snake oil. The countercultural wave brought a flood of swamis, yogis and self-proclaimed enlightened beings. They preyed on the longings of hippies who were disillusioned by mainstream religion and in search of an alternative path.

By the time the mud had dried at Woodstock, Swami Prabhupada had created the Hare Krishnas and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon had founded the Unification Church — the Moonies. Communes and ashrams sprouted across America. In the 1960s, the decade now mythic for its anti-conformity, flocks of people conformed to the dictates of self-proclaimed prophets.

In 1968, the Beatles sat at the feet of the Maharishi, soaking up his teachings. Consciousness-raising went mainstream. Reciting Sanskrit chants, wearing japa beads and finding a guru became trendy and chic. Everyone who was anyone read “I Am That” and “Autobiography of a Yogi.” Many free spirits obediently changed their names, dropped out of college and abandoned their families. Ironically, their wild-child rebellion landed them in rigidly structured cults that controlled their lives — and those of their children. For many, that life eventually grew old. They retired their mantras and moved on. But for others, my parents included, the intrigue never faded.

Like the Beatles, my hippie parents met their guru in 1968. Sri Chinmoy, based in New York, promised them enlightenment — if they obeyed his dictates. All they had to do was surrender their lives to him. To my trusting and vulnerable mother, and to my eccentric and contemplative father, the offer sounded like a bargain.

Arriving in the United States in 1964, Sri Chinmoy had vast ambitions. He aimed to infiltrate the United Nations, win a Nobel Prize and gain a worldwide following. His disciples were to lead austere, celibate lives, devoting themselves and their financial resources entirely to his mission. In 1970 when my mother became pregnant — a clear breach of the rules — the guru saved face by divining me as his chosen soul.

I was born and raised in the ashram of this man who declared himself an incarnation of God. Before I could walk, my parents dressed me in a sari and took me with them on their recruiting trips. Instead of acting in school plays and going to soccer camp, I distributed leaflets proclaiming the guru’s divinity from parade floats that wound through city streets. I spent summers scrubbing the cages of the zoo housed in the basement of the guru’s Queens home.

When Chinmoy wanted to attract more media attention, he staged elaborate weightlifting feats, hoisting elephants, helicopters and even Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev — a smoke-and-mirrors spectacle that I never understood. How could lifting elephants illuminate and ultimately transform the world? When I was a teenager, the guru’s strict rules banning all contact and relationships with the “outside” world provoked questions and longings for everything he forbade — college, career and family. When he told me to neglect the mind and forever remain in the heart “like a 7-year-old,” I finally realized that he was a narcissistic charlatan, shamelessly exploiting the faithful.

At 25, older than my parents had been when they renounced the world to serve the guru, I was formally banished from his cult. I lost all my connections to the community I’d known since birth. Fortunately, I was young enough to venture into the “outside” world and forge a life on my own terms.

For years, I have struggled with the reckless decision of some in my parents’ generation to entrust their present and future to those who claimed to be spiritually enlightened. Cultural historians today portray the ’60s as a unique time. I hope they are right. That is, I hope that the cast of corrupt opportunists — gurus, prophets and messiahs — who profited from others’ naiive belief is indeed a unique ’60s phenomenon, safely encapsulated in those glossy anniversary books.

info@jayantitamm.com

Jayanti Tamm is an English professor at Ocean County College and the author of “Cartwheels in a Sari: A Memoir of Growing Up Cult.”

Some have difficulty identifying a cult because it is not so
easy to identify one that is not even religious. For this
reason, over the years, different definitions of what actually
is a cult have developed to make it easier when you know
little about their beliefs.

The different definitions:

SECULAR DEFINITION

CULT – From the Latin “cultis” which denotes all that is
involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude.
This definition actually denotes what we call denominations
and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION

CULT – Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox,
historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ;
His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to
earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults
within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within
other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it
cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do
not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION

CULT – Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian
leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming
from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be
the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full
Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform
or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their
members.

This definition covers cults within all majopr world
religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS
religious base such as commercial, educational and
psychological cults. Others may define these a little
differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

THE ‘ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT’

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour – not
their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of
Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the
Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not.
Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have
behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches.
These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian
faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or
someone’s particular writings. They centre around the
interpretations of the leadership and submissive and
unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member
of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider
non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as
the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be
using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is “Churches that Abuse” by
Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based,
Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can
easily be identified.

OTHER IDENTIFICATION MARKS

(a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to
others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT -
everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD’S WILL -
everyone else is in apostasy.

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse
God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be
THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.

HOW THEY DO THIS

1. Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or
position of authority given by God.

2. They believe they are the only true church and take a critical stance
regarding the Christian church while at the same time praising and
exalting their own group, leader/s and work.

3. They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members
loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire
calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon;
being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital
part of the mind control process.

4. Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to
the group. This could be compulsory tithing (which is checked);
signing over all their property on entering the group; coercive
methods of instilling guilt on those who have not contributed;
selling magazines, flowers or other goods for the group as part of
their “ministry”.

At the same time bible-based cults may ridicule churches that take
up free-will offerings by passing collection plates and/or sell
literature and tapes. They usually brag that they don’t do this. This
gives outsiders the intimation that they are not interested in money.

5. There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its
teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the
group’s activities. They will have little or no time to think for
themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is
also a vital part of the mind control process.

6. There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private
lives of members. This control can be direct through communal
living, or constant and repetitious teaching on “how to be a true
Christian” or “being obedient to leadership”. Members will look to
their leaders for guidance in everything they do.

7. Bible-based cults may proclaim they have no clergy/laity
distinction and no paid ministry class – that they are all equal.

8. Any dissent or questioning of the group’s teachings is discouraged.
Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an
emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission.
This is vigilantly maintained.

9. Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in
some way. This could be in the form of “dobbing” on fellow members
(including family) under the guise of looking out for their
“spiritual welfare”.

They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception) or
give up their lives by refusing some form of medical treatment.

10. Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may
be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that
involve their lives or have signed a “covenant” and feel threatened by
this.

Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by
other members with coercion to get them to return to the
group.

SOME ABUSES OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS:-

1. ABUSE OF INDIVIDUALITY
They adopt a “groupness” mentality. They are not permitted to
think for themselves apart from the group and only accept what
they are told.

2. ABUSE OF INTIMACY
Relationships with friends, relatives, spouses, children,
parents etc are broken or seriously hampered.

3. ABUSE OF FINANCES
Pressure to give all you can to the group. In non-communal
groups, members usually live at the lower socio-economic strata,
not because of a lower income level, but because they are always
giving money to the group for some reason.

4. “US VERSUS THEM” MENTALITY
Isolation from the community in general. Anyone and
everything outside the group is seen as “of the devil” or
“unenlightened” etc. Their enemies now include former friends;
the Christian church; governments; education systems; the media
– the world in general. Those who are involved with these in any
way see such involvement as a “means to an end”.

5. ABUSE OF TIME AND ENERGY
The group controls and uses almost all the members time and
energy in group activities. They are usually in a constant
state of mental and physical exhaustion.

6. ABUSE OF FREE WILL
They must unquestioning submit to the groups teachings and
directions and their own free will is broken. Their “will”
actually becomes the groups “will” without their realizing it.
This is done either by coercive methods including low protein diets
and lack of sleep, or over a period of time through
intimidation. Both methods make heavy use of “guilt”.

RESULTS OF THIS ABUSE

1. PERSONALITY CHANGES

Relatives will say they no longer recognize the person.

From a warm, loving personality will come heaped abuse, rejection and
feelings of hate. The cult member sees himself as “righteous” in
comparison and this comes across in their attitude toward all outsiders.

2. LOSS OF IDENTITY

They cannot see themselves as individuals apart from the group.
Some even change their name as a rejection of their former life.

3. PARANOID – WE ARE BEING PERSECUTED

Any time you say anything negative about the group, whether
justified or no, it is regarded as “persecution”. Any criticism of
the individual is also seen as persecution only because they are the
“true Christian” or “enlightened” one – not because they, as an
individual, have done the wrong thing. However, at the same time they
will feel free to criticise whatever you believe, say and do because
they are “the only ones who are right”.

4. SOCIAL DISORIENTATION

They lose their ability to socialize outside the group. This can
go so far as to not being able to structure their time or make simple
decisions for themselves when they leave.

Their world-view alters and they perceive the world through their
leaders eyes. They become very naive about life in general.

5. SEVERE GUILT COMPLEXES

They are made to feel guilty of everything they did before entering
the group and are to strive to be “good” and “worthy” for “eternal
life”. Misdemeanors are made into “mountains” so that members are in a
constant state of guilt for infringing even the most minor rules. Guilt
comes because they aren’t doing enough; entertaining doubts or
questions; even thinking rationally for oneself.

This guilt is piled upon pile with new rules constantly
being laid down about what is sinful and what is not. Illness may be
seen as lack of faith – more guilt. Emotional illness may be seen as
proof of sin in your life – more guilt.

SUMMARY

Not all these points will be found in every cult, but
all cults will have some if not most of them, although these may vary to
some degree.

Copyright 1985 Jan Groenveld
Freedom In Christ, PO Box 2444, Mansfield, 4122, Australia
Source: Ex-Cult.org

It is common practice for church goers in American society to refer to their own congregation as their “church family.” Students away at college make reference to their “home church.” Church people sing hymns about being part of “the family of God.” Parents often employ family imagery to convey spiritual content to their children.

As behavioral scientists remind us all too often, that most basic of social institutions—the family—is increasingly subject to frailty and failure. The label that is currently popular for unhealthy families is “dysfunctional.” Unfortunately, sociologists of religion (as well as many ex-members) know that some churches are also dysfunctional, even to the point of being spiritually abusive. If truth in advertising standards could be applied to religion, some churches would be required to display a sign reading: “Warning: this church could be harmful to your spiritual and psychological health.”

Farfetched? Not if my own research of the past few years has any validity at all. Sadly, spiritual and pastoral abuse is more prevalent than most people believe. Like child abuse, it often goes undetected, or else it is strongly denied. Spiritual abuse is inflicted by persons who are accorded respect and honor in society by virtue of their positions of religious authority and leadership. When such leaders violate the sacred trust they have been given, when they abuse their authority, and when they misuse their ecclesiastical office to control their congregations, the results can be catastrophic.

What are the hallmarks of unhealthy, aberrant churches? The key indicator is control oriented leadership, ministers who have a need to “lord it over the flock.” Abusive leaders demand submission and unquestioning loyalty. The person who raises uncomfortable questions or does not “get with the program” is cast aside. Guilt, fear, and intimidation are used to manipulate and control vulnerable members, especially those who have been taught to believe that questioning their pastor is comparable to questioning God.

Why does a pastor or priest sometimes turn into a spiritual tyrant? I believe it is because of the human desire to control others and to exercise power over people. Each of us has been exposed to the temptation of power, whether in the role of spouse, teacher, or parent. An excessive will to power, coupled with sincere religious motives, can lead to the misuse of spiritual authority.

More than any other age group, young adults are attracted to abusive churches, their seemingly dynamic programs, and their “take charge” leaders. Such churches often target young couples during the crucial child bearing years. As a result, the energy needed by these young couples for legitimate family interaction is siphoned off into a high intensity cause. Family obligations are sacrificed, and children’s developmental needs are neglected.

How can we recognize a healthy church? In addition to matters of appropriate doctrine, a healthy church is reconciling and restorative, not adversarial and elitist. Members of healthy churches seek to deepen and strengthen their family commitments. Legitimate leaders will welcome dissent and hard questions from members without threat of reprisal. Trustworthy leaders will encourage accountability, and they will establish checks and balances.

Choose a church carefully and prayerfully. Remember, not all religion is benign, and not all church experience is beneficial.

Ronald M. Enroth, a professor of sociology at Westmont College [Santa Barbara, CA], has written many articles and books on cults and aberrant religious groups, including Churches That Abuse. This article first appeared in the Savannah Parent magazine (Savannah, Georgia)—Vol. 3, No. 3, and April 1992.

With the Heaven’s Gate tragedy still so fresh in all of our minds certain questions seem to come up: What kind of person joins a cult? Why do they stay and put up with the abuse? How could anyone be so devoted that they would kill themselves? Can’t they see that what they are doing is crazy? Are they crazy?

I feel that I am in a unique position to address these questions as I spent 10 years with a communal cult. Yet, now being out for 11 years, I also can look at the horrors that happened at Rancho Sante Fe and ask, along with the rest of a stunned nation, “Why did they die like this?”

For eight and a half of the ten years I was with my former group, each payday I would sign my check over to the group. I would receive a meager allowance in return and would have to beg for the basics of life such as clothing and medical care. Often I lived in substandard housing with rats, filth and overcrowded conditions in neighborhoods with extremely high crime rates. After working a full day at work, I often would have to spend several hours on the street proselytizing. After returning, I would have to sit in meetings that lasted to the wee hours of the morning. These meetings were intense. Public humiliation was common place, and sometimes we would sit in silence for hours on end believing ourselves to be too reprobate to even speak. After getting an insufficient night’s sleep, I would be expected to repeat the same routine of work and group activities all over again.

In other words, there was no doubt that I was in a cult. Yet, if you had passed me in the street during the 10 years that I spent in the group, I can tell you that I wouldn’t have been all that different from others in the crowd. My skin had not turned green, and I did not grow antennas. I had eyes, ears and a nose just like anyone else. I looked both ways before crossing a street. If somehow we got into an idle conversation that didn’t involve my trying to recruit you, you may be shocked to know that I had likes and dislikes just like any other person. I still liked pizza (even if I didn’t have much access to it) and still hated pork sausage. Blue was still my favorite color, and I still loved sunsets. People who are in cults are just that; people — although, sadly, cults suppress much of what makes an individual unique. Heaven’s Gate, I believe, has forced all of us to come to grips with the realization that they were people not too unlike us, and that is indeed something tough to face. Whether one has been in a cult or not, the realization deep in our hearts that perhaps we could have shared a similar fate makes us want to turn away and believe that they had to be made of different stuff than we are. I am here to tell you that they are not. Why did the people in Heaven’s Gate seem to go willingly to their deaths? Why did I stay in a clearly abusive situation for 10 years? The activities I felt trapped to do while within the group give some generous clues to how this can happen. And, when we can come to understand how one person can gain control over another, we can peer into the world of an average cult member.

Indeed, one human being controlling another is nothing new to civilization. We need only look at the Biblical story of Cain and Abel to see the lengths that a person will go to in order to be “on top” — even if that means murder. It is no secret that sleep deprivation hinders clear thinking and decision making abilities. Through instituting a poor diet and strenuous routines, a group can break a person down further, making them even more vulnerable to the group’s ideologies. By virtue of my physical existence, mentally and emotionally, I was in a compromising position within the group. While the specific techniques may differ, almost every group has a way of inducing hypnosis. In my former group this was accomplished through the format of our meetings which in reality were the focal point of what had become an intense system of peer scrutiny. Sitting in silence for hours affected me. I remember leaving many a meeting in which we had not spoken for hours with a heaviness in my heart and feeling like my head had been put between two cymbals. Having to stand in front of my peers to be critiqued by them would seize me with panic. We would have to present ourselves one by one in front of a group of several hundred of our peers, stating what we did and where we were at in our hearts. The group would vote on us and the final vote became our guideline … it did not matter how we felt about things in our hearts. Often I was found to be deficient and would have to endure taunts by my peers between meetings. All of that was very intentional, coming from the leader himself and carried out through the ranks.

There was no going home to escape all of this. I was home, and there was not a minute of privacy. I often could not think clearly and if I could get through a day feeling I held onto my sanity that was a major accomplishment. My mind was too under siege to even think of packing my bags and leaving. This was purposeful as cults know that no one would make a rational decision to live like this and thus create an environment in which a person has no time or freedom to think. I have heard life in a cult compared to living in a fire constantly. Most of us can invoke images of people we’ve seen on the news who have lived through a fire. When a person is in the middle of a fire, they simply do not have access to certain parts of their thinking that they normally would have. However, when the fire is over, we see them collapse and say things like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe what happened. It was so terrifying.” They are able to reconnect emotionally to their experiences and likely will be able to integrate what happened to them, thereby dealing with the trauma. Cults do not allow you to reconnect. I was kept so busy and off balance that the fire was never allowed to be over. Thus outsiders could look at the way my fellow members and I lived in sheer horror; yet, while living in the midst of it, I simply could not get it. I get it now because I have been out and, like a person after a fire who can begin thinking again, I now have my critical thinking abilities back.

Along with everyone else who hears about what happened to me, I am horrified to have spent 10 years of my life like that. What could have been done to “reach” me during the 10 years I was in the communal group? What can we do to reach others who are in groups who may be heading down paths similar to that of Heaven’s Gate or the other groups in recent times who have committed mass suicide? The biggest mistake people can make in reaching out to someone in a cult is forgetting that they are people too and that there are some logical reasons behind what on the surface appears to be bizarre behavior. If we remember that outside of the group’s influences, we would likely be dealing with a totally different person, they become less scary and more reachable to us. The dynamics of a cult are not too different from that of a battered wife staying with an abusive husband, or what happened in Nazi Germany or the Cultural Revolution in China. On the outside, they all seem to be beyond comprehension, but as we look at the underlying dynamics, their tactics are not that hard to understand.

In our society today, all of us are being bombarded with huge amounts of information and people vying for our every dollar. Learning about techniques of influence and control can only benefit all of us as we are trying to navigate our way through an increasingly complex world. When it comes to understanding someone in a cult or other controlling situation, it can literally be life saving. The people who had the biggest impact on me were not the ones who screamed at me, “You’re in a cult!” (Believe me, I had plenty of those.) Rather, the ones who made me think were those willing to care about me as a person whether I stayed or left. Despite their initial allure, cults do not offer unconditional love. When I saw people on the outside acting differently toward me than my own supposed all-loving peers, it affected me. I may not have left right away, but I could not shake the fact that there was someone who would be willing to be my friend and care about me with no strings attached.

Like anyone else faced with a decision, someone “decides” to join a cult based on the information available to them. Unfortunately, cults are notorious for not letting a potential recruit know about the full package. What I thought I was joining and what I actually joined were vastly different from each other. In other words, if the group had been up front about the kind of life I was going to have to live and what was going to happen to me, I would have never joined. Helping a person make a decision to leave a cult in reality is educating them by filling in the blanks that the group deceptively didn’t. With more information, there is a good chance that a person will make an informed choice to leave. The information a person in an environment like this needs includes understanding techniques of manipulation and control — particularly how this may be practiced in his/her particular group.

People in cults are not stupid. After leaving my former group, I was so convinced that I had to be intelligently deficient that I actually took an I.Q. test. Much to my surprise, instead of scoring way below average, I scored in the 97 percentile. As I have learned more about the kinds of people cults recruit, I have found that I am the rule and not the exception. Because the rigors of cult life are arduous, these groups do not want someone who will break down easily. Cults go after the best and the brightest — robbing all of us of people who could be making a huge difference in this world.

What kind of people join cults? They are anyone you could meet anywhere. I was a teen living in a small town when I had been recruited. I may have been naive and not able to see through the deception like someone older may have been, but most teens are naive and easily impressed by those who are more slick than themselves. I was not a drug addict or a prostitute, but rather I had been a good student in school who worked two jobs. So, the next time you are approached by someone whom you strongly suspect may be living in a far out commune somewhere, remember you are likely dealing with a highly intelligent person who was deceived into joining what may appear to us as a bizarre cult. Instead of looking at them as a freak or like they are crazy, keep in mind that if they had access to more information and saw that there was a life outside for them, they likely would not stay.

Click here to read more articles like this one from Wellspring Retreat.

They Told Me If I Left …
by Ron Henzel

One of the most insidious features of Spiritual Abuse is the state of terror in which it leaves so many of its victims.

People who flee Spiritual Abuse are in a double-bind: in the very process of fleeing from the oppression that comes from being part of the group, they are terrorized by the threats of the leadership and various members — threats of dire consequences, punishment from God, and even eternal damnation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that members who leave the Watchtower Society will be destroyed in Armageddon. Members who leave the International Churches of Christ (also known as the Boston Movement) are told that they will be condemned to eternal torment in Hell. In the group I came out of, the leader kept telling us that no one “prospered spiritually” after leaving, and he not-so-subtly implied that many of them were never really Christians in the first place. (Translation: they’re going to Hell.)

In one form or another, to one extent or another, spiritually abusive groups elevate affiliation with their “body of believers” to a requirement for salvation — or at the very least they elevate membership in the group to a requirement for demonstrating that you are a Christian. In either case the result is the same: once you’re in, you can’t leave — at least not safely; at least not without jeopardizing your eternal destiny.

After spending a sufficient amount of time in these groups, escaping members are often totally defenseless when it comes to this kind of spiritual terrorism. They have come to the point where because they are no longer able to endure the very real fear and torment of being in the group, and they are willing to risk the potential fear and torment of being outside the group. But they frequently leave with the sincere conviction that their departure is a sign that they are going to Hell, and they have no idea how they are going to cope with that. For many going through the exit process, fears of eternal damnation become a constant preoccupation. Once they are fully out, the result is almost always severe depression, and they are sometimes suicidal.

As for me: I was too afraid to commit suicide, because all my assurance of salvation had been stripped away by my abusive group, and I didn’t want to arrive in Hell any sooner than I had to. I kept praying to God that He would give me whatever it was that I needed (repentance, more faith, etc.) to be assured of salvation long after I left.

Another woman who left our group before me remembers drawing a deep breath and saying to herself: “Well, this probably means I’m going to Hell … but I can’t stay!” Another former member moved hundreds of miles away to avoid the inevitable, searing condemnation of the members she left behind, some of whom had been old friends before she joined.

Occasionally, someone comes to us
who is terror-stricken in this way.

Such a person is being tormented by the idea that God has forsaken them because they have left — or are thinking about leaving — a particular church, a denomination, a small group, a religious organization, or a local fellowship, and this kind of fear has been instilled in them.

Such a person is terrified by the simple fact that they even found this web site. “Perhaps it’s a sign of just how far away from God I’ve fallen!” they might think to themselves. And they sense the tentacles of Satan wrapping around their souls, and the cold hands of death grasping after them.

Such a person feels as though he or she is somehow permanently contaminated, damaged goods, poison to all other true Christians. He or she might look for a big church, and then hide in the shadows — or avoid churches altogether. He or she may have begun to wander numbly through, spiritually aimless, occasionally experiencing deep attacks of dread and panic.

“Does God love me?”

“Does God even care about me?”

“Is it too late for me?”

“Please, God — tell me it’s not too late! Just show me what I have to do to know that you love me!”

“But it was so nice at first …”

Time and time again we hear the same story: “When I first joined they were so loving, so kind, so united. … They treated me special. … I never experienced the kind of things I experienced when I first joined them.”

And then?

“It was so gradual, and so subtle,” they tell us. “It was only after many months that I began to dread going to meetings, or getting together with other ‘brothers and sisters,’ or seeing our leader. But by then, it was too late! They had me convinced that this was a special work of God — a special movement of God’s Spirit — a prophetic voice for these times.

“To leave them was to leave God … and yet I knew that I just couldn’t take it anymore! I was always being rebuked for every move I made. I was always either being the object of harsh treatment, or having to stand by and watch as other people endured harsh treatment. If I ever questioned their judgment, they said it indicated that I was rebellious, carnal, unrepentant. It finally came to the point where I couldn’t bring myself to walk through that door anymore …

“But they told me …!” these people say, “They had told me over and over, even from the early days after I first started coming … They told me how spiritually dangerous it was to leave. They told me that people only left because their sinfulness was being confronted in the group, and they didn’t like it, so they left. I remember hoping that I would never be like them — and now I am!

“They told me that if I left …”

My experience was so much like yours. I know what it’s like to go personally through the things I am describing here.

So let’s look at some of the things spiritual abusers tell us will happen to us if we leave them:

“They told me that if I left,
I would backslide spiritually.”

No matter how many Bible verses they quote, no matter how many examples of what happened to other people spiritually after leaving, this is pure bunk, and you don’t have to believe it.

Many, many groups have a habit of pointing to examples of those who left and went into a spiritual tailspin. But is this a negative reflection on the people who leave, or the group that they left? Much more often than not, when any group can cite a long list of such spiritual casualties, it’s a negative reflection upon them rather than a negative reflection on those who left. And yet how cunningly they twist it around!

Any group that leaves a trail of broken people should be avoided. Unfortunately, we can’t see the broken people who lay strewn all around us as a result of these groups, because typically when people leave spiritually abusive groups, they go into hiding and do not want to be found. So all that we have left is the word of the leaders, who testify at length to how “backslidden” these ex-members are. Perhaps they can even come up with particular “sins” these people are guilty of.

Some abusive leaders do not go into details about the supposed “sins” these ex-members are guilty of. Instead, they are so confident of their hold over remaining members that they are content to let them draw their own conclusions. Why did they leave? a member asks. They fell away, comes the ready response. End of story. After hearing that explanation enough times, remaining members naturally come to equate leaving with “falling away” from God.

But when we examine these ideas under the light of Scripture, that light exposes them for the utter nonsense that they are.

We do not come to God by going to a church, to a group, to an organization, or to any other human being on this earth. We come to God by coming to a person. We come to God by coming to Jesus. Jesus Himself said it:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
[John 14:6, New American Standard Bible.]

Since we don’t come to God by coming to one particular group, it follows that we don’t leave God by leaving that group. The only way we can leave God is by leaving Christ, which means renouncing Him, and turning away from the faith.

And when we come to Jesus, we don’t have to come walking on eggshells. We don’t have to wonder if He will accept us. For He also says:

… and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
[John 6:37b, New American Standard Bible.]

Jesus does not cast people out who come to Him, or drive them away. That is a key difference between Jesus and spiritually abusive leaders.

A favorite verse that spiritual abusers like to quote in order to intimidate people is 1 John 2:16:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us,
they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
[1 John 1:19, New International Version.]

Spiritual abusers will point to this verse and then point to those who have left their so-called “fellowships” or “churches” or whatever, and say, “See! The Bible says that these people were never really Christians in the first place, or they would have remained with us!”

But this is a twisting of Scripture. By saying, “they went out from us,” John is not referring to one particular church body or group of believers. Instead, he is referring to those who have left the faith itself, and have denied that Jesus is the Son of God (as John points out in verse 22).

In fact, the Apostle John is referring to a very specific group of cultists in the early church who were called “Gnostics” (pronounced “NAH-sticks”). These were people who believed that they had “special” spiritual knowledge that other professing Christians did not have — much the same way that spiritual abusers today claim to have “special” knowledge, “special” gifts, or insight, or callings, or integrity, or whatever.

The Gnostics were very self-assured people. They could talk a big talk. They knew how to sound so lofty and spiritual that most people who heard them frankly could not understand them half the time, and they made a practice of questioning the spirituality of Christians in regular churches. Gnostics would sneak into a Christian church, start spreading around a bunch of pseudo-spiritual teachings, and draw little followings around themselves. When people questioned them they would turn-the-tables on them and accuse them of not being “spiritual enough to understand.” This had a tendency to make other Christians feel inferior, and rob them of their assurance, which is why the Apostle John spends so much time in 1 John assuring his readers that they are the ones who are really Christians, and not the Gnostics.

Eventually these Gnostics would take their little bands and split off to form a new group. It was that situation that the Apostle John was addressing, not the situation of a believer fleeing an abusive group. In fact, were the Apostle John around today, I am convinced that he would find a lot more in common between the old Gnostics and today’s spiritual abusers than he would find between the Gnostics and people who leave abusive groups.

“They told me that if I left,
I would join up with the enemies of God.”

The leader of one group in Indianapolis, Indiana (USA) constantly warns his followers about “the web of darkness” that is lying-in-wait just outside their little semi-communal congregation.

He’s not talking about the World Wide Web (although, coincidentally, he discourages his flock from surfing the web because of supposed “spiritual pornography” that is on it, which is supposedly much worse than regular pornography). He’s talking about the informal network of ex-members who have either been kicked out or walked out on their own, and who have begun communicating in order to support each other through the terrible process of exit and re-adjustment to the real world outside their little cult.

People in the group become conditioned to warnings about “the web of darkness” waiting out there to consume them once they leave. One-by-one as members leave or are kicked out, their reputations are smeared and their characters are assassinated by leader. Most of the time, the leader doesn’t have to say hardly anything. The simple fact that he ordered someone to leave is enough to persuade the other members that the person is in some kind of sin. When someone leaves on their own, it is usually preceded by many solemn warnings about “the web of darkness.” Then, when it is discovered through the grapevine that an ex-member has been in contact with other ex-members, the remaining members say to each other and themselves, “See! It’s inevitable: once you leave the ’spiritual protection’ of our group, you fall into ‘the web of darkness!’”

If it were not for the fact that members take this so seriously, and that it causes ex-members many sleepless nights and many bouts with hysteria, we could write it off as perhaps a very bad joke that is in very poor taste.

The goal is obvious: to scare people into staying, and to create a feeling of utter isolation for those who have left or are in the process of leaving. Many people who have leave the group think that while those other people left one day get a phone call from an ex-member, and panic is the inevitable result.

“Oh no!” they shudder to themselves, “It’s true! I’ve fallen into ‘the web of darkness!’ This means that I’m one of them!”

People who have recently left an abusive group have been known to refuse calls from ex-members who had been out for a while because of this very fear. This keeps them isolated and afraid, and more likely to return to the group in order to avoid “God’s wrath.”

In my ex-group, the leader spoke of the “network of sick people” who were outside of our group, ready and waiting for us to leave the group so we could “plug back into them.” Other leaders use various other metaphors and analogies. It is a very common theme. And a very unbiblical one.

There is nothing in the Bible that says you cannot leave one group to join another group of Bible-believing Christians, especially when you have been abused by the group you are leaving.

“They told me that if I left,
they would have nothing more to do with me.”

This can be a very painful experience. Sometimes it involves more than friendships, but also involves families. Some families have more than one generation in an abusive group, or sometimes siblings or other relatives join together.

In its most extreme form this is referred to as “shunning.” Several months before writing this, I was standing at the cash register line of a local Christian bookstore. Eventually I noticed that standing only five or six feet to my right was a woman who was still attending the abusive group I left.

A sudden wave of various emotions came over me. Should I try to get her attention? Should I greet her? Should I say anything to her?

For a moment I wasn’t sure it was her, but I stared at her long enough to assure myself that it was — and the sheer length of my stare would have been enough to make anyone on the receiving end of it feel uncomfortable.

And yet, there she stood, standing as straight as a post, her cold, stony face staring straight ahead, refusing to turn to acknowledge my presence.

She was shunning me.

She could hardly have avoided seeing me and my wife standing to her left as she approached the counter. She would have had to walk right by us just to get there.

I began to scan the rest of the store over my shoulder, and sure enough: I saw her husband not that far away, his back strategically turned toward us, looking at some of the merchandise.

Surely at least one of them must have seen us! I thought to myself.

They were shunning us. Just as our abusive ex-leader had warned us.

Of all the painful experiences of my life, this ranked somewhere near the top of my list. But by this time more than four years had past, and God’s healing in my life was working to soften this blow.

It is not simply the pain of being cut off from important relationships that is involved here. What makes it all the more traumatic is that those who shun us also blame us. They say things like, “It is you who are shunning us! We are simply acting toward you physically the way you are acting toward us spiritually.”

They often know how to say just the right thing to confuse us, to turn the tables on us, and to make us feel guilty. But don’t believe it. There’s not one shred of evidence in the Bible to justify them shunning you simply for leaving their group. They are simply misusing the Bible in a vain attempt to justify their own sinful attitude towards you.

“They told me that if I left,
I would bring evil into the lives of those around me.”

Abusive groups are very good at making their members feel like worms on the undersides of slimy rocks. They spend a lot of time and energy working on tearing down any positive or hopeful thoughts that members may have about themselves in order to foster dependence on the leader. It is their association with the group (and ultimately with the leader) that must provide them with feelings of self-worth and adequacy, or the leaders fear they will lose control.

Therefore, the leaders tell their members that leaving the group is proof that they never really “cleaned up their act,” never really “repented of their sins,” never really “saw the Kingdom,” never really “understood the Gospel,” and so on. This arouses all the conditioning and training to think of themselves as scum-buckets that they received in the group.

As a final ploy, if the confession of personal sins was emphasized in the group, the leaders are often known to bring up these past sins, throwing them in the faces of those attempting to leave.

As a result, people leave abusive groups with a pervasive feeling of being spiritually contaminated, of being some kind of “spiritual poison” to others, of being “damaged goods.” Ex-members who have received this kind of treatment are often known to become reclusive. They may visit other churches, but remain in the shadows to avoid all personal contact with others.

Sometimes the leader will even contact the church to which the ex-member has fled, and make all kinds of accusations against the ex-members character. This is what happened in my case. In a letter from my ex-leader to my new pastor in December 1992, my ex-leader made all kinds of false accusations against me, knowing that the group would back up anything he said. The letter even advised my new church to “return” me to the group for “correction!”

Fortunately I had a pastor who wasn’t born yesterday. He spoke with my ex-leader on the phone, questioned him very carefully, and finally said to him, “So far you have not mentioned anything that would justify Biblical church discipline.” My new pastor concluded (correctly) that the real issue was one of disagreement between me and my ex-leader, which my ex-leader was trying to trump up into over-inflated charges of spiritual and moral waywardness.

My new pastor told the truth. He accurately appraised the situation, and called it for what it was. This comforted me somewhat, but not entirely, because over the course of my 5-1/2-year involvement in the group, my ex-leader had portrayed almost every pastor outside of his influence as being either “corrupt,” or “spiritually immature.” What if he was right, and this was just one more pastor who didn’t know what he was talking about, and should have listened to my ex-leader? What if I really was some kind of backslidden Christian who needed to be disciplined?

Recovering from Spiritual Abuse is not simply recovering from a single issue, but recovering from a whole complex of issues that all connect to each other. It takes time to track down each one and disconnect it from your thinking, but over time you can do it. Meanwhile: when they tell you that by leaving their group you will hurt others, just remember how much they hurt you. Would Jesus treat you that way? I don’t think so.

“They told me that if I left, something terrible would happen to me.”

In one group, the leader spends a great deal of time recounting unfortunate incidents that overtook ex-members after they left his group. Some of them got into car accidents. One man broke his arm. All of these things were supposed to be “God’s wake-up calls,” warning these people to return.

In another group, an ex-member reported that she had been viciously assaulted. A short while later she received a letter from the group which said, in summary: “What did you expect? You left the spiritual protection of the group!”

This is yet another ungodly threat that spiritual abusers use to manipulate people and try to keep them under their control. Satan and his demons are out there waiting, lurking, seeking out people to devour — and if you leave this group, God is going to let he get you!

This is a gross and cruel distortion of Biblical truth. Yes, Satan is out there. And yes, he’s pretty hungry for Christians (and others) to spiritually devour — not necessarily physically. Satan’s primary goal is to turn us against God, not to make us sick, injured or dead. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of Scripture.

But let me ask you something: do you believe that Jesus is God in human flesh (John 1:1), and that he died for your sins and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)? If that’s the case, then you are a person who is indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit (John 14:17). God is in you — and as the Apostle John teaches us, this means that we do not need to live in fear of Satan:

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them,
because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
[1 John 4:4, New International Version of the Bible.]

In order for Satan to do serious spiritual harm to a believer, it would take far more than that believer to leave some group. God would have to leave the believer — and that will never happen, for the Bible says:

… God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
[Hebrews 13:5b, New International Version of the Bible.]

If some professing Christian leader or anyone else tells you that if you leave their group Satan is going to get you — tell them to buzz off!

“They told me that if I left, I would go to Hell.”

This list of things that they tell us when we leave all began with the threat that we would backslide if we left our spiritually abusive group. The other threats on this list are those that frequently follow the first threat: that they would shun us, that God would “get” us, and now, finally, that we’ll probably end up in Hell.

But have you noticed how the first threat (of backsliding) is reinforced by the other threats? Ask yourself the question: if you were being shunned by your Christian friends who told you that God was about to whomp on you and send you to Hell — wouldn’t that increase your chances of backsliding?

Now, no Christian should ever desire for his or her brother or sister to backslide into sin, and yet that’s exactly the kind of system that spiritual abusers set up — one designed to encourage those who leave the group to backslide! They remove every spiritual support, and inform their victims that they will fail. It’s obvious that they are treating the person who leaves like an enemy (at least by any Biblical standard), and yet that’s not exactly how the Bible tells us we are supposed to treat our enemies.

Spiritual Abuse sets up a system in which members become totally dependent upon the leadership. Therefore it is impossible for the leadership to endorse any kind of independence on the part of the membership. So when one of his members starts displaying independence, the leader has to find some explanation — either the person is just going through a rebellious phase and will eventually come back (after a lot of scolding and threats, of course), or the person is really lost forever.

Often a leader will go through a whole list of “warnings,” similar to the ones listed above, and if those do not produce the desired response, the leader tells his flock, “Well, if we were really dealing with a Christian here, he would have listened to my warnings. Since he hasn’t listened, he must be a doomed reprobate.” (Translation: he’s going to Hell.)

Threat of eternal damnation is, of course, the ultimate weapon in the spiritual abuser’s arsenal. If that doesn’t work, what will? Probably nothing, and he knows it. But it is a weapon that is not so much designed to bring you back, as it is to keep others from leaving.

Remember: the spiritual abuser tries to frighten you because he is frightened. He lives in constant fear of exposure. He desperately wants to avoid being exposed to outside scrutiny, but he also wants to avoid being discovered as a fraud by his own flock. He dreads the day when they will discover that the emperor has no clothes. Consigning you to the flames is his way of trying to bar the doors against any further escapes from his control.

Not every abusive leader uses this weapon to the same extent. The more clever the abuser, the more he will save it for strategic occasions. For example: if someone was especially high up in the pecking order of the group, and that person leaves, the leader is more likely to pronounce the judgment of Hell.

But the simple fact is — Biblically speaking — you don’t have to put up with it.

“They didn’t tell me that if I left …”

There are some things that some abusive groups (not all of them) do that they do not warn you about. They do these things to cause further confusion in the minds of people who are leaving them.

Sometimes they assign a member to call you on the phone and ask you to come back. This is confusing because this kind of phone call often comes on the heals of repeated attacks on the character of the departing member. There have even been occasions when someone has been consigned to Hell by the leader, and afterwards they get one of these pleading phone calls.

Sometimes the ex-members will encounter their ex-leader, or other group members, and actually have a pleasant experience. The ex-leader may say something that sounds encouraging, and they may exchange hugs. The ex-leader may even admit to some wrongdoing — although it is usually a very non-specific admission.

I have received two letters of apology from my ex-leader since leaving my abusive group. After receiving the first letter, the wrote me again to tell me that when he apologized the first time, he didn’t have anything specific in mind. After receiving the second letter of apology, the leader renewed his personal attacks on me via the Internet.

This type of behavior is attributable to one basic fact: your ex-leader is afraid of you, and he fears that his techniques for making you afraid of him are not working. You are a former-insider in his group. You know what really goes on in there. You know how people are really treated. You are dangerous to him, because you can tell others.

Bottom line: that’s what all of this is really all about.

“They told me that if I left …”

In the final analysis, they tell you these things to make you afraid. They want to make you afraid of God, afraid of Satan, afraid of others (the “enemies of God;” the shunning of the group), and afraid of yourself. They want to leave you with nowhere to turn except back to them. Your ex-leader may have filled you with so many fears that for a while it seems as though everyhwere you look you find some confirmation of his warnings.

For most people, recovering from this kind of bondage is a long process. The bondage itself is a form of conditioning. You developed very strong, habitual thinking patterns in this group which in many cases cannot be cured overnight.

You need to work at relaxing (no matter what your ex-leader said). Depending on your physical condition, you should consider seeing a medical doctor. You need to give yourself time to heal.

One step in the healing process is to realize that you’re not alone, that this scam has been perpetrated on many others besides you — some of them much more intelligent than you or I. You’re not alone. The sheer fact that these tactics are so common among such a wide variety of clearly abusive groups might help you see that they can’t be of God.

Another step in the healing process is to ask yourself some simple questions: do loving Christians try to make people afraid of leaving them? Do loving Christians refuse to allow people to disagree with them over non-essential issues under the pain of eternal damnation? Do loving Christians hound people, even after they’ve left?

Click here to order a copy or view pages from inside the book. Shopping with Amazon.com is 100% safe.

Since the early 1970s, alternative religious movements known as cults have been the focus of ever-increasing controversy in America. This reference handbook compares present-day cults to events in earlier American history, while primarily dealing with cults as a contemporary phenomenon. The key issue of mind control is covered in detail, as are deprogramming and the anti-cult movement. Overviews of the most controversial churches, and biographies of their leaders, are prominent features of this book. Legislative efforts and court decisions, particularly those surrounding the issue of religious liberty, are covered in detail. The volume features a directory of organizations in both the United States and Europe, a selected bibliography, print and nonprint resources, a chronology with the dates of religious events in American history, and coverage of events such as the Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate incidents. Alamo Christian Foundation (Music Square Church) identified as a cult on pages 66 and 67 of the book.

Click on the picture below to view the pages 66 and 67 in the book.