spiritual abuse: fake news?

The Evangelical Alliance in the UK has issued a paper on Spiritual Abuse, Reviewing the Discourse of Spiritual Abuse - Logical problems and Unintended Consequences. It is 18 pages long, and worth the read, but if you want a précis, the EA official press release is here, and a media response can be found on Christian Today's site.

Here's the issue: is spiritual abuse a genuine thing, or is it fake news spun out by people who see a way to catch out others whom they theologically disagree with? Essentially, the EA seem to be worried that Jayne Ozanne's recent paper on the subject (and others who go with her) are a Trojan horse against conservative teaching on sexuality. Anyone who teaches "the Bible" (parentheses needed) will be in danger of being found guilty of a hate crime if Jayne has her way, says the EA.

After all, there are established crimes of emotional and psychological abuse - why won't they do? Can't they be applied in a spiritual context? Even the Oxfordshire vicar who was recently reprimanded was officially judged for abuse of spiritual power and authority - not "spiritual abuse" per se.

The problem is...

You don't have to live long in the church to know that spiritual abuse is a real thing. Most people experience mild forms of it. Some get it in much bigger ways.

The EA report refers (p15) to the case of John Smyth at the Iwerne camps, and to the now well-documented beatings that he inflicted on boys there. The EA report calls these "serious instances of physical abuse". They were certainly that.
Only -
Only, when serious instances of physical abuse come from the person who is the spiritual leader, and they come as an expressed way of making you more godly, and you are told (as a vulnerable young person) that you may never be a good Christian or please God unless you subject yourself to these beatings regularly - then I am afraid they are not simply physical abuse. The imprint on a person's spiritual life may be indelible. It will certainly be extraordinarily damaging. It is spiritual abuse. Abuse of spiritual power and authority. Physical, emotional and possibly sexual abuse in a spiritual context.

Andrew Goddard on the Fulcrum site ties himself in knots on this one. As a member of the EA's Theology Advisory Group, he's one of the authors of their report. He raises, as the report does, the twin fears of using a term such as spiritual abuse in a technical, legal sense: first, so that the secular power gets to make judgements over religious bodies when it has not enough understanding to do this; and second so that it invites religious bodies to fight out competing understandings in the secular forum where (again) there is no sufficient understanding for a good decision to be made. Fair points, both, though not I think unsurmountable. But he closes by saying, "We should all agree ... the really important questions on which we should be focussed: what constitutes abuse of spiritual power and authority and how can we uncover and bring an end to physical, emotional and sexual abuse in spiritual contexts?" I'm left thinking - so you want to end spiritual abuse? Good. Let's worry less about terminology then and start doing some problem solving.

How do we know if abuse is happening?

Are all parties equal? Do all parties understand the situation? Are all parties consenting? Is everything open and nothing secret? Is everyone treated with dignity and honesty at all times? Is there an ability to choose responses and to speak openly always? Then abuse is much less likely to be taking place. If something is missing here, it may be time to put things right.

I've been in a situation where my vicar told me if I disagreed with him, I disagreed with God. At that point, we were not equal! I have tried to learn from that moment and never walk down that path in ministry. Now, my bishop of course has a proper spiritual authority over me - I gave him that publicly at my ordination and at my licensing - and he has the authority to discipline me. So we both understand that situation: but if even my bishop told me that to disagree with him was to disagree with God - that would be spiritual abuse. The abuse of spiritual power and authority.

If there is abuse in a spiritual context, I'm not interested in giving it another name. I'm interested in solving it. Let's not count angels on pinheads, let's help people. I am together here with Andrew Goddard's conclusion on the Fulcrum site I think - and I think we're actually both in exactly the same place as Jayne Ozanne. More work needs to be done. And terminology may need to be sorted. But most of all - spiritual abuse is not fake news; there is a real problem and real people need to be helped.

Comments

  1. Very good post. Very balanced and yet with a clear message.

    I think that terminology is important though. EA's insistence on talking about LBGT+ people as people who experience 'same-sex attraction' seeks to change the issue from orientation to life-style choice. I think EA are trying to do the same thing here by distancing themselves from the need to address spiritual abuse.

    Your check list paragraph is very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Benny - I appreciate the comment. So many thoughts in my head as a response - and my real hope is that enough voices work together on this that we might be part of a genuine grace-filled solution to a very real problem, rather than contribute to this terrible problem continuing through fear and inaction.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what it feels like to watch general synod

Living in Love and Faith: One - Suddenly Equal?

Patiently