Tag Archives: Abuse

Shepherding in crisis: How leaders can respond with courage and competence to sexual abuse in the church–a podcast link


Recently I was invited to participate on an episode of the ServingLeaders podcast. Check out our conversation. We discuss some of the challenges church leaders face and note some common mis-steps. We also talk about some of the opportunities and healthy responses church leaders make that can promote healing, not just for current victims but also for survivors of other abuses. When the church makes its primary ministry the care of abuse survivors, it is doing exactly what it has been called to do. When church leaders prepare for a crisis, they are much more likely to respond well under pressure.

(Website for ServingLeaders here.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Moral distress? Moral trauma? An important update on definitions and concepts


The folks at Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, led by Dr. Tyler VanderWeale, have published a paper updating the definitions of moral injury and distress. If you work with people suffering betrayal trauma–especially religious betrayal trauma–you may want to take the time to read their piece and recognize the aspects of moral trauma that may not be well addressed in the classic treatment of PTSD.

What is moral distress and trauma?

Years ago, moral injury was something described primarily in terms of an added impact on veterans of war. The symptoms of moral injury were seen to be in addition to PTSD, defined as an added injury when an individual perceived themselves as having transgressed basic human morals (e.g., a soldier is forced to kill civilians who are being used as shields by enemy fighters). It was commonly understood as the idea that I have done something so terrible that it is unforgiveable (or I have supported leaders who have done something that betrays basic humanity). Key features of moral injury focused on the experience of guilt/shame whereas key features of PTSD centered on horror and terror.

As the concept became better understood, we began to understand it’s existance among civilians as well. Here are some examples:

  • Someone who did something wrong (e.g., distracted driving) and badly wounded or killed another person
  • First responders who have to triage and, in essence, decide who lives and dies (e.g., the impossible decision between two terrible outcomes)
  • Victims of abuse who may have enlisted friends who also became victims of abuse
  • Someone who supported and defended a well-known leader who was later found to be harming others

Understanding moral distress of victims of trauma

This paper expands the idea of moral distress beyond the (perceived) perpetrator to that of the experience of victims of trauma/abuse. Consider the new definition offered by VanderWeale and summarized in a recent newsletter,

In trying to bring these concepts together, we conceived of such moral distress as lying on a “moral trauma spectrum” that included matters of both the severity and the persistence of distress. After months of synthesis of prior work, we defined “moral distress” as “distress that arises because personal experience disrupts or threatens: (a) one’s sense of the goodness of oneself, of others, of institutions, or of what are understood to be higher powers, or (b) one’s beliefs or intuitions about right and wrong, or good and evil.” When that distress became sufficiently persistent it would constitute “moral injury.” For such moral distress or moral injury, it was not only that some moral code was violated, but rather that whatever took place somehow challenged one’s whole understanding of right and wrong, or of good and evil, or of the goodness of oneself, others, institutions, or even the divine. That disruption of one’s moral understanding would then give rise to, sometimes severe, distress. When that distress was persistent and would not go away it would be appropriate to speak of “moral injury.” When the distress was sufficiently severe so as to seriously impair functioning over extended periods of time, it might sometimes even be appropriate to speak of “moral injury” disorder.

(Newsletter from Human Flourishing Program, received via email Sept 17, 2025)

Re-read the bolded text. It is not just that some moral code was violated by myself, but that one’s whole understanding of right/wrong of self, others, institutions or the divine has crumbled. Notice how this distress might be observed in individuals having experienced certain types of traumas:

  • Victim of sexual assault seeks help from justice system but ends up feeling blamed for it
  • Whistleblower in a church who seeks institutional support to stop the abuse by a leader but is then scapegoated for disrupting the ministry
  • Someone who is scammed out of money feels they have irreparably harmed others
  • Child experiencing abuse by a family member and when telling a parent is then told to be quiet no longer believes they have value
  • Person prays for justice and expects to be exonerated but ends up feeling abandoned and forgotten by God

How might this change our treatment of trauma?

The treatment of trauma focuses first on the care of one’s nervous system. Learning to modulate and calm one’s body is essential since the very nature of chronic trauma is an overactivated vigilance system even when the danger has passed. As a person develops capacity to return more quickly to baseline then there may be more of a focus on addressing the narrative and memory of how the traumatic experience changed perceptions of self and the world.

When we make room for the spiritual/moral impacts of both trauma and how communities respond to people who have suffered trauma, we can better address the moral distress experienced. Treatment modalities that only focus on the reduction of nervous system overload may miss addressing the existential and spiritual crises that haunt survivors. This is especially true when (a) faith communities implicitly (or explicitly) discourage expressing doubt about God, or (b) when clinicians ignore spiritual and moral discussions in therapy. Inviting and validating the very deep moral questions of hurting people is essential for their recovery, even when answers are not readily (or ever?) available. Any treatment that ignores moral distress will not be sufficient to the task of recovery. While I am hopeful that some of the recent trauma treatment modalities may speed recovery, I notice that these newer treatments often ignore questions of existence, narrative, and faith and focus almost solely on nervous system function. This may be needed in the first line of care but let us now be more alert to moral distress and injury in those who have survived abuse, assault, and other forms of betrayal trauma.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Abusers and true repentance?


Some years ago, I wrote a very short essay about signs of true repentance in those who have abused. Today, we had a conference about church care for women who have been abused. My colleague, Jon Sovocool of Serving Leaders, referenced that essay. So, for ease of those attendees who might like to read it, here it is. (link fixed)

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Your handy psychological fact…might be false: Why we believe what we believe and what it says about us


Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? The psychological phenomenon where hostages begin to identify with and feel positive feelings towards their captors, maybe even to the point in helping them escape? For many this is accepted, even if rare, fact. It supposedly why kidnapping victims don’t try to run away when they have the chance or why domestic abuse victims stay with their abusers.

But, what if the concept behind Stockholm Syndrome is only based on assumptions, rumors, falsehoods, and repeated unscientific “trainings” offered around the world by experts. THIS is the case. I highly recommend you listen to this December 2024 episode of Radiolab. It just might blow your mind. Even if you have no interest in the history of Stockholm Syndrome, the applications to how we treat victims and how we simplify psychological explanations can do harm to others.

The problem of face validity

As you listen to this episode you will hear how the name for the syndrome was created without

  • Interview or study of the hostages
  • Verifying the “facts” that were frequently repeated as undisputably true (e.g., that the hostage wanted to marry the kidnapper when he got out of prison)
  • Replication studies

Why the wholesale acceptance at the public and even governmental level? Because it seemed to explain the behaviors of hostages. It made sense. This is what we call face validity. Makes sense…and is a false understanding. To quote HL Mencken, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”[1] 

The problem is, we (the public) don’t know that they are wrong and so we promulgate simple yet wrong answers. Listen to the above episode and you will hear recordings of the police trainer who trained thousands of officers and departments on how to handle hostages who likely will develop the syndrome. Listen to how confident he speaks. So, we believe him, because how could we know any better?

But this confidence puts the focus on the wrong place and causes society to pathologize the wrong person.

This reminds me of the era of the late 80s and 90s where so many experts appeared talking about the reality of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Turns out many of these experts where self-proclaimed. But, the problem seemed real enough to be possible, so some accepted SRA as valid because it seemed to fit a probable reality. Sadly, this social angst created victims—not just those convinced to make false allegations but those whose lives were destroyed by those allegations.

While we could write about WHY some people present themselves as being experts when their theories and interventions are not really supported with empirical evidence, I want to consider why WE are prone to believe them. We believe them because we need simple answers to allay our own fears as to whether we are okay.  

Heuristics make life easier…and are close enough, until they are not

Heuristics are a method by which we ignore complex information that might overwhelm us in order to come to a reasonable and timely decision. For example, you look up 3 websites to discover the best diet to try and you decide to try the last one (recency effect) to avoid information overload. Or, you listen to an expert talk about a subject and you generally believe them because they are talking about some recent research.

Let’s talk about a common heuristic that probably you have used that makes sense and seems to explain things about personality—Myers-Brigs Type Indicator (MBTI). Surely you have taken this test and found you fit one of 16 variations of 4 letters. The assessment tool tells you which side of the 4 categories you fall. You can easily summarize your personality by saying you are an ENFP or INTJ or the like. This makes it easier for others to understand what you are like and might even explain why you approach the world the way you do.

Simple, right? But the MBTI lacks adequate reliability (getting the same answer every time) and validity. What It does do is communicate some things well, hence why we use it. But it lacks significant empirical backing and should not be used as a tool describing personality. Why do we accept it? Because it is easy. And we don’t mind so much that it is actually rather weak in describing personality variants.

No one is really being harmed with being labeled as INTP. But what if a heuristic points us in the wrong direction and creates additional harm to a victim?

Why the Stockholm Syndrome heuristic sends us down the wrong path

Back to the Radiolab episode. Listen to Grace Stuart talk about why she stayed with an abusive partner.

Grace: …people don’t realize how much of domestic abuse is about confusion….confusion about what was even happening….What if I overreacted and made something out of nothing…

Sarah (interviewer): Whether to judge her ex by his good days or his bad days.

Grace: Is he the good guy or is he the bad guy? Is he kind or is he cruel? … Am I the perpetrator? Am I the narcissist?… Let me just change this one thing about myself.

Grace was looking to make sense of what was happening. To ask the why question. And she wasn’t asking so much about her abusive partner but about herself. What is wrong with me?

This is where the Stockholm syndrome answer takes us. What is wrong with the hostage or the partner who seems to be tied to the abuser? It has the focus on the wrong person. In the interview between Grace and Sarah, Grace’s voice fades out when she is about to answer what helped her change her point of inquiry. As the sound fades in the interview she mentions a book that helped her, “Why Does He Do That? By Lundy Bancroft. This book has helped many women better frame the questions from the why about themselves to the why and the what about their abuser.

You see, we are focused on the wrong person when we try to answer the question about why someone might stay in a bad situation. What if we changed our question to, “what do abusers do to keep people trapped.”

All explanations will fail. All theories will fail. So now what? Ask more questions

Nearer to the end of the episode, another story about a young man who was in the “Sarah Lawrence” cult. Daniel states that after he was able to get out of the cult, it took him 6 years to be able to process what happened to him. He says that he had to come to terms that he would never have a satisfactory answer to the “why” question. And that he had to come to terms with the factors in why he stayed were complex and the tools he had to make decisions at that time were limited.

What is his solution? Keep asking curious questions about human behavior. “Be suspicious of any concept which doesn’t invite further curiosity.” “If it is a thought terminating answer…anything that ends our curiosity is bad.” So, he invites people to ask, “what helped you leave?” rather than “why didn’t you leave?”

Concluding thought

If you have read this far and listened to the podcast (if not, I remind you to not miss it!), take a moment to consider what easy explanations you might be using about yourself or others. Can you allow yourself to accept the answer, “Its complicated” to the why question. Now, try to move on to some different questions.

  • What can I do to make the moment better?
  • Who might I be able to enlist to help me understand my options?

And when someone offers you a simple (simplistic) solution (e.g., “just breathe” or “just leave” or “just eat better”), smile and look for those who can sit with complicated things and help you decide the next one move to make.  


[1] Prejudices, Second Series, p. 158.

1 Comment

Filed under Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychology

Can you help the church become a safer place for women who experience abuse? Join us in January 2025 for a one day conference


On January 18, 2025 I and a great list of speakers will address this question. The answer, of course, is YES. Come join us. Register by either this link or the QR code in the image. We will identify some of the common problems and give practical tools to improve the care the church can provide. Sometimes we leave conferences with more questions than answers. It is our goal that you will leave with ideas you can implement that will improve the care of vulnerable people in your congregation. While everyone is invited, we are focusing on the kinds of care church leaders–lay or professional–can provide. So, if you are a small group leader, a lay counselor, a pastor, a Sunday School teacher, this is for you. It will not be livestreamed so if you want to hear what we have to say, come to Willow Grove, PA!

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Upcoming webinar: Navigating church scandals with integrity and compassion


In today’s world, church scandals make headlines all too often. But the real story isn’t just about what went wrong—it’s about how the church responds. A scandal can either deepen wounds or open the door to healing. But that all depends on how it’s handled.

Are you prepared to lead your church through the storm? Do you know how to respond with truth, transparency, and genuine care for those harmed?

Join us for an insightful webinar where we’ll explore:

  • Common but harmful responses to church scandals
  • How to create a crisis response plan that prioritizes healing over image preservation
  • Practical steps to develop a playbook that prepares your church for the unthinkable

Don’t wait for a crisis to learn how to respond. Equip yourself now with the knowledge and tools to lead your church with integrity through unexpected upheavals.

Key Takeaways:

  • How to prioritize truth and transparency
  • Identifying “shadow values” that may negatively influence care responses
  • Creating a crisis response team that truly cares for victims
  • Practical strategies for communication and care during a scandal

This webinar will cover the challenge, offer a framework for addressing church scandals, and include a Q&A segment.

Who Should Attend: Church and ministry leaders, elders, and anyone involved in pastoral care.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Am I doing this trauma healing thing right? Part 3, 6 red flags that you might need a new helper


In in our series about the challenges of undertaking this journey toward healing after trauma, we began by looking at key landmarks along the way that every pilgrim needs to keep in sight (Part 1). These include taking care of our bodies and becoming curious about what helps us find stability. In Part 2 we looked at some myths and beliefs about healing that can hinder our recovery. In Part 3 I want us to consider some things that “helpers” (AKA, therapists, pastoral counselors, counselors, friends, mentors, etc.) do that hinder recovery. If you spot any of these red flags, it might mean you need to have a heart-to-heart with your helper or, if need be, look for someone new to travel with you on your journey.

Before we dive into the underbelly of bad therapy, I want to remind readers that I really believe in therapy. Good therapy helps us understand ourselves, helps us explore parts we have been too ashamed to look at, and helps us gain perspectives and skills to use in our most important relationships. And bad therapy can take away what shred of hope we have for change. It is this reason why I have spent my career educating and training clergy and mental health professionals on 4 continents. Good therapy and help is possible and most of us helpers want to do what is good and right for you. So, let’s highlight here six red flags, behaviors that DO NOT help, so that both survivors and helpers can avoid them.

Making everything spiritual

Not everyone pursues a faith-based therapist or helper. But many do, and for good reason. Faith, religion and spirituality are core features of most of the world’s population. So, it makes sense that we seek helpers who also share our values. In addition, trauma almost always creates spiritual struggles and at least temporary discontent with previously accepted beliefs. Voicing those complaints and questions to and about God are essential to the journey of recovery and will determine whether faith helps us cope or becomes added strain.

However, when your helper uses every opportunity to infer a spiritual meaning and application while you wrestle with your pain, this might be a red flag. Pain is pain, confusion is confusion. It is okay to sit with it, voice it repeatedly, and not make some eternal or mystical application. When a counselor is quick to make a reference to spiritual meaning in your story, it means they are likely not really sitting with you in the ashes of your pain. They might not be as wrongheaded as the story of Job’s friends who jumped to accusations of sin, but pressuring you to accept a spiritual answer to the deeply painful why trauma or what now questions often invalidates your pain and misses opportunities for needed lament. Some call this spiritual by-passing.

The premature offering of spiritual answers, no matter how accurate, often add to the pain of the one who is suffering.

Rejecting your faith or the changes in your faith.

While forcing spiritual conversations is problematic, so also is it when our helpers challenge our faith, changes in our faith, or even question why we have a particular faith or religious practice. You might think this problem is only found among pastoral or biblical counselors. However, I have witnessed many licensed mental health professionals also evidence this red flag. Consider some of the lines I have had clients repeat back to me from their former helpers:

  • You can’t believe that about God. He wouldn’t do anything to hurt you.
  • If you don’t forgive, you will become bitter and miss out on blessings.
  • If you aren’t in church, you are rejecting God’s goodness.
  • Yes your abuse is bad, but God says…
  • Your faith community is toxic. You need to leave this patriarchal religion.

If changes and discontent in our former ways of construing faith is so problematic, then why are there so many psalms of lament in the Bible? These poems express our deep questions and complaints. In Psalm 42 the writer laments how he no longer leads the worship procession and is now full of questions for God. Does God respond and tell him to stop this line of thinking and feeling? No. Instead, if you accept that the Psalms are given to us by God, then such expressions are invited by God as an act of communion.

Emphasizing techniques while missing the relationship.

There are many therapy models out there in use. Some are general models (e.g., Judith Herman’s three phase model of trauma recovery) and others are more regimented or manualized (e.g., Trauma-Focused CBT). In recent years, there has been a proliferation of EMDR certified specialists. And still many more employ various techniques from many models in an eclectic manner.  

When your helper is overly enamored with a particular technique, it can become a problem as they may not be able to recognize when that beloved technique does not help you. When your therapist wants to jump into “doing stuff to you” then it is likely they aren’t really seeing or hearing you. And just because a particular technique has empirical evidence for success, it doesn’t mean it is right for you. Sadly, when a disciple of a model oversells a technique, the real reason may be that it promotes their own sense of competence as a clinician.

When a therapist suggests a course of action or an intervention, do they take time to explain what positive or negative response might happen? Do they find out how you feel about it? Do they check in with you and notice if you are anxious, concerned, or not having a good reaction? If you are flooded during a session (e.g., frozen, overwhelmed, etc.) and your therapist doesn’t seem to notice, show curiosity, or take the time to help you find ground again, you might need to find help elsewhere. If in response to your stress, they fill up the space with more words of explanation or defense, they might not be as trauma sensitive as they need to be.

Pressure to progress, mislabeling your hesitation as refusal.

Therapists love to help people. That is why we do this work. We want to see people get better and we have confidence that healing can and will happen. But sometimes, our motivation to help people also include the hidden desire to feel helpful. This desire can become a demand that the client feels in their bones. “I have to progress and get better or they will become disappointed in me or see me as resistant.”

If you have felt this pressure, take a moment and consider possible roots. Sometimes this fear of being resistant is something the survivor has come to believe about themselves (or, were told by their abusers!). But other times it is a message from their helper. Signs of demands, disgust, irritation, frustration, coercive speech, pouting all point to the possibility that the therapist is communicating to you that you need to get better FOR THEM.

We will explore how to determine if a therapist is right for you in the next post but suffice it to say here, your resistance to an intervention is something to listen to with curiosity. It is the beginning of regaining your voice and power. Instead ask, “What might your hesitation be saying?” Listen to it and don’t immediately judge it. If your therapist does label it as refusal, consider other helpers.   

Therapist talking about self a lot.

Who does most of the talking in your session? You or your therapist? When your therapist talks, is it for the purpose of inviting you to explore your own reflections? Or, when they speak, do they share paragraphs and essays about their work or themselves? How much do they talk about their own experiences? Self-disclosure by the therapist is not always wrong. It can be helpful in tiny doses. But when it happens frequently it often distracts from the work that needs to be done by their client.

Therapy is not the place for therapists to talk about themselves (or to sell their own products). Ask yourself, “do I get to talk about the things that are most important to me during my sessions?”  

Boundary crossings.

Trauma experiences, especially betrayal traumas, often contain boundary violations and maltreatment by someone who was supposed to protect and respect another. When helpers confuse or cross needed boundaries, this can delay healing or cause more harm. What kinds of boundary crossings do I mean? I have witnessed therapists trying to be all things for a client. They are not just the therapist but also become friend, “parent figure,” employer, pastor, landlord, and sadly, sexual partner. This last boundary crossing—sexual and romantic relationships—is always an abuse of power and a violation of the sacred trust of therapy. It is also a criminal act in most jurisdictions and always an ethical breach.

Most crossings are not meant for harm. A client can’t afford therapy so a clinician barters—provides therapy and in re-payment the client performs some work. A client has administrative skills and so the clinician invites the client to help run his or her business. Another client is isolated and so a therapist invites them to their own bible study group. On the surface these might seem mutual and helpful.  But what if the client doesn’t respond well to the therapy? What if the therapist is unhappy with the work completed? What if learning about the personal life of the therapist creates confusion about what is discussed at the next session?

When therapists encourage dual relationships without ample discussion of the possible ramifications, they prioritize their own benefit at the expense of the client’s wellbeing.

I see a red flag, what should I do?

No therapist is perfect, and we all make therapeutic mistakes. It is the response to mistakes that makes all the difference between good and harmful therapies. The question you must ask yourself,

“is it safe to bring up concerns and questions about what happens in therapy?”

Can you talk about the process and raise concerns without your therapist becoming defensive? Most therapists want to provide good care and do not want to do things that harm their clients. So, it stands to reason that many will respond with concern and work with you repair the rupture and find out what works best for you going forward. If, however, you have reason to believe that you will be mis-treated for bringing up a concern, then consider whether it is time to find another therapist.

What comes next?

In our final post of this series, we will explore how to interview for a good therapist and how to determine what model of therapy might be best for you.

For further reading, why do counselors talk about themselves?

Leave a comment

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, counseling, counseling skills, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, trauma, Uncategorized

Am I doing this trauma healing thing right? Part 1, an overview


I spoke last week at #Restore2023 hosted by the julieroys.com. This was their third such conference and the second I have attended. I decided to present on this question in the title because so many ask me about their healing journey with the assumption that they must be doing it wrong. Why? Because they are continuing to struggle with triggers and can’t seem to “move on.” This very question often adds to their pain because of the assumptions of failure.

Trauma is a deep wound of the heart and it hurts every part of our being–our hearts, minds, and bodies. It disconnects us from ourselves, our friends/family/community, and from our faith. We are often are left with two enduring questions: Why did this happen and how can I get out of this hell? Sadly, we end up believing that WE are likely the cause of why we are traumatized and that WE are likely the reason why we aren’t better yet. Trauma triggers and responses are impossible on their own. But the overwhelming sense that we are the reason we aren’t getting better only amplifies the pain. And when our “helpers” add to our own self-criticism by saying or inferring we aren’t doing it right, we feel even more sure that we are alone and forever trapped in a death spiral.

In this little series I want to explore some features of this necessary but unwanted journey of healing. We’ll start by orienting with a small “map.” In later posts we will explore some barriers to recovery and red flags to take note of regarding your helpers or counselors. We will end the series by considering what model of therapy and therapist might be best for you.

The journey you never imagined you would have to take

When you begin a journey these days, one of the first things you want to have is your turn-by-turn directions on your smart phone. But this journey is going to be a bit more old-school since google maps has yet to give us the quickest route. Before cell phones, we had to have a paper map and/or some scribbled directions to remind us key landmarks that would help us find our way to our destination. True old school would be orienting by sun and stars and this may be the best image to keep as you navigate your own path of healing.

So, what are some landmarks (aka, basic reminders) that help us stay on the right path? Consider these three:

Take care of your body.

Our whole beings have been damaged—it is not just in our mind! So, we need to take care of our bodies. Part of caring for bodies means understanding them and having non-judgmental curiosity about how your body works. For example, your body is designed to protect you. You sweat when you overheat. and shiver when cold. Your body defends against viruses and germs. The trauma response you experience in your body is an attempt to protect you. So, do your best not to think ill of it. Recently, I suffered a back injury and spent a few days immobilized due to spasms. My back muscles, even my whole body, tried to keep from feeling those spasms. We call that guarding. I was able to get help and began some PT a few days later. The protective muscles had done their job but now needed reminders to go off duty as their protection was not needed anymore. The therapist gently reminded me to relax my glutes and calf muscles as we worked on my back.

For many of you, your body has been guarding from a long trauma in your life. No wonder it responds the way it does. Acknowledge its effort and give thanks for its amazing capacities. Use gentle reminders and compassionate care.

Look for stability in a triggering world.

Part of caring for our bodies it to develop a curiosity about what helps us find stability in a triggering world. If you are continually attacking yourself for having a fight/flight/freeze response it will be hard to develop curiosity about what helps you recover that sense of security and stability.

What helps you experience just a little more ease after a trigger? Maybe for you it is movement. For another, it may be a specific breathing exercise or a focus on one of the senses. Or, maybe it is a distracting conversation with a friend. Figure out what helps even just ten percent and develop a list of things you can try when distressed. Don’t beat yourself up if you can’t remember what to do but find ways to write it down so that it is easier to remember. Something might work once and not another time. Again, just take note of it without judging your capacity to calm yourself.

Begin to tell the story of you again.

A key feature of recovery is the practice of beginning to tell (and write new chapters) the story of you to yourself and others. Trauma has a way of stealing our voice and power. It has a way of distorting our story and giving us false names for what we have experienced. “If only I was stronger I could have resisted him…I must have asked for this abuse…”. The journey of healing is a journey of making some sense of the insensible and reframing who we are in the world. This takes time and needs lots of care. it ought not be rushed but done little-by-little. However, even when you go out with friends and do a small but brave thing, you are writing a new chapter in your story. Make sure you aren’t missing this important fact.

three simple steps, right? Not really. Exhausting? Absolutely.

In our next post we will get into greater detail about this journey towards healing. But, first, there are some barriers to the journey that can hinder our progress. These are things we and others believe and some things others do that get in the way of our making progress. Some of these myths really delay or disrupt. We’ll cover some of the myths about the healing journey in our next post.

For more reading on this site, search the word “trauma” or start with this post.

2 Comments

Filed under Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, trauma, Uncategorized

Considering Criteria for Spiritual Abuse


I’ve read a lot of discussion recently about the difficulty defining spiritual abuse of adults by faith leaders in positions of power. It seems most debates center on whether to believe victims who report such abuse and whether there is a culture of victimhood. Behind these discussions is the question of whether we can operationally define spiritual abuse.

For some, since there isn’t consensus on a definition, then there is little to no value in discussing its reality. “It is too subjective and can’t be known.” For others, “too many good leaders will be hurt by false allegations” is reason enough to doubt an accuser’s experience.

Permit me two small historical sidebars to give context on these kinds of debates. 15 years ago I gave a lecture at a denomination’s general assembly on the problem of child sexual abuse. In the room were 300 or so pastors. The very first question asked from the floor was whether it was biblically proper to accept a child’s report of abuse against an elder if there wasn’t a second witness. The second comment from the floor was a statement expressing concern that false allegations would ruin the ministries of many good pastors. The third question amounted to, “Why do we call it abuse, can’t we just call it sin?”

My second historical point goes back a bit further. In the mid-1800s doctors did not routinely wash their hands or instruments after doing cadaver work. As a result, when they delivered babies, mothers and infants died at alarming rates, especially when compared to mortality rates of mid-wife deliveries. When the medical community began speaking about microbes and the need to wash, doctors often resisted. The renowned Dr. Oliver Wendall Holmes was castigated for speaking about the need for better hygiene and some New York doctors wrote letters expressing that such practices would harm their business and the public’s trust of their guild.

In both examples, the primary concern seemed to be to protect the guild, much like our current discussion.

Two criteria for determining spiritual abuse

Consider the case of child abuse. There are two accepted criteria used in defining child abuse that can be helpful here: 1. Actions that result in abuse, and 2. Impact on victim. For example, refusing to take a sick child to the doctor may be found to be abuse/neglect whether or not the child recovers. Or, in another example, one parent routinely expresses paranoia that aliens are trying to hurt them. One child appears resilient and unbothered while the other child becomes suicidal. The impact on the second child is what may lead to a finding of abuse. Note that intentionality is not a criteria for whether a finding of abuse is valid.[1]

So, try on some of these action words for size. How do they fit for criteria of spiritual abuse? Rejecting…terrorizing…isolating…ignoring…corrupting…verbally assaulting…over pressuring.

Let’s apply to a specific case. A man pressures his wife daily for sex and when she does not comply (she often does) he gives her the cold shoulder and refuses to speak to her. When he does talk to her, he quotes bible passages and tells her she is sinning and may be responsible if he looks at porn. This woman comes to her pastor for help and to tell him that her therapist has encouraged her to leave to preserve her emotional safety. In this hour-long meeting, the pastor asks no further questions about her experience even though he does express some empathy for her pain. Because he does not ask questions, he does not find out that she being raped, that she regularly wakes up in the night to find her husband trying to penetrate her. Instead, this pastor tells her to be wary of leaving as it will lead to divorce and potentially harm the husband’s reputation as head of a Christian non-profit ministry. He also wonders aloud if her therapist is giving Godly counsel. As the meeting ends, he asks her to come back next week to talk further and gives her homework to identify the log in her own eye. She leaves confused, sad, afraid, and wondering if she is the problem in her marriage.

Now, has the leader committed spiritual abuse? Quite possibly. Is talking about sin and divorce spiritual abuse? No. But, it also is naïve and poor spiritual leadership. As far as actions go, he ignored her pain, he implicitly isolated her by questioning her therapist, asking her to stay, and showing undue concern for the husband’s reputation. She leaves feeling he has rejected her concerns.

If they continue to meet and he continues to emphasize her need to bear up under this burden and to examine her own heart, then he is likely overpressuring (aka coercing) her. Let’s assume the pastor does not want to harm the wife and believes his counsel is helpful. There is no intention to commit spiritual abuse. But, using his spiritual position and wrapping his counsel in biblical and doctrinal language, the pastor has indeed begun to spiritually abuse his parishioner. The abuse could be averted with some basic education if the pastor was open to learning. But ongoing mild to moderate use of these actions would constitute spiritual abuse for this woman. Another woman might just tell the pastor off on the first visit and walk away. In this case it wouldn’t be spiritual abuse. It would be incompetent pastoral care. But in our imaginary case, this woman stayed because (a) she had been raised to always trust pastors, (b) her husband’s chronic belittling had convinced her that she was in the wrong, and (c) she was already rather isolated. What was incompetent care becomes spiritual abuse due to action AND impact.

Why call it spiritual abuse?

Recall the question posed at the beginning of this essay: Why not just call it sin (or bad care in this instance)? Why call it (spiritual) abuse? I would argue that this question comes from a cultural sense that abuse label means the person who committed it is an ABUSER and therefore unable to change and worthy of being cast out of society. Sin feels better because it can be just a “one off” misbehavior. The problems with calling it sin are several. It reveals we are likely far too comfortable with sin. It denies patterns that need attention. It favors the one who has done the wrong and minimizes the impact on the victim. We seem more focused on propping up the careers of those with certain leadership capacities than recognizing the numerous examples in the bible of how God handles those who misrepresent him (e.g., Job’s friends, bad shepherds (Eze 34), blind guides and white-washed tombs, false teachers in Jude).

Labeling certain behaviors as spiritual abuse helps us focus on those actions that crush spirits. Just as labeling the failure to wash hands may cause infections. Identifying spiritual abuse and its impact helps us focus on consequences rather than intentions.   

Want to read more on defining spiritual abuse?

Check out this and this link for definitions of spiritual abuse.


[1] This essay concisely describes the action and impact criteria for child abuse. Some actions are not per se abusive but create a negative impact. These behaviors, if not stopped, could however be labeled abusive in the future if the parent does not respond to corrective education.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, pastors and pastoring, Spiritual abuse, trauma

Free online master class with Diane Langberg on redeeming power


Forum of Christian Leaders will be hosting Dr. Langberg for a 3 hour master class on March 20, 2021. The forum is entitled, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church. For more information on how to register for this session, please check out this flyer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized