Characteristics
REST ministries' Home Page
What is 'Spiritual Abuse?'

Authoritarianism

by Ron Henzel


 


 

     
     
Were you ever in a situation where you felt that you had to clear most of your everyday-life decisions with your pastor, or an elder, or someone else in "spiritual authority" over you?  Did you ever belong to a Christian or other kind of religious group where it was required that you bring even the most personal and private matters to the leadership for their instructions?  And was obeying their directions a requirement for remaining a member of that group in good standing?  If so, you belonged to an authoritarian group.  Authoritarianism is one characteristic of Spiritual Abuse. 

    Webster's defines the adjective "authoritarian" as "believing in, relating to, characterized by, or enforcing unquestioning obedience to authority, as that of a dictator, rather than individual freedom of judgment and action."  As a noun (i.e., someone who is an authoritarian), it means "a person who advocates, practices, or enforces such obedience"  (New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, p. 92).  Christians who exercise an authoritarian style of leadership either deny that they act like dictators, or they justify it.  If they deny it, they often do so by claiming that their followers have complete freedom of choice.  While this is true, it does not address the issue of dictatorial leadership.  It is a skillful dodge, a fallacy in logic, and a smokescreen.  If they justify it, they have to distort or contradict key and explicit Scriptures. 

    For those of us who have experienced the iron fist of authoritarianism within the context of an evangelical Christian environment, gaining an understanding of how such a thing could happen us is helpful in our recovery.  Such an understanding can be obtained by gaining the following perspectives on the current problem with authoritarianism in many circles.

 
 
     

The Historic Problem

    Authoritarianism has been a problem in the church since New Testament times.  It is not unique to cults, or spiritually abusive groups.  Those groups have simply mastered its techniques. 

    The Bible is opposed to authoritarianism.  Therefore, people who claim the status of "pastor," "teacher," "prophet," "apostle," or any other title of spiritual authority have no right to unquestioned obedience.  Jesus made this clear when He taught His disciples, 
 

"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.  But you are not to be like that.  Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."
 
[Luke 22:25-26, NIV]

    It may come as some surprise to you, and may even be contrary to what you have been taught, but according to the Bible, if a person comes into your life claiming to be a "spiritual authority," you should question him (or her)!  Many of the Old Testament prophets made entire careers out of questioning self-proclaimed spiritual authorities!  In doing so, they exposed many false prophets -- who, by the way, got pretty upset with them.  These prophets fulfilled a necessary role, because -- to put it bluntly -- God does not want hhis people to be suckers. 

    Just as no one can prophesy without subjecting their prophecy to careful scrutiny (1 Cor. 14:29), so no one can claim to be a "spiritual authority" without being accountable to the judgment of those in the church (1 Tim. 3:2-10; Titus 1:6-11). The criterion for judging a "spiritual authority" is always the same: that person's life and teaching must measure up against the standard of God's word, the Bible. 
 

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[Isaiah 8:20, KJV] 

    Spiritual authority begins and ends between the covers of the Bible.  The minute someone steps outside the text of Scripture and tries to tell you to do things that cannot be found in the Scriptures, they are deceiving you. 

    But it would benefit us to ask, "How is it that so many Christians seem to be deceived in this way?" 
 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 
     
     

 The Leader As Paragon

    The deception of Spiritual Abuse starts when the leader ceases to simply be an example to others, and begins to be a paragon for others.  A "paragon," according to Webster's is "a model or pattern of perfection or excellence"  (New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, p. 979). 

    According to the Bible, there is only one Person who is our paragon: the Lord Jesus Christ.  The best that any human being can hope to be is a very fallible, imperfect example.  But in spiritually abusive groups, any fallibility on the part of the leader is minimized, and the leader's supposed strengths are magnified to the point of veneration. 

    Depending upon how it is presented, the difference between an example and a paragon can be subtle, and manipulative people can create confusion between the two concepts.  The Bible sometimes uses the word "example" in the sense of Webster's third definition: "a person or thing to be imitated; model; pattern; precedent" (New World Dictionary, p. 472), as in the following Scriptures
 


Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 

[1 Corinthians 11:1, NIV]


Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 

[Philippians 3:17, NIV]


For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you ...

[2 Thessalonians 3:7, NIV]


Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 

[1 Timothy 4:12, NIV]


In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness ... 

[Titus 2:7, NIV]


Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

[James 5:10, NIV]


While all of these Scriptures teach that a Christian leader should be an example, none of them teach that he has the right to set himself up as the example, much less a "a model or pattern of perfection or excellence."  Anyone who thinks of himself in this way is very likely to violate a deeper principle of Scripture, the principle of humility.  And yet humility is one of the spiritual traits that leaders must be an example of:
 


Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

[Ephesians 4:2, NIV]


But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."  ... Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

[James 4:6, 10, NIV; see also Proverbs 3:34]


Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

[1 Peter 3:8, NIV]


... All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."  Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.

[1 Peter 5:5b-6, NIV;
see also Proverbs 3:34]


But it is impossible to think of yourself as a paragon -- "a model or pattern of perfection or excellence" -- and obey God's commandment to be humble. 

Spiritually abusive leaders trick people into treating them like paragons rather than examples by using the classic bait-and-switch.  They bait their followers with texts about following the examples of leaders, and then switch the concept of "example" with the concept of "paragon." 

You can tell when a leader is no longer simply a Biblical example and has become a paragon for his followers when any of these things are true: 

  • His followers believe that he has greater "spiritual authority," "insight," "discernment," etc., than any other leader they know. 
  • His followers believe that he is living a more godly life than anyone else they know. 
  • His teachings, interpretations, etc., carry more weight than anyone else's. 
  • When he is absent, the leader's followers share stories and anecdotes about the leader's knowledge, insight, wisdom, courage, purity -- or any other spiritually important attribute -- with a sense of awe for the leader.
  • When he is absent, his followers struggle to discern what the leader would think, say, or do and to practice those things. 
    If you belong to a group where these things are true, you should get out right now and find a group where the spiritual leaders are models of humility rather than models of arrogance. 
 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]
 


 
     

What True Spiritual Authority Is

    This is what true spiritual authority is: the ability to take your stand on the words of Scripture, knowing that they back up what you say, and using the truth of Scripture to serve others, rather than requiring others in any way to serve you (Luke 22:24-27).  Any other brand of "spiritual authority" -- especially one requiring strict submission to a human being -- is false. 

    The reason that this is the definition of true spiritual authority is that it was given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  He is also our chief model of spiritual authority, as He explained in Luke 22:27.  The primary mark of true spiritual authority, therefore, is neither spiritual-giftedness, nor boldness, nor courage, nor self-confidence, nor the ability to issue commands to others.  It is service.  When someone claims to be a "spiritual authority," you are responsible before God to evaluate that claim (1 Cor. 14:29), and Jesus Himself has given us the primary criterion for evaluation: whether or not the person acts like a servant. 

    Since the essential mark of true spiritual authority is service, and not issuing commands or telling others "what's best" for them, then the essential attitude of spiritual authority is humility.  A person who is humble may speak authoritatively, but he does not assume that he is always right.  He is correctable.  He understands that he may be wrong, and he has the ability to give others the same "freedom to be wrong."  If there is a disagreement, God will sort it out some day.  But the minute you stop allowing people the freedom to disagree with you, you have crossed the line from "authority" to "authoritarian." 

    True: there will be some issues on which we can neither ignore nor compromise on with others.  But a truly humble, service-minded person works on distinguishing between the essentials and the non-essentials, and he gives others freedom to disagree over non-essentials.  His guiding principle is always: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." 

    If you cannot distinguish between what is essential to the faith and what is non-essential, the result in your life will be a very rule-laden, legalistic approach to Christianity -- and vulnerable to the classic Spiritual Abuse bait-and-switch: exchanging authority for authoritarianism.  You will become puffed-up in your own self-certainty and self-righteousness, and you will lose both your humility and any claim to being a "spiritual authority." 

     True spiritual authority means sticking to the clear teachings of Scripture, and it just so happens that one of the specific clear teachings of the Bible teaches is that true spiritual leaders are not to be autocratic, despotic, or tyrannical.  In fact, this is one of the most obvious teachings in all of Scripture!  (For further insight into what the Bible says about this, please see the appropriate section of our Online Article on the Bible and Spiritual Abuse.) 
 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 

 
     

Internal Contradictions Created by Authoritarianism

    This being the case, how is it that there are so many Bible-believing groups and churches where the leadership is openly and proudly authoritarian?  For example: 
 
 
    A former associate of [Community Chapel pastor] Don Barnett describes his style of leadership: "He's ousted everyone who has taken exception to his teaching.  He's been a very autocratic leader.  Even though he says he allows differences of thought on issues, it's very difficult for him, really, to allow his leaders to view things differently than he does.  He'll say from the pulpit that he does, but he'll tell you in person that it's his God-given duty to revise your thinking."

[Churches That Abuse, by Ronald M. Enroth, p. 81.]

 Not only is this an example of authoritarianism, but it is also an example of an internal contradiction.  While the leader claimed that he allowed differences, in actual practice he did not.  Each characteristic of spiritual abuse involves its own similar internal contradiction: the contradiction between the official position and the actual practice.  This contradiction helps explain how these groups are able to recruit new members, who only hear the official position while joining the group, and only learn of the actual practice after becoming deeply involved. 

    It is usually only after a leader feels secure in his power-base that he feels free to bluntly state his true attitude toward his congregation: 
 

    Pastor Phil Aguilar of Set Free Christian Fellowship has been known to say, "You need to trust God through me; I know what's best for you."  That same attitude was communicated in one of his sermons when he was discussing his own responsibility as shepherd of Set Free: "People in this church, don't you say anything about each other.  I can say anything I want.  I can call you anything I want because I have the responsibility and the accountability according to God's Word for each and every one of you.  I can say what I want.  'Well, if you can say it, I can say it.'  Well, no, you don't know the scriptures.  You don't have that responsibility and accountability; I do.  So when I get in your face, receive it from the Lord or let your tail wag and go home and cry.  Go try and find a TV pastor so that you can turn him on and off anytime you want."

[Ibid.]

Sometimes it's just plain ludicrous what so-called pastors think they can get away with saying to the Lord's people! 

    If you've never gone through something like this, it probably all sounds pretty incredible to you.  Why would any sane, intelligent person -- especially a Christian -- submit to such oppression?  Do these things really happen? 

    Sadly, the answer is yes.  My wife and I spent 5-1/2 years of our lives in such a group.  For those of us who have escaped from such tyranny, the fact that we were sucked into it in the first place is often a source of great embarrassment.  I had been a Christian for over a decade, I had been to Bible college, and had even served in church ministry.  How could it happen to me? 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]


 
     
     

How People Get Sucked In

    Those who have never been so unfortunate are also curious.  How does it happen?  The answer is: "Very slowly, and very subtly."  While there are some people who have a strong desire for an authority-figure in their lives that disposes them toward falling into abusive relationships, I was not one of them.  Very few people, in fact, deliberately join an authoritarian, spiritually abusive group.  They have to be manipulated into one. 

    There is one thing that we all have in common that can at times make us vulnerable to an authoritarian leader: the desire to be led.  We all occasionally feel the need for a mentor, a guide, someone to "show us the ropes," someone to explain to us how the universe operates so that we can survive and succeed.  During times of great disappointment, or personal setbacks, this desire can become particularly acute. 

    This is not simply true of us as individuals, but it is also true of Christians as a group.  At times our desire for great leaders transforms itself into a kind of hero-worship, which soon borders on idolatry. 
 

It seems that we have a need to create evangelical gurus, Christian celebrities, superpastors in megachurches, and miscellaneous ‘teachers’ and ‘experts’ that we place on pastoral pedestals. What is it about people, including evangelicals, that explains this apparent need for authority figures, the need to have someone co-sign for our lives? As David Gill noted years ago:
 
We want heroes!  We want assurance that someone knows what is going on in this mad world.  We want a father or a mother to lean on.  We want revolutionary folk heroes who will tell us what to do until the rapture.  We massage the egos of these demagogues and canonize their every opinion.  We accept without a whimper their rationalizations of their errors and deviations.

[Churches That Abuse, by Ronald M. Enroth, p. 205.]

     Sometimes people feel the need for someone to guide them so strongly that they turn over their personal freedom to that individual.  Not that long ago, millions of highly educated, and culturally accomplished people did this.  They were experiencing very difficult times together, and they felt the need for someone to guide them through the turmoil of their existence.  It was not long before they found the man they were looking for, and when they did, they called him their "Guide."  That was his title, in fact.  In their language, the word for "Guide" was "Führer."  And they trusted their Führer so much that tens of millions of people paid for it with their lives.  His name was Adolf Hitler. 

    Spiritual abusers are very much aware of people's desire for a strong, confident leader on whom they can rely for answers and direction.  And they also know how to take advantage of that desire. 

    Another factor that makes a people in a spiritual environment vulnerable to an authoritarian person is a lack of the kind of accountability mentioned earlier.  Spiritual abusers are experts at eluding accountability.  When others try to hold them accountable, they either find creative ways to out-maneuver them, or crush them, or they flee to some other place where they can be more successful at controlling people. 

    Our spiritual abuser was a charismatic individual who was running a parachurch organization, and had a legitimate board of directors when we began attending the organization's meetings.  But when the board tried to call him into account for his deceptive and sinful practices, he accused them of sin.  (This is the manipulative practice known as "turning-the-tables.")  He patiently wore them down until eventually they all resigned.  He soon replaced them with people whom he knew he could control -- in this case, people who attended his organization's meetings, which he was simultaneously seeking to transform from parachurch organization into a church.  All the while he kept details of his escapades from those of us he said were under his "spiritual care."  He also maligned his former board members in front of us, and cited his own "spiritual authority" as justification for his actions. 
 

    Often a strong leader mistakes the position of leadership for a position free from accountability. ...  There may be a board of directors, elders, or deacons, but when the authoritarian ruler picks them, he or she picks people who are easily manipulated or easily fooled.  What appears to be a board of accountability is a rubber-stamp group that merely gives credibility to the leader's moves.  The board members become the coconspirators of the persecutor and permit the leader to persecute without interruption. ...

[Faith That Hurts, Faith That Heals, by Stephen Arterburn and Jack Felton, p. 169.  Formerly titled, Toxic Faith.]

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 

 
     
     

The Failure of Today's Church

    One of the primary reasons why this problem has become so pervasive lies in the fact that many quarters of the evangelical church have failed to clearly present the Bible's teaching on true spiritual authority.  In a period of time when the church has consistently de-emphasized doctrine, this should come as no surprise to us.  The issue of spiritual authority is a doctrinal, or theological matter, and most people in the church today -- including most pastors -- are simply nott interested in doctrine or theology.  They do not want to spend the time that is necessary to find out what the Bible says, and then re-state that teaching in their own words.  Instead, they want to "cut-to-the-chase."  They want "the bottom line."  They want their pastors to "net it out" for them. 

    Now, I cannot blame my own failure to avoid spiritual authoritarianism entirely on the failure of the church-at-large.  I should have known better.  I had access to many people, books and other resources that could have spared me.  Even if there was a lack of teaching on this where I came from, I still could have studied up on the subject.  By failing to avoid falling into the authoritarian trap, I was demonstrating that I was guilty of the same "bottom-line," "cut-to-the-chase" mentality.  I didn't do my homework. 

    Nevertheless, the fact is that the church has largely failed in this area, and this failure has created a teaching-vacuum which has been a large factor in the vulnerability of Spiritual Abuse victims.  Over the years, this teaching-vacuum has been filled with many ideas that were foreign to the authors of the Bible: everything from the notion of "umbrellas of authority," to "spiritual coverings," to a "chain-of-command," all of which is presented very thoroughly and logically, with many Scripture references.  The only problem is, nowhere does the Bible teach these things.  When you closely examine the teachings of those who claim that the Bible teaches some kind of authoritarian system for governing the church, you eventually discover that they are actually distorting the Bible. 

    The subtle manner in which this teaching has wormed its way into the church, along with its destructive effects, are illustrated by the following: 
 

    Jeri sat in the office of a Christian counselor, explaining that she felt desperate, and felt like she was going crazy.  "Either that," she said dryly, "or I'm on the verge of a major breakthrough in my spiritual growth."

    "Those are two big opposites," the counselor noted.  "How did you come to that conclusion?"

    "Well, she began, choking up, "I went to my pastor a few months ago because I was felling depressed a lot.  He pegged the root of my problem right away, but I can't seem to do anything about it."

    "Root problem..." the counselor repeated.  "What was that?"

    Jeri looked down at her shoe tops.  "I guess I would have to say the problem is, well, me.  My pastor says I'm in rebellion against God."

    What unfolded was an unfortunate, and all too common, case history: Jeri's church teaches that Scripture is God's Word, the standard by which we must live.  But they use it as a measure by which we gain acceptance with God rather than as a guide for living.  Therefore, when she asked her pastor for help with her depression, she was given a "prescription" of praise Scriptures to memorize and repeat over and over.  This, she was told, would get her mind off herself and onto God.  The depression would lift when she got over sinful self-centeredness.

    Jeri had tried what the pastor suggested, but her depression didn't lift, and this raised some questions.  She noted that there was a history of depression among the women in her family, and that she was presently experiencing some physical problems.  Moreover, she confided to her pastor that she was struggling in her relationship with her husband, because he shrugged off responsibilities with their two teenagers who were beginning to get into trouble.

    "How did he respond when you said his suggestion didn't help?"

    "That's when he dropped the bomb on me," Jeri said.

    The counselor did not fail to notice her choice of metaphor--the devastation Jeri was trying to portray--and asked, "What sort of 'bomb'?"

    The pastor had told her, "The fact that you won't accept my counsel without raising all these objections and other possibilities was the major indication to me, Jeri, that your root problem is spiritual, not physical or emotional.  When you talked about arguing with your husband, rather than submitting to him and trusting God, that confirmed it."  He concluded that the other problems--emotional depression, physical illness, a troubled marriage and teenagers in turmoil--were the result of her inability to submit fully to God and His Word.

    Jeri had tried to object.  "I told him I felt condemned.  That I felt I needed some other kind of help."

    "What happened?" the counselor prompted.

    "That made it worse.  My pastor just smiled and said I wasn't willing to accept his counsel--so that proved he was right.  That's when he used the 'R' word on me.  He said, 'Jeri, you need to repent of your rebellion against God.  Then all these minor problems will be taken care of."

    [David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, pp. 17-18.]

    It seems that authoritarianism was not the only problem Jeri's pastor had.  He also held to the notion -- contrary to many Scriptures -- that praising God is a prescription for curing depression.  But the root of his problem was a false concept of spiritual authority. 

    The fact that so many pastors and spiritual leaders like this one can gain followings and rise to positions of "authority" in the church -- often going undetected for years by their peers and their denominational supervisors -- is ample testimony of the failure of today's church in this area.  But something can still be done, and you can be a part of it: 
 

In our homes, in our churches, and in our programs of Christian education, we must strive to cultivate critical, discerning minds if we are to avoid the tragedy of churches that abuse.

[Churches That Abuse, by Ronald M. Enroth, p. 206.]

Christians with truly critical, discerning minds will be resistant to both authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.  One key step we need to take in gaining that kind of a mind is to inform ourselves of our spiritual heritage.  We who are evangelical Protestants have a particularly strong tradition of resisting spiritual authoritarianism ... 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 

 
     
     
One Source of the Contemporary Problem

   Where do these false concepts come from, and how have they become so widespread in the church?  For evangelical Protestants such as myself, the fact that authoritarianism even exists among us is a supreme irony.  A large part of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s was devoted to eliminating the myth that God had given anyone the kind of spiritual authority that Jeri's pastor was trying to exercise over her.  Jeri's pastor was acting just like the late-medieval church hierarchy that claimed to be the final authority in the lives of all Christians.  The Protestant Reformers rightly argued that only God's Word has such a place. 

    And yet there are a large number of professing evangelicals today who actively teach that church leaders have not only the right, but also the duty, to impose a very heavy-handed authority system on the church.  These people teach that to go against such "authority" is to go against God Himself!  And it appears that they all share one thing in common: either directly or indirectly, they have all been influenced by an early 20th century Christian author from China. 
 

    Watchman Nee may have unwittingly aided many of today's church leaders in creating just such a structure.  Nee wrote that if you truly understand Jesus as the head of the body, you will also see that other members of the body are above you in rank and that you must submit to them.  "Hence you recognize not only the head but also those whom God has set in his body to represent the head.  If you are at odds with them, you will be at odds with God."  Nee states elsewhere that we are expected to blindly obey those in delegated authority over us and that "insubordination is rebellion and for this the one under authority must answer to God."

    Some opportunistic church leaders have built upon Nee's error, saying that Jesus now "rules through delegated authority--i.e., those whom he sets in authority under himself.  Wherever his delegated authority touches our lives, he requires us to acknowledge and submit to it, just as we would to him in person." ...

[Ken Blue, Healing Spiritual Abuse, p. 29.  Quotations from: Nee, The Body of Christ, pp. 20-21; Nee, Spiritual Authority, p. 71; Derek Prince, Discipleship, Shepherding, Commitment, p. 18.]

    When I first read this, it sent chills down my spine.  In our spiritually abusive group, Watchman Nee was required reading.  Nee's influence had been exceptionally pervasive in the last half of the 20th century, but I didn't realize how dangerous it could be until I was indoctrinated in it. 

    I can testify that Ken Blue very accurately represents Nee's teaching on this topic.  Our leader was so enthusiastic about Nee's teachings that he scanned Nee's chapter on "delegated authority" into his computer and printed it out for our entire group to read.  I'm pretty familiar with Nee's concepts.  It is obvious to me now that we neglected to weigh all of his teachings against the Scriptures, and since our leader was already highly authoritarian, we were actively discouraged from doing so.  Since Nee had been a very popular author among many Christians whom we had previously known, and his titles were sold in most Christian bookstores -- I had even once heard him cited at length as a trustworthy authority on our local Moody Bible Institute radio station! -- we assumed that his books must be alright. 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 
 
     
     

The Maze of Mysticism

     And for the most part, perhaps it could be that many of Nee's books basically are alright.  After all, spiritual authority was not the only subject he wrote about.  But Nee's approach to Christianity was highly mystical, and there's an old saying: "A mystic is never far from a mistake."  This is because, by definition, the teachings of mysticism tend to be very ambiguous, obscure and enigmatic.  This makes them capable of more than one interpretation -- very often an erroneous one. 

     Mysticism also tends toward the legalistic notion that we are rewarded with a relationship with God on the basis of our works.  Webster's defines "mysticism" as "the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation" (p. 898, emphasis mine).  Christianity, on the other hand, is the doctrine that it is possible to receive communion with God through simple faith in Jesus Christ.  In mysticism, the individual is required to somehow spiritually "ascend" in order to achieve a mystical union with God.  In Christianity, God Himself descends through the person of Christ, effectively bringing us true spiritual union with Himself.  The ultimate ideal of most mystical systems is an impossible one, for Jesus said:
 

"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man."

[John 3:13, NASB]

Mysticism requires something of us that we cannot do.  Christianity presents that very thing to us as a gift: intimate, spiritual communion with God. 

    But this leads to another irony: while on the negative side, mysticism tends to lead toward legalism, on the positive side, it tends to lead away from authoritarianism, rather than toward it.  This is because mysticism emphasizes the individual's ability to have a subjectively experienced personal relationship with God.  If I can go to God directly, I shouldn't need an authority figure over me in order to make it happen.  So how did Nee's mysticism become so authoritarian? 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 

 
     
     

"Higher Life" Takes a Confucianist Detour

    The answer lies in the fact that Nee's special brand of mysticism derived from his background in what is called "the Higher Life Movement" (or "Victorious Christian Life Movement;" or "Keswick Movement").  Like other forms of mysticism, it has its own built-in legalistic element: it has tended to teach its own brand of "perfectionism" -- the notion that Christians can somehow be sinless in this life.  Many Christians are not aware of this when they read Nee. 

    But Higher Life mysticism also had a teaching that lent itself to authoritarian abuse.  It taught that before Christians could lead a holy life they needed to be "broken."  This "brokenness" had to be accomplished in the area of the human will.  So far, most Christians would agree with this, but with huge qualifications.  For one thing, most biblically-informed Christians would quickly add that any "breaking" that takes place is something God does, not something we do.  Mysticism, on the other hand, is based on what we do, and the Higher Life movement was essentially mystical.  So it was natural for Higher Life teachers to emphasize what we must do, and in doing so, they fell into a grave error: the idea that Christian sanctification is essentially a process of "breaking" ourselves.  But Christian sanctification is not essentially a process of "being broken," let alone "breaking ourselves."  Rather, it is a process of being renewed by God's Holy Spirit.  Any "breaking" that takes place is primarily the breaking of the power of sin, not the breaking of ourselves.  But Nee, following his Higher Life mentors, made this "breaking" of one's self a major part of his ministry. 

    It is only a small step from teaching that we must "break" ourselves, to the notion that others must help in "breaking" us.  This small step leads to the worst forms of authoritarianism.  And even though mysticism does not usually lend itself to authoritarianism, it almost always lends itself to a "guru mentality" -- i.e., the notion that we need someone more experienced than us to act as our guide, because mysticism's concepts are so far beyond the knowledge or understanding of most people.  Nee simply took the inherent logic of the Higher Life Movement to its next natural step, and in the process he also blended it with principles that every Chinese person learned from birth, and which westerners have always found fascinating: the teachings of Confucianism. 

    Confucius had taught that the loyalty of a child to a parent should be so strong, that if necessary, the child should cover up his parent's misconduct.  While not actually teaching that children should turn a blind eye to their parents' sins, he did teach things that came close to blind obedience: 
 

In serving his father and mother
a man may gently remonstrate with them.
But if he sees that he has failed to change their opinion,
he should resume an attitude of deference and not thwart them...
 
[Analects 4:18, by Confucius (K'ung Fu-tzu)
(551-479 BC)]

    This concept of authority has been deeply embedded in Chinese culture for over two millennia, and Nee did not escape its influence, despite the fact that it is contrary to the teaching of Christ.  Nevertheless, it is probably unfair to Nee to conclude that he would approve of the authoritarianism that spiritual abusers practice in his name.  Ken Blue was probably right to say that Nee "unwittingly" contributed to the problem, even though Nee's teachings on spiritual authority are difficult to misinterpret.

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 
     
     

How Watchman Nee's Error Spread

Watchman Nee's concept of "spiritual authority" gained a foothold in the church-at-large through three primary avenues: 
  • The successful publication of Nee's books.
  • The popularity of Bill Gothard seminars.
  • The introduction of the "covering" teaching among charismatic Christians.
The primary book in which Nee propagated his teaching was entitled Spiritual Authority.  All of Nee's books have sold remarkably well in western countries, and establishing a direct link between Nee and those who borrowed his concepts is not difficult, because they frequently list him as one of their sources. 

    One individual in particular who listed Nee as a source in his unpublished master's thesis has a concept of spiritual authority so strikingly similar to Nee's, and has been so successful in promoting it, that he deserves special attention.  His name is Bill Gothard. 

    Bill Gothard is the president of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, USA.  Since the mid-1960s he has popularized his concept of "Umbrellas of Authority" through an immensely successful seminar ministry which claims more than 2.5 million "alumni." 

    Gothard insists that every Christians must be under the authority of another Christian -- someone "higher up" in a spiritual "Chain of Command," and to make this idea more palatable, he writes: 
 

The essence of submission is not "getting under the domination of authority but rather getting under the protection of authority".  Authority is like an "umbrella of protection", and when we get out from under it, we expose ourselves to unnecessary temptations which are too strong for us to overcome.  This is why Scripture compares rebellion to witchcraft - "Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft."  (I Samuel 15:23)  Both terms have the same basic definition - subjecting ourselves to the realm and power of Satan.

[Bill Gothard, Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 20]

The problem here is that the text of 1 Samuel 15:23 does not have anything to do with Gothard's point.  It does not say anything about authority acting like an "umbrella of protection."  Instead of providing us with a Scripture verse that does prove that point, Gothard diverts our attention to another issue entirely: he smoothly glides into a comparison of rebellion to witchcraft. 

    If this was the only example of Gothard trying to use the Bible to prove an unbiblical point, that would be one thing.  But it seems that Gothard does this habitually.  On the same page in which Gothard cites 1 Samuel 15:23, he also misused two other Bible passages in much the same way.  As Ronald B. Allen wrote (when he was Professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon), 
 

The week that I spent at Basic Youth Conflicts in 1973 (Portland) was one of the most difficult of my life.  In this seminar I was regularly assaulted by a misuse of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, on a level that I have never experienced in a public ministry before that time (or since).  All speakers, myself included, fail to interpret and apply the Bible rightly from time to time.  But in the Gothard lectures, Old Testament passages were used time after time to argue points that they did not prove.  I was as troubled by the errors made from the lectern as by the seeming acceptance of these errors as true and factual by the many thousands of people in attendance.

[Ronald B. Allen, Th.D., "Issues of Concern -- Bill Gothard and the Bible," 1984, p. 1.]

    Gothard's view of authority is foundational to his view of the Christian life.  He considers it "The Basis of Achieving Great Faith."  "The size of our God," he says, "is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us" (Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 19), and yet he does not even attempt to provide a Bible verse to back up that statement!  These words have a nice sound to many people, but one should pause and ask: "If this concept of authority is so basic, why isn't it taught in the Bible?"  Gothard never provides a biblical foundation for his "umbrella" teaching.  He simply assumes it, and expects us to do the same. 

    Again we should note that Gothard does not credit Watchman Nee with any of his ideas.  Nevertheless, both Gothard's and Nee's teachings on authority appear so remarkably similar that it is reasonable to assume that Nee influenced Gothard. 

    On the other hand, those in the charismatic who hold to the "Covering" teaching do sometimes credit Nee with influencing them on the subject of authority, and it is quite interesting to note the parallels between Gothard's "Umbrellas of Authority" and the charismatic "Covering" doctrine. 

    Gothard teaches that by getting under an "Umbrella of Authority" we accomplish the following purposes: 

  1. We grow in wisdom and character.
  2. We gain protection from destructive temptations.
  3. We receive clear direction for life decisions.  [see Gothard's Basic Seminar Textbook, p. 20]
These three things sound nice, and no one can argue with the fact that they are worthy goals.  The only problem is, the Bible does not teach that these are the primary purposes for authority, nor do the Bible verses Gothard quotes support this idea. 

    And notice the parallels between this and the charismatic "Covering" teaching: 
 

    The new charismatics teach that every Christian must be in obedient submission to someone else; that is, each individual must be "covered" by another.  The implementation of a "covering" is to protect individuals and the entire church from bad decisions and demonic infiltration.  Through this chain of command the people below are protected by those above.  A spiritual covering is the divine pattern to maintain accountability.

[Michael G. Moriarty, The New Charismatics: A Concerned Voice Responds to Dangerous New Trends, (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 256.

But the charismatic "Covering" doctrine has the same basic weakness as Gothard's "Umbrella of Authority" concept: 
 

...to advocate a chain-of-command system where everyone's decisions must be covered by another's goes beyond what the Bible teaches about authority.  Such a structure is conducive to power abuse.  It often leaves believers at the mercy of their shepherds who "cover" (that is, make) their decisions for them.  This leads to a decreasing dependence upon God and an increasing dependence upon human beings. ...
   The covering theory can also lead to idolatry.  Jesus is no longer treated as the Mediator; the one who covers usurps his role.  Proponents of this theory often demand that the individual believer's lifestyle, ideas, and major decisions be covered by someone in the church who is higher up in the chain of command.  Believers considering a new vocation, marriage, or a geographical move must get their covering's approval.  In some groups, individuals are told by their covering how much money they must tithe.  Some groups are more militant than others, for sure.  But the point is that this type of structure leads to bondage.  A person's relationship to Christ is often hindered as he or she is controlled by an authoritarian hierarchy.  Furthermore, those at the top (e.g., apostles, prophets, shepherds, etc.) seldom are accountable to anyone.  The temptation for the "top dogs" to gain more power can be overwhelming.  Because of their lack of accountability and their growing obsession with power, they often end up manipulating and even exploiting those under them.  Before long, they become Christian gurus who allow their insights and opinions to be canonized by their followers.

[Moriarty, The New Charismatics, p. 257.]

    The leader of the abusive group to which my wife and I belonged simply assumed that the teachings of Watchman Nee and Bill Gothard (and hence, the "Covering" charismatics) were biblical on the issue of authority.  I have spoken with many people, and I have ready the writings of many others who belonged to intensely spiritually abusive groups that were based on these principles.  I can testify, along with countless others, that the implications and tendencies that Moriarty describes here are amazingly accurate, and -- thanks to Nee's books, Gothard's seminars, and the charismatic "Covering" teaching -- amazingly pervasive. 

    But the Bible does not teach that spiritual authority consists of some "Chain of Command" that we must follow, or some "Umbrella of Authority" that we must be under.  In fact, the Bible teaches precisely the opposite: 
 

[Jesus said,] "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.  But you are not to be like that.  Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves."

[Luke 22:25-26, NIV, emphasis mine.]

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 
 
     
     

Keeping The Baby While Throwing Out the Bathwater

    In all fairness we should point out that there was another side to Nee, one which Stephen Brown notes (I'll quote Brown's entire passage, because all of it is good):
 
     I have gone down a lot of wrong roads following a lot of sincere but mistaken people.  Let me tell you some things I have found to be helpful.  First, there are no infallible teachers or leaders.  God had only one perfect preacher.  His name was Jesus.  People were drawn to Him because "He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt 7:29).  Be careful about everybody else.

    Second, false teachers and leaders are not to be judged on the basis of the size of the crowd, the bigness of the church, the glibness of the tongue, the sincerity of the voice, the certainty of the demeanor, or the glitter of the ministry.  God's people are to be fruit inspectors.  Jesus said:
 

    Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.  Do men gather grapes from thorn-bushes or figs from thistles?  Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit (Matt. 7:15-18).

    Do you see biblical love and humility?  Is financial integrity an important ingredient?  Are the sheep being fed or fleeced?  Is there a "messiah complex" extant in the ministry?  Is there accountability?  Are the followers automatons or free, thinking individuals?

    Third, when authority (other than God's authority) is asked to be accepted without explanation, that authority is usually not from God.  Watchman Nee said that one of the ways to tell whether a message came from God or from Satan was to remember that Satan says, "Do it now!" and God says, "Think about it, and then do it."  That is good advice for guidance from God or from man.  "Because I say so" may be good for children and mindless animals, but not for God's people.  Legitimate spiritual authority is always willing to be questioned.  Legitimate spiritual authority never asks from you what you should only give to God.

    Finally, learn what the Scripture says.  Don't just learn it from a Bible teacher, a commentary, or a religious book (including this one).  Go to the Bible yourself and find out what God says.  You will be surprised more than you think by how often a spiritual leader will pontificate something that makes God blush.  God gave you a mind, and more important than that, He gave you His Spirit.  Paul said that the Christian has received the Spirit of Christ and therefore ought to be able to perceive truth, "For 'Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?'  But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:16).

[Stephen Brown, No More Mr. Nice Guy: Saying Goodbye to "Doormat" Christianity. pp. 213-214.]

    Based on Brown's quote from Nee, it's very possible that if he ever witnessed firsthand what today's spiritual abusers practice, Nee would have disapproved of it.  But we'll never really know in this lifetime.   After all: he promoted their authoritarianism so forcefully in principle.  And anyway, the damage has been done.  The negative impact of Nee's teachings has far outweighed any good intentions he might have had, and the scarred spiritual lives of countless Christians bear ample testimony to that. 

    As Christians, our first duty is to obey God's word.  The writings of other people may help us do that, if they first help us to correctly understand God's word.  But no matter how good they are, they can never replace God's word.  And yet if we find ourselves turning to books by human authors before turning to the Bible, then we have effectively replaced the Bible with those books. 
 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]

 
 
     
     

Resisting the Controllers

    Often when I describe the trade-mark tendencies and theological influences of authoritarian leaders of Christian groups, someone will ask the question: "But how much of what you are describing has more to do with personality-type rather than  theology, or incorrect interpretation of the Bible?" 

    This is a very good question, and the only honest answer would be: "I don't know."  Authoritarian leaders have been around for a long time among Christians.  They have usurped positions of power among diverse groups of Christians, and within a broad range of theological systems over the course of church history. 

    Nothing I have written here should be taken to imply that only one theological system or denominational background can provide a home to the kind of mentality I have described above.  I am simply describing how this mentality has asserted itself among many Christian groups leading up to the beginning of the 21st century, and how certain popular doctrines made Christians vulnerable to it. 

    There are some people who, through the sheer force of their personalities and driven along by an invincible sense of their own rectitude, seem to feel the need to subjugate all of the Christians in their sphere of influence under their "guidance."  These people will inevitably make a grab for power, regardless of their denominational or theological environment.  Jerry Bridges recently made some insightful comments about a type of personality he refers to as "the Controller:" 
 

These are people who are not willing to let you live your life before God as you believe He is leading you.  They have all the issues buttoned down and have cast-iron opinions about all of them.  These people only know black and white.  There are no gray areas to them.
 
    They insist you live your Christian life according to their rules and their opinions.  If you insist on being free to live as God wants you to live, they will try to intimidate you and manipulate you one way or another.  Their primary weapons are "guilt trips," rejection, or gossip.
 
    These people must be resisted.  We must not allow them to subvert the freedom we have in Christ. ...
 
    Controllers have been around a long time.  Over three hundred years ago--in 1645--the Puritan Samuel Bolton wrote these very instructive words on the issue of Christian freedom:
Let us never surrender our judgments or our consciences to be at the disposal and opinions of others, and to be subjected to the sentences and determinations of men. ...
 
    It is my exhortation therefore to all Christians to maintain their Christian freedom by constant watchfulness.  You must not be tempted or threatened out of it; you must not be bribed or frightened from it; you must not let either force or fraud rob you of it. ...  We must not give up ourselves to the opinion of other men, though they be never so learned, never so holy, merely because it is their opinion.  The apostle directs us to try all things and to hold fast that which is good (I Thess. 5.21).  It often happens that a high esteem of others in repsect of their learning and piety makes men take up all upon trust from such, and to submit their judgments to their opinions, and their consciences to their precepts.  This should not be so.
    Years ago someone said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  That is just as true in the spiritual as in the political realm.  Freedom and grace are two sides of the same coin.  We cannot enjoy one without the other.  If we are to truly live by grace, we must stand firm in the freedom that is ours in Christ Jesus.
 
[Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace: Living Confidently in God's Unfailing Love, (Colorado Springs, CO, USA: NavPress, 1991), pp. 130-131.] 

    What more can be said?  Only that, whether authoritarianism is based on doctrine or personality, it has no place in the Christian church.


 
The Characteristics
of Spiritual Abuse:
 

Manipulation
Authoritarianism
Elitism 
Spiritual Intimidation 
Legalism
Denunciation of Outsiders 
Excessive Discipline 
Coercive Confession
Painful Exit Process

Copyright © 1997 REST ministries, All Rights Reserved.

Comments?  Questions?
Our email address is restministries@geocities.com.

 

 This page hosted by  .

Get your own  Free Home Page.

    Many Christians have replaced the Biblical teaching on spiritual authority with the unbiblical teaching that God sends orders to His people through a human "chain-of-command."  Perhaps your life has been damaged by this teaching.  You can be assured of two things: it did not come from the Bible, and you do not have to live under it anymore. 

    Other Christians have simply bowed in submission to a strong, dominating personality.  Perhaps you are one such person.  If so, your are living out a denial of a central teaching of the Bible: freedom in Christ.  You need to stop right away if you are to experience all of the grace that God has for you. 

[Back to Perspectives on Authoritarianism Menu]
 
 


1 1