Resource Hub

---

(Click on the picture to return to book hub.)

Highly recommended book describing spiritual abuse, how it happens, and how to handle it, with words for the abused and the abuser. Read this book first.

From the back cover:

"No one should leave church feeling manipulated, controlled, shamed, or condemned. But places of shelter and encouragement can become abusive if spiritual leaders begin to use their authority to meet their needs for importance, power, or spiritual gratification. here you'll discover how to identify an abusive church and how to break free from its destructive legalism.

See the section above Immediate Help for helpful points taken from the book.

Cubicles of Charm and Crucibles of Condemnation

https://wademullen.xyz/2019/01/11/cubicles-of-charm-and-crucibles-of-condemnation/ 

The spiritually abusive organization becomes like a machine that views its people as objects to be separated into cubicles of charm or crucibles of condemnation based upon their willingness to unconditionally comply with the demands of the organization.

Filling the cubicles of charm are flattering messages, favors, and grandiose statements that tell supporters they are models for others, special, the greatest group to lead, and the reason for the organization’s success. Such messages are accepted, enjoyed, and returned without much regard for truth.

In the spiritually abusive organization, excessive charm quickly becomes excessive condemnation the moment loyalty is betrayed. Any non-supporters are quickly moved to crucibles of condemnation where the heat is turned up until the opposition is melted down.

Smelting metal in a metallurgical plant. Liquid iron from metal ladle pouring in castings at factory

This condemnation almost always happens in isolation behind closed doors where the organization is able to take greater risks. Those in the cubicles will quickly dismiss any reports of abuse because they have only known their climate of charm.

What the organization fails to understand is that the crucible of condemnation will eventually produce something new to them: people they can no longer charm, intimidate, or silence. People who know the truth and are compelled to make it known to others out of concern for the abused.

As the threat of losing support increases, so too does the spiritual abuse. The messages of charm sent to the cubicles will now include warnings of participating in gossip, reminders of their commitments, requests for patience and understanding, and reasons they need not be alarmed.

They will then misuse the Bible by boosting teachings on love, grace, forgiveness, and mercy while burying teachings on truth, justice, light, and accountability. Those in the cubicles are judged as either faithful or faithless on the basis of their obedience to these teachings.

Their manipulation becomes more devious as they boast in their connection to God and His Kingdom, establishing themselves as agents of God under spiritual attack from those who have emerged from the crucible and now want to derail their ministry.

Those dissenters are no longer just viewed as non-supporters. They are no longer just seen as opponents of the organization. They are now made to appear as the very enemies of God launching a coordinated attack against the kingdom. Those in the cubicles of charm are implicitly made to believe that siding with the opposition is a choice to be God’s enemy and siding with the organization is a choice to be God’s friend.

Disguised as angels of light, those who have harmed God’s people in crucibles of condemnation establish themselves as friends of God, and those who are seeking to stop the harm to God’s people are established as enemies of God.

They can maintain control if they convince people of this lie. But if they fail, the weight of the truth will eventually cause the machine to break down, the cubicles will collapse, the crucibles will be revealed, and the organization will lose its power to charm and condemn.

12 Walls That Prevent Abuse Survivors From Ever Telling

https://wademullen.xyz/2019/03/17/12-motivations/

People can be quick to question the motivations of abuse survivors who choose to tell their story. Why now? Is it for revenge? Money? Attention? Questions like these come quickly and easily in a culture that has long demonstrated a tendency to shun such stories. These questions divert attention away from what I believe is a more reasonable  consideration: the number of motivations that exist for never telling. Here are 12 walls that I’ve observed in my own work and research that prevent abuse survivors from ever telling their story. Creating a safer future requires removing the many barriers that should have never been built to begin with.

1. A major reason for remaining silent is the understandable belief that the credibility of the truth-teller will be called into question. If the story threatens the identity, power, or position of a well-known and loved individual, then many might immediately seek to discredit the story to protect the more powerful individual.

2. Some might feel they have a moral responsibility to remain loyal or submissive. Religious communities sometimes inculcate such virtues into followers, without exceptions, conditioning them to believe that to remain silent is to be a good follower. Revealing information about an abusive person or organization will likely cause others within those communities to blame the truth-teller for betraying virtues like loyalty and submission. Truth-tellers are then manipulated into feeling their decision to speak out brought undeserved and needless harm to another.

3. Survivors are often very close to their abuser. The abuser might be a family member, boss, friend, or co-worker. Therefore, survivors have a natural concern for the well-being of the abuser or the tight-knit group of family, friends, or co-workers and might feel a need to protect. They also know many close to the abuser might suggest they lack compassion, mercy, forgiveness, or love for exposing “the family.”

4. In contexts where the accused is considered an important contributor to a religious belief system or cause, truth-tellers might be condemned for bringing public shame upon the spiritual community. Truth is sacrificed at the altar of reputation by those who practice their righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. These self-righteous communities will condemn any who might be seen as giving reasons for outsiders to look upon the people and their beliefs with suspicion.

5. Fear of being blamed for the abuse can easily outweigh any motivation to tell. Tragically, many survivors have been made to believe their abuse was self-inflicted or deserved, either through their attire, attractiveness, assertive personality, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

6. Telling a story of abuse requires tremendous courage and vulnerability because it is impossible to know how others will respond. Some respond by simply distancing themselves because they lack the emotional maturity needed to hear ugly truths or be present with someone with an abuse story. Their silence can be unspeakably painful.

I will add a note here: I’m not suggesting telling is a mark or test of courage. Choosing to never tell does not make one less courageous. 

7. If the abuse took place years ago, survivors might believe they will be accused for not coming forward sooner. When people ask, “Why did it take so long for this to be told?” they are suggesting the survivor is at fault for not reporting the abuse.

8. Survivors often suffer relational loss after their story is made known. Friends and family may abandon them over what they perceive as a betrayal, especially if they are hearing other narratives being spread by the accused. In some cases, survivors have had to relocate to another school, church, or community to escape harassment.

9. Survivors are sometimes threatened with defamation lawsuits after they go public with their story. Some have even been told that they will be “destroyed” if they blow the whistle. For good reasons then, survivors fear losing their jobs, facing legal expenses, and ruining future job opportunities.

10. Survivors risk losing their reputation if they go public, especially if the accused is a powerful individual. The abuser can easily use that power to spread a narrative in which the truth-teller is made to appear vindictive, selfish, confused, mentally ill, bitter, or in need of attention.

11. In some cases, survivors are intimidated with threats against their safety. The fear of retaliation is a strong (and sometimes necessary) deterrent to exposing the abuser. Survivors who are trying to tell their story of abuse might know that great effort will have to go into creating a safety plan and having a support system in place if they ever decide to tell.

12. Some survivors face condemnation for not following procedures designed to keep matters internal. People ask, “Why did they have to go public?” Few, in my experience, understand the many unsuccessful attempts survivors often make to appeal to those who have the authority to do something. Many who decide to go public only do so after all other appeals have failed.

Any one of these barriers can cause a great deal of stress. Usually there are multiple motivations that exist for never telling. This also produces despair. Survivors begin believing that telling others will never accomplish anything because the barriers are too many and too great. I believe many have retracted their story upon meeting these powerful silencing influences.

It is no wonder then that false accusations are rare. Choosing to expose an abuser, especially one with power, carries great risk. Nevertheless, we tend to be quick to question the motivations of survivors who tell and we are not so quick to consider the many strong motivations that exist for never telling.

What I’ve Observed When Institutions Try to Apologize and How They Can Do Better

https://wademullen.xyz/2019/07/19/institutional-apologies/

Too often the words “We are sorry” are casually offered and easily accepted as if they possess a supernatural power to resolve every grievance and heal any wound. Yet, in my experience working with abuses in organizations, this short statement, offered as a bridge of reconciliation, is often surrounded by other messages that serve a very different purpose. Above, underneath, and all around this single bridge are numerous walls of defense. These walls are established to repel the shame that threatens from without and to protect the legitimacy hoarded within, ensuring that the bridge of apology allows no shame to enter and no legitimacy to exit.

Sadly, the institution in the wrong might ask their victims to carry their shame so they can retain legitimacy in the eyes of their followers, unwilling to fully acknowledge that the shameful behavior belongs to them and the legitimacy belongs to the ones speaking the truth about their behavior.

Why are authentic apologies so feared? Perhaps because the shame would expose their illegitimacy, and they would lose what is no longer their right to have: following, influence, power, status, (and what is often most important to them): money. And so they fearfully run from public shame, like thieves anxiously running down the street with bags of money clutched over their shoulders, knowing the fabric of those bags are tearing apart and their money might soon be scattered by the wind.

The simple truth is that many organizations will not apologize as they ought because their leaders fear being seen as unqualified (an identity crisis), and because they fear costly lawsuits or loss of a following (a monetary crisis). Out of that fear emerges the following non-apologies.

The apology that condemns.

The apology offered in anger or frustration will often condemn the other person. The classic example of this is the apology that says, “I’m sorry you feel that way.” This is not an apology, but a condemnation. It is a subtle suggestion that the other person’s feelings are not based in reality. The apologizer is unwilling to concede he/she did anything wrong and instead argues that the fault lies in the person who is feeling wrong. People who condemn the person they are saying “I’m sorry” to likely believe they are being misrepresented and are being forced into an apology.

The apology that appeases.

There are times when a person apologizes simply to appease the demands of others. They determine an apology will be in their best interest because it will disarm a threat. For example, a subordinate might apologize simply because an authority figure is requiring it. When organizations and their leaders apologize in this manner, it is often after an outcry from their constituents or receiving pressure from external forces. An institutional apology that appeases might have the same effect as waving a white flag in hopes that an approaching enemy will stop firing. It is self-protective and leads to zero change because it is not an attempt to do all that is necessary to right wrongs, but an attempt to offer only what is needed to quell the outcry.

The apology that excuses.

I call the apology that becomes an excuse an “apoloscuse.” The apologizer knows an apology is needed, but fears the consequences, and so attaches excuses. Excuses can take various forms, but here are some of the most common.

“It was never our intention to . . .” This is perhaps the most common excuse and is typically driven by a desire to reduce penalty knowing people tend to excuse innocent mistakes. Words like “mistake, blunder, and mishap” are used when the institution is seeking to deny ill-intent.

“Mistakes were made . . .” In its most basic form, and perhaps most subtle, this excuse removes an actor from the language of the apology. “Mistakes were made” becomes a passive and weak substitute for the more forceful, “I or We . . .” The institution might also shift ownership to someone else by suggesting another is partly to blame, or shift ownership off of themselves by highlighting reasons why it would be unreasonable to hold them fully responsible (“This was before the current leadership” or “The wrong did not occur on our property” or “The wrongdoer was just a volunteer.”) Each of these deny some ownership.

“This is not in accordance with our values . . .” Apologies often include attempts to dissociate the behavior from the apologizer’s typical conduct. For example, institutions have defended their exposed by leader by drawing attention to how he/she was under stress, medicated, or impaired in some way and could not function normally.

“Had we known then what we know now we would have made a different decision.” This excuse denies foresight. Often the organization or leader claiming they didn’t have any knowledge of the harm fails to acknowledge whether or not they should have known or had opportunity to know but chose to look the other way.

“It was outside of our control.” The organization or its leaders could claim that they did not have the authority to prevent injury to another, or that they were acting under the direction of another authority. Organizations sometimes use this excuse to argue why certain injuries were outside of their ability to prevent.

The apology that justifies.

Sometimes the wrong behavior is clearly exposed and undeniable. If that is the case, then the institution might attempt to justify the behavior. There is a fine line between excuses and justifications as both serve a similar purpose, but one way to distinguish them is to think of excuses as attempts to shape your perception of the wrongdoer while justifications are attempts to shape your perception of the wrongs. Some common examples of justification include:

“The wounded are complicit.” This is one of the most egregious and damaging attempts at justification. I’ve seen numerous ways in which this particular type of justification has been used by individuals in organizations receiving complaints from injured individuals, including, “You should have known to not be alone with him,” or “Why didn’t you come forward sooner,” or “You were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” or “You aren’t an innocent party either,” or “You didn’t resist.” These painful lies only serve to justify the injury.

“No real harm was done.” The gravity of trauma caused by institutional abuse is often minimized by uninformed or callous individuals who do not see “what the big deal is.” They might even argue that both the injured and the organization will be be made stronger by the adversity, thereby asking people to view the abuse in a positive light.

The apology that self-promotes.

Even if an organization is willing to bear the shame of their wrong without excuses or justifications, they often cannot finish the apology without laying claim to their legitimacy. Many public statements of apology put out by organizations or leaders quickly become pitches for why they are still worthy of continued support and engagement from their followers. A statement of apology should never double as a medal. For example, it is my opinion that an institutional apology should not include assurances that the institution and their leaders are on the same side as the victims, especially if the actions of the institution have demonstrated the opposite. The victims should be the ones to decide whether or not the organization is “on their side,” and be given the space necessary for that change to be demonstrated.

The apology that asks for sympathy.

“We’re hurting too.” I’m amazed at how often the ones who have caused the wrong will displace the pain of the wounded with the pain of the wounder. Such messages cause the recipients to misplace compassion and reveals an inability on the part of organizational leaders to get outside of themselves.

An Apology S.C.O.R.E. Card

If the institution has the moral courage to give an authentic apology, then this S.C.O.R.E. card might provide a helpful test. It is in no way comprehensive. Relationships are complex. We can’t create blueprints that tell us precisely what to do and how to do it. Relationships don’t work that way, and neither do the apologies that are inevitably needed within them. They are acts that ought to be highly contextualized to meet the needs of the situation.

Surrender. The hardest step in the process of apologizing is to give up your desire to defend yourself using any of the non-apologies I mentioned. You have to surrender your legitimacy and exchange it for what will undoubtedly feel like shame. When I analyze statements of institutional apologies, I often observe what remains when every blame, excuse, justification, and self-promotion is crossed out. Sometime’s nothing remains. Most times, one or two sentences of acknowledgement and remorse are all that is left. Many are just not willing to surrender their defenses and promotions.

Confession. Surrender paves the way for a confession. I believe each wrong must be rightly named. “We were wrong when . . .” A good confession serves as a mirror that reflects back to the wounded all the actions that produced hurt, a mirror that too often victims have to hold up for the organization. In fact, it sometimes needs to become more than just a mirror that reflects what is known to be wrong, but a spotlight that acknowledges both known and unknown wrongs. When confronted or exposed, surrendered people are more likely to voice a number of confessions that match or exceed the number of truths presented in the exposure.

Ownership. The organization in the wrong must acknowledge their active role. Passive apologies like, “mistakes were made,” seek to avoid shame by avoiding ownership. Therefore, the institution should take ownership by saying something like, “We take complete and full responsibility for . . .” Another way an organization demonstrates ownership is by inviting penalty. For example, a person who commits a crime might turn themselves into the police as if to say, “I am willing to accept any and all consequences.” Similarly, an organization’s board or leadership will often make necessary changes in leadership once they “own up.”

Recognition. Out of ownership should flow recognition. Just as specific wrongs were named, specific harms should also be identified. “We recognize that our actions resulted in . . .” If confession and ownership says, “We acknowledge the illegitimacy of our actions,” recognition says, “And we will take upon ourselves all the shame that our actions produced.”

All the walls of defense are now removed and the wrongs of the organization are laid bare. The wounded and their wounds are faced and no longer shunned. Remaining is a solitary bridge across which the organization must walk to meet the wounded and with vulnerability say, in effect, “We will claim the shame we’ve asked you to carry but was always ours to begin with, and we will surrender the legitimacy we tried to claim but was always yours to begin with.”

Empathy. It is at this point that the organization has finally absorbed the truth of their wrongdoing and the gravity of their wrongs. They feel the weight of the hurt and the shame, and know they are defenseless, at the mercy of others, and must begin the difficult work of restitution and restoration. They feel it. And out of that broken place of surrender, confession, ownership, recognition, and empathy might emerge the words, “We are so sorry.”

Truth Telling - Dec 27, 2018

 https://twitter.com/wademullen/status/1078478499197997062 

Truth-telling is a difficult high road that sometimes requires confronting deceptive and abusive people who have taken the easy low road of truth-repelling.  

One of the tactics used by deceptive people or organizations when exposed is to turn that landscape upside-down.  

1/4 

This rotating of the map gives others the impression that the abusive person or organization has taken the difficult high road of:  

• pursuing peace 
• inviting reconciliation  
• maintaining confidentiality 
• letting go of the past 
• demonstrating love and 
• promoting unity  

2/4 

This rotating of the map simultaneously gives the impression that those speaking truth about abuses have taken the easy low road of:

• pursuing revenge 
• rejecting reconciliation  
• spreading gossip 
• harboring bitterness 
• demonstrating hate and 
• promoting division  

3/4 

The truth-tellers must keep their footing while the abusers spin the map or else they can lose sight of the distinguishing factor:  

• Truth  

Those on the high road will consistently invite the discovery of truth while those on the low road will consistently repel investigation.  

4/4 

Wade Mullen (@wad3mullen)  9/13/2019

If an organization won’t adequately address past or present abusive behavior when people have been victimized, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, how can it be trusted to confront abusive behavior in the future?

Diane Langberg, PhD (@DianeLangberg) 9/13/19

Unhealthy systems want to kill the one who is pointing out the cancer rather than killing the cancer.

Dr. Henry Cloud (@DrHenryCloud) 7/22/19

When people in the church resort to spiritual abuse, it's one of the worst things that can happen. The church is suppose to be a space where we're producing life, and abuse destroys that life.  https://www.boundaries.me/spiritual-abuse-preview