Of Sheep and Wolves

My experience is my experience. You can take it or leave it, but it did happen to me personally. I watched it happen to others before my experience, and I'm watching it happen to good people after, as well.

What am I talking about?

Spiritual abuse.

This issue is usually tied with negative cult groups. Consider the following explanation from wiki:

Spiritual abuse is a serious form of abuse which occurs when a person in a cult-religious authority or a person with a unique spiritual practice misleads and maltreats another person in the name of a deity or church or in the mystery of any spiritual concept. Spiritual abuse often refers to an abuser using spiritual or cult-religious rank in taking advantage of the victim's spirituality (mentality and passion on spiritual matters) by putting the victim in a state of unquestioning obedience to an abusive authority. Spiritual abuse refers to the use of spiritual knowledge to deprive, torture, degrade, isolate, control, or even kill others. It is used by evil minded spiritualists, sometimes, including cult-religious leaders to gain advantage or exercise control over others. Being an 'action of man', in worst case scenarios, spiritual abuse can otherwise be called 'spiritual terrorism'.

Spiritual abuse is the maltreatment of a person in the name of a god, deity, faith, cult-religion, or church, whether habitual or not, and includes any of the following:

Psychological and emotional abuse

Physical abuse that includes physical injury, deprivation of sustenance

Sexual abuse

Any act by deeds or words that demean, humiliate or shame the natural worth and dignity of a person as a human being

Submission to spiritual authority without any right to disagree; intimidation

Unreasonable control of a person's basic right to make a choice on spiritual matters

False accusation and repeated criticism by negatively labeling a person as disobedient, rebellious, lacking faith, demonized, apostate, enemy of the church or a deity

Prevention from practicing faith or Spiritualism

Isolation or separation from family and friends due to cult-religious or Spiritual affiliation

Exclusivity; dismissal of an outsider's criticism and labeling an outsider as an imaginary demon or devil

Withholding information and giving of information only to a selected few

Conformity to a dangerous or unnatural cult-religious view and practice

Hostility that includes shunning, (relational aggression, parental alienation) and persecution

Despite the comparative frequency of spiritual abuse, those types of behaviour and actions which are today classified as spiritual abuse can be seen to be prohibited in the major texts and scriptures of numerous cult-religious traditions. Indeed, in the Christian Bible, spiritually abusive behaviour is condemned as being one of the worst forms of sin due to its capacity to diminish or even to destroy an individual's relationship with a deity or a god.

Pretty serious, isn't it? As I look at this issue, and not only my own experience but those of others, as well, I see spiritual abuse happening in varying degrees. One doesn't have to be in a 'cult' to be abused spiritually. Even in mainline congregations, both large and small, this type of thing happens. I am not talking about folks simply getting their feelings hurt and leaving the congregation. I'm talking about good people submitting themselves under leadership with the best of intentions, attempting to fulfill the Scriptural edicts, and finding themselves in a situation of being taken advantage of, being bullied, having their character maligned and even being cut-off/isolated from worship and fellowship, both within and outside the congregation. Spiritual death.

I have observed in myself and others the result of this abuse. Feelings of betrayal, rejection, hurt, extreme stress and depression can lead to physical manifestations of deep emotional scarring. Depending upon the duration of the situation, effects can be even more damaging and long-term; fear of relationship and commitment, reluctance to participate in social situations, and clinical depression. But I think the worst result of spiritual abuse is a complete and total realization that all religion is simply the traditions of man and an unacceptable representation of the Holy One. It is most unfortunate that the children who witness abusive and manipulative behavior by leadership towards their parents come to that conclusion and reject a relationship with G-d altogether.

In my own experience, I didn't even realize it was happening to me; I simply felt astonishment and disbelief at the behavior of my religious leaders. These leaders, for the most part, were held in high regard for their wisdom, knowledge, and teaching skills. I even considered them my friends...good friends. As it came to pass, I watched person after person being targeted, mocked, and shunned, never thinking it would happen to me. Disagreeing with leadership, on any level, was not allowed. Ever changing definitions of pivotal sins, such as gossip and rebellion, caused confusion and further reliance on leadership for direction in any given situation. Biblical teaching was interlaced with manipulations and personal agendas, as well, targeting individuals (most especially those that had left or had been cut-off) in veiled language inflicting further pain and gently (and sometimes not so gently) encouraging the congregation to do the same. Increasingly legalistic accepted (expected) behavior, excluded even more, as it demanded conformity to the standards set by leadership and/or those regarded as pious in the congregation - all in the name of following Scripture. Amazingly, (in my case), these leaders desired diminishing numbers, weeding out the people they didn't like or don't 'fit' into their elite group. Sounds like junior high, but spiritual abuse goes beyond immaturity when people's lives are turned upside-down, families are torn apart and faith in G-d and 'His church' is shaken severely. That is, most certainly, an abuse of the position of religious leader.

This type of abuse is especially egregious - a deceptive set-up - because anyone choosing to attend a faith-based congregation comes with certain expectations of the leaders and people there, and rightly so. It is not out of the ordinary to expect leaders (especially) and others in the congregation (to a somewhat lesser degree) to be polite, kind, and loving, desiring to live a life devoted to their G-d by the standards set in the Bible. When those expectations aren't met, it leads to a growing distrust of religion and those who attend. People are not perfect, and certainly no one expects perfection. However, the problem of spiritual abuse and hypocrisy is far more (and deeper) than the normal push-and-pull of relationship.

David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse describe the action: "It's possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or doesn't 'behave' spiritually the way you want them to. When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a person's standing as a Christian- to gratify you, your position or your beliefs while at the same time weakening or harming another- that is spiritual abuse."

It is often referred to as a 'bad religious experience'. So many have had one - just start asking around and you'll see. I'm not into 'church-bashing', but it is a sad situation when you consider the greatest command for a believer is to love G-d and love your neighbor as yourself. If they are truly living by that command, then there must be a lot of people who want to be judged, have their character assassinated or want to be the subject of gossip.

"I have been abused by the church, been asked to leave a church, and then have listened to Pastors say that there are only 2 reasons people leave a church - 1. To build a church and 2. Because of pride. I've also heard pastors say that to leave a church or to go to another church is "committing spiritual adultery". That too, is so wrong ~ and un-Biblical." ~Janet W., victim

 

Personally, I have often heard it said that those that leave the congregation are in rebellion, most certainly against leadership, and even against G-d Himself. And, if they are in rebellion, the best thing to do is to cut them off completely, so they feel the isolation and grief of being apart from their friends and fellow believers in the community. That line of teaching, along with overt mocking of those that just drift away, will definitely cement in the minds of listeners a desire to never leave the community, that's for sure.

Hand in hand with spiritual abuse goes judgment. Severe judgment, by either leadership or fellow believers, is something that simply shouldn't be acceptable or allowed in faithful congregations or religious communities. Somehow, we move from humble confession and acceptance of salvation, to what we define as righteous living, to looking around to make sure everyone else is doing it right in our eyes. (And, don't even get me started on hypocrisy...) It's no wonder the world-at-large has such a poor opinion of the religious, truly.

So, is there any way one can avoid this type of abuse and harsh judgment and still stand in a congregation of worshiping believers? Unfortunately, I have no answer - I'm kind of cynical about it at this point, honestly. I do know this; if we turn our heads and allow abuse to continue, pretend it never happens, or excuse it because of our own personal needs or wants, we may later find ourselves the victim of such abuse.

So many have been hurt. So many have left religious fellowship never to return. Opting for a very personal relationship with G-d, studying on their own or even just trying to be a righteous person and love their neighbor, is so much safer than opening up to judgment, betrayal, harassment - abuse - in such a public arena.

I can't say I blame them.

 

March 2012

 

Implicit Personality Theory

L. J. Cronbach is the social psychologist who first described, and labeled implicit personality theory, maintained that when individuals perceive traits in others, they make assumptions that other (possibly related) traits are also present. These assumptions can often be overestimated. For example, it may be assumed that because a person demonstrates a sense of humor that they are also intelligent. This pattern of assumptions may be an accurate or distorted portrayal of reality that is overemphasized (Dunning, 2007).

Implicit personality theory, or assuming certain personality traits naturally co-occur with other traits, can take the form of the halo effect. The halo effect is the tendency to attribute many positive traits to an individual who has shown but a few (Dunning, 2007). An example would be a child who displays courteous manners in the classroom might be assumed to be kind, artistic, or even gifted. Another aspect of implicit personality theory is the tendency to attribute personality characteristics due to appearance (2007); for example, an overweight individual may be assumed to be lazy, unintelligent, or lacking self-control.

Impression Management

How we are perceived and evaluated by others is important to our reputation in society (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). If being perceived as physically attractive may lead to assumptions of intelligence and professionalism, then it is beneficial to manage the impression given. The tendency to attribute personality characteristics due to assumptions or appearance (implicit personality theory) motivates impression management – the effort to control or manipulate how others perceive us. Impression management, also called self-presentation, is our effort to not only create a good first impression, but to control and maintain how we are known. This happens two-fold: 1) by monitoring the impressions we give others, and 2) altering behavior to accomplish the impression or perception desired (1990). Interestingly, it seems that most do not pay mindful attention to their patterns of self-presentation because they are “overlearned, habitual, and unconscious,” but may still be quick to intuit negative social appraisals of others (1990, p. 37). However, if an individual’s profession demands careful attention to self-promotion - such as a celebrity, one held up as a role model (like an athlete), or a political leader – purposeful impression management (or the lack thereof) may determine success or failure.

Case Example: Elizabeth I

An example of purposeful impression management can be found in Elizabeth I, Queen of England from 1558 – 1603 CE (Ellis, 2020). Despite keeping both officials and commoners in suspense as to her choice of marriage partner, she ultimately developed a longstanding mythology as the ‘virgin queen’ that would endure long after her death (King, 1990). According to William Camden, a contemporary biographer, Elizabeth solidified her intentions in a speech to the House of Commons, “And therefore it is, that I have made the choyce [sic] of this kinde [sic] of life, which is most free, and agreeable for such humane [sic] affaires [sic] as may tend to his [God’s] service … and this is that I thought, then that I was a private person … I am already bound unto a Husband, which is the Kingdome [sic] of England …” (1990, p. 33). She declared further she would have no children, but that the people of England were her children, and that she would be “a virgin pure until her Death” (1990, p. 33). While Camden’s biography may be considered hagiographical in nature, it is an indication of how the persona of the queen was managed and manifested. In reality, she entertained the possibility of marriage for the first third of her reign; however, by the time she aged beyond childbearing years, the image of a virgin queen wedded to her nation was well established (1990).  

Scholars agree that Elizabeth crafted and moved the political narrative about herself through language and imagery (King, 1990). During her reign, Elizabeth needed to demonstrate power in a patriarchal context. She fashioned herself, through physical presentation and iconography, as a queen who sacrificed her personal desires and needs to serve her people. Portraits of a perpetual youthful maiden, forever pure and virginal, translated into a paradoxical symbol of power in the context of masculine dominance (King, 1990). Elizabeth’s virginal imagery was easily relatable to that of the biblical Mary, the mother of Jesus. This granted the impression of a Mary-figure for the newly established state religion of Protestantism, spawned Gloriana cults, and endowed Elizabeth with the characteristics of youthfulness, humility, and motherhood (an example of implicit personality theory) while encouraging honor and veneration of her power and authority (1990). Further, Elizabeth communicated strongly through speeches and poetry, that she was “remote, unattainable, chaste, but above all, as authoritative and superior” (Seber, 2014), reflecting attributes of the biblical Mary. I suspect she actively managed her image to maintain power against male pressure (as a female she would have had to submit to the authority of a husband, therefore losing her position an authoritative queen), from both her own country and others, as well as stall for time while fortifying her image as unshakable. The two modes of communication - visual imagery and formal speech/poetic writing – used the assumptions of attributes (implicit personality theory) along with careful speech and presentation to create the necessary impression of a beloved but powerful monarch.

Social Change and Welfare

The implication of impression management to social change (and/or welfare) is that an individual may not be fully authentic in their presentation of their intentions; people may be persuaded based upon a false or misleading impression or assumption of personality traits. For example, celebrities, such as the actor George Clooney, engage in philanthropic, diplomatic endeavors. He has been a United Nations Messenger of Peace, raising awareness about the genocide occurring in the Sudan and South Sudan. Despite criticism of celebrity advocacy for awareness of human rights atrocities in foreign countries (Kogen, 2015), his actions and choices of interviews have demonstrated implicit personality theory and his impression management strategy – he is a successful and popular actor, therefore it could be assumed that he is knowledgeable about global politics and can possibly suggest answers to pressing problems (even though he has no education, training, or political experience in global diplomacy; 2015). This could be interpreted as the halo effect, where many other positive attributes are attributed to him due to his appearance, celebrity status, or financial success. But, more than that, it makes him appear as a compassionate advocate for human rights, which adds to his audience’s favorable impression of him. He may have good intentions – to raise awareness of human rights violations – however, by emphasizing the “global other” that needs the West (namely the U.S.) to save them from their own naivete, he (and others like him) may be reinforcing a harmful, potentially oppressive narrative (Kogen, 2015). But, in the end, he may be more interested in building a favorable impression with his audience than finding or facilitating solutions to dictatorial atrocities (2015).

Ultimately, to effect social change or be an advocate for social welfare, an individual’s intentions must be crystal clear. Celebrities, due to their public visibility, may provide some causes the public voice needed for widespread awareness (Kogen, 2015); however, social welfare may be better served by those who are educated and specifically trained to appropriately deal with humanitarian efforts and are not interested in using their advocacy to build or maintain their celebrity persona.

Personal Construction of an Image

Throughout this paper I have suggested that impression management – the effort to control how others perceive us – is motivated by implicit personality theory (the tendency to assume that certain traits co-occur with other traits, behaviors, or appearances). I, too, have attempted to manage the impression I give to others. Specifically, I carefully construct online discussion posts and responses, knowing that what I post and submit is the only chance I get to influence the perception or impression of me. I am careful to edit for spelling and grammatical errors because I know those typos can degrade the impression I present (another example of implicit personality theory: typos may be assumed to be a lack of intelligence or writing ability). I edit content so posts are as concise and easy to read as possible, while still trying to meet all the requirements of the assignment. The downside to this is that I can come across as rather formal and stuffy. I sometimes loosen up and use more casual language, which I hope sounds more ‘warm and friendly,’ but I do not use this strategy until I feel more comfortable with the group, and most certainly not in the introduction nor first few weeks of the course. Perhaps I am fearful that I will not be taken seriously.

In a study of impression management and online graduate students, researchers found that 52 percent of students used self-promotion as a strategy in discussion posts, followed by exemplification, where students go beyond expectations to demonstrate commitment to studies (Crandall & Cunningham, 2017). Other strategies included ingratiation (to appear likable) and supplication (expressing vulnerability or neediness), which was used the least. I found it noteworthy that the findings were consistent for both first time graduate students and those who were well into their program of study (2017). Personally, I tend to use the self-promotion strategy less-so than the exemplification strategy – it is my belief that my work will speak louder than anything I can say about my previous accomplishments. And further, it feels very awkward to ‘toot my own horn,’ so to speak.

In my previous program, students were required to complete online courses and a few hybrid courses. We attended a week-long residency at the university to meet face-to-face and participate in lectures and workshops. It was amazing to meet my fellow classmates that I only knew through their online posts and responses. I was surprised to hear that the impression some of my classmates reported was that I seemed rather ‘intimidating,’ but they were careful to say that I was not intimidating in person. I have thought about that quite a lot, but since my main mode of ‘survival’ is exemplification, I am still at a loss as to how to present myself differently, especially online. Frankly, I do not feel very accomplished, certainly not at the level of Elizabeth I or George Clooney, at managing the impression I give to others.

 

 

References

Crandall, H., & Cunningham, C. (2017). Performing graduate student: Impression management in online discussion forums. The Northwest Journal of Communication, 45(1), 53-73. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=128619879&site=eds-live&scope=site

Dunning, D. (2007). Implicit personality theory. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs’ (Eds.) Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 466-467). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=dc893439-bf64-404a-8767-0503b707ddb2%40sessionmgr4006&ppid=pp_466&vid=0&format=EB

Ellis, R. P. (2020). Elizabeth I. Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=88367412&site=eds-live&scope=site  

King, J. N. (1990). Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the virgin queen. Renaissance Quarterly, 43(1), 30-74. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/stable/2861792?seq=16#metadata_info_tab_contents

Kogen, L. (2015). For the public good or just good publicity? Celebrity diplomacy and the ethics of representation. Mass Communication and Society, 18(1), 37-57. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=100696752&site=eds-live&scope=site

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-37. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1990-12233-001&site=eds-live&scope=site

Seber, H. (2014). Queen Elizabeth I’s self-representation through the Petrarchan convention. Journal of Faculty of Letters, 31(1), 227-238. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=95509765&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

 December 2020