One Christmas Eve, while our kids were still living at home, we watched The Sixth Sense. Weird holiday movie choice, I know. Our tradition (before the kids were teenagers) was to go to church, proceed to dinner with my folks to celebrate their December 24^th anniversary, then come home and watch Holiday Inn.

I’m sure I’ve written this before but Holiday Inn is a far superior holiday movie than White Christmas. On a broad level it’s better because it’s the original movie that introduced the song, White Christmas. On a personal level it’s better because it inspired my lifelong dream to own and operate an Inn.

I should mention my husband opposes my dream. He isn’t hoping to work MORE in retirement. But we did recently purchase a sprawling white farmhouse so, unbeknownst to him, I consider us well on our way to dream fruition.

I digress. As I so often do.

Anyway. The year we watched The Sixth Sense we had purchased a big screen TV for our family Christmas present. We unveiled it Christmas Eve. However, our three teenagers were no longer enamored with Holiday Inn (were they ever?), so we had to find an alternative movie they’d enjoy. We decided to go with Bruce Willis. If you think The Sixth Sense for Christmas Eve was weird it was even stranger the following Christmas when we stuck with a Bruce Willis theme and watched Die Hard.

By now you must be asking where I’m going with this. Storytelling Lesson 101; Ann Maree believes detail-oriented storytelling is a good thing. Moving along…

So we watched The Sixth Sense and, because I was actively involved in seeker sensitive church planning at the time, I paid attention to the “deeper meaning” of the plotline. One never knows when a movie (other than Princess Bride or Lord of the Rings) might be useful as a sermon illustration. I considered The Sixth Sense far more than just a ghost story. I felt it had several underlying themes and, in particular, that the main character played by Haley Joel Osment (Cole) struggled to see that his bizarre insight into seeing dead people was really a gift.

I think I can relate.

Not that I see dead people.

But I have been thinking a lot lately about my “gift” of constantly seeing gender issues get in the way of caring well for women in Christian organizations. I’ve begun to wonder what I’d rather spend time thinking about should gender not constantly be an issue in my world.

Finally. We’ve arrived at the purpose for this article.

A few weeks ago Kaitlyn Schiess, an extremely insightful and wise young woman, wrote a sort of response to Southern Baptist Seminary President Al Mohler’s ludicrous proposition that the Southern Baptist Convention formally reject all forms of titles that might refer to a female as a leader, pastor, deacon, whatever and also prohibit women of any specific office including elder or overseer. His point was, no women in leadership. Period. Kaitlyn first commented on the proposed amendment in her Substack notes,

She then went on to write an entire article, expanding on that same idea. Among other things she wrote,

Holy Post Media

Drafted Into the Church’s Gender War

I’ve been in theological education for ten years. I spent five years earning my master’s degree in theology, and I’ve been working on my doctorate for five more. (Yes, this is an absurdly long amount of time to be a student. Yes, my parents are worried I’ll be in school forever…

Read more

2 months ago · 418 likes · 119 comments · Holy Post Media and Kaitlyn Schiess

Ever since I read those two pieces I’ve found myself unable to write anything. I’ve been frozen. You see, the only thing I’ve been writing about for the past dozen or so years is gender or gender specific topics. I’ve not thought about writing anything else. I do remember a couple papers I’d written early on in seminary that had nothing to do with gender specific issues. But somewhere around the beginning of my second year in school, all my papers had that one general focus.

Gender.

Never did it enter my mind that I could research, investigate, and pontificate about another subject. I was unaware that I had the option. That I had a choice. And now my mind can’t even dream up anything different.

I’m actively seeking the Lord for how he would have me think about stewarding my gifts—both my education and my experience—through these golden years. I’ve learned in the most recent past that Satan would love nothing more than for me to be silent. So, I keep processing through why I believe discussions regarding gender are so important for what I do. And I’ll likely keep writing about it too. But I’m open to suggestions...what are some topics you’d want to know more about? I’ve opened up the comment section, let me know!

At Help[H]er, Safe to Hope is more than a podcast. It’s one of our most important tools for extending trauma-specialized education, advocacy, and hope to women harmed in the church and to those seeking to serve them well.

This season’s topic, Is It Spiritual Abuse?, is such a significant discussion. Consider what Ann Maree wrote in the premiere Substack article on Feb. 10, 2026, Am I Some Portion of a Whole?

With no clear, agreed upon definition, nor perhaps even buy-in that SA even occurs, how does one navigate what happened to them? How do they find the language?

Using Julia Fillnow’s excellent Substack article on March 17, Who Gets to Decide? we’ve pulled together a questionnaire to help aid those who are asking the question, Is It Spiritual Abuse? We’ve also added a bonus questionnaire derived from Ezekiel 34.

Check out these latest resources and let us know what you think. We’ll be anxious to hear if you think these will help!

Click “Resources” below to access the questionnaires on the Safe to Hope podcast page.

Click below for additional Resources from the team at Help[H]er!

I’ve been thinking a lot about the title of this year’s Safe to Hope series, “Is It Spiritual Abuse?” Having done the research, and experienced SA myself, I’m now one of those people guilty of the “Curse of Knowledge.”1 I recognize the patterns in everyone’s story of “church hurt.” Also, can we just call it what it is… “name the earthquake,”2 as it were?

It’s spiritual abuse.

But I’ve also been learning more about institutional betrayal from a new friend I met at the Conference on Crimes Against Women. Rev Dr. Geneece Goertzen, adjunct professor at the Diana R. Garland School of Social Work at Baylor University writes, “When leadership hesitate to take actions to protect members, or values the institution above the individuals that depend on it, betrayal ensues.”3

Typically, when I see the terminology of institutional betrayal it’s referring to when a victim reports abuse (domestic or sexual, for example) and the entity receiving the report worsens the situation by how they respond.

Institutional betrayal is a term researcher Jennifer Freyd used to describe the additional harm that happens when institutions fail to respond appropriately to reports of abuse.4 Institutional betrayal happens on a broad scale. It occurs when the very system in which one depends to provide care simply perpetuates harm.

In our 2026 series, our storytellers experienced interpersonal spiritual abuse firsthand. What happened to them (us) wasn’t in response to a report of devastating circumstances. What happened was a purposeful demonstration of power-over someone in a lesser position, designed (intentionally or not) to dehumanize.

So, Is It Spiritual Abuse? Or Institutional Betrayal? The good news is that we have not misnamed this season’s series. It IS spiritual abuse.

Next week, as we continue this series on the Safe to Hope podcast, expert contributor Rachael Clinton Chen from the Allender Center will help us better understand these dynamics. She states, “One hundred percent it is spiritually abusive because they’re using their spiritual authority, the power that they have because of biblical authority as men in leadership, to dehumanize their sisters.”

Tune in next Tuesday (June 9). Here’s a quick “peek.”

Philosophers call it epistemic injustice.1

Researchers call it institutional betrayal.2

Survivors experience it as confusion.

Spiritual abuse is often talked about as the result of bad leaders or misuse of Scripture. Though those are components, they don’t capture the more serious dynamics people experience. The deeper problem is far more entrenched and confusing: who has the authority to define what is real. Who gets the final word on what actually happened? Whose memory stands? Which interpretation becomes the official version of events?

“Epistemic” simply refers to knowledge – how we know what we know. At a human level, it reflects the idea that as image bearers of God, people are knowers, capable of perceiving and speaking about their own experience. In a system, it raises the question, “Who gets to decide what is real?”

Epistemic power tends to lean towards whoever has the final say on what counts as “knowing” and how events are interpreted. In many abusive systems, this epistemic shift is subtle. People may still be allowed or even invited to speak, but the authority to interpret what “actually” happened shifts toward those with position.

A church member may describe a meeting where they felt pressured or belittled. Leaders listen carefully, then someone says, “What actually happened was that you were being confronted in love,” or it is suggested that their hurt feelings clouded perception.

When authority controls interpretation, it also controls the moral judgement about who is wrong, who must repent, and who belongs.

In healthy families and churches, there is space for people to know what they know, see what they see, and feel what they feel, even when it’s uncomfortable or creates tension. There’s an understanding that disagreement or difference of opinion aren’t threats but invitations to conversation and understanding.

In unhealthy systems, the opposite pattern emerges. People begin to doubt what they know, question what they see, and distrust what they feel. Phrases like: “You’re too sensitive,” “That didn’t happen the way you think,” and “Let us explain what really happened” begin to replace trust in one’s perception and memory.

When control of interpretation is backed by spiritual authority, emotional and psychological abuse take on a spiritual force and weight. If leadership controls meaning, it also controls whether harm occurred, whether someone is “misunderstanding,” whether someone is “divisive,” whether someone needs to repent, and even whether someone ultimately belongs.

Spiritual Abuse Is Not a Separate Harm

Throughout this season of the Safe to Hope podcast, you will hear our expert guests return to this point again and again: spiritual abuse is not a stand-alone category. Spiritual abuse is emotional and psychological abuse layered with spiritual authority and moral language.

So to understand spiritual abuse, we need to back up and define what we mean by emotional and psychological abuse.

Coercive control researcher Dr. Emma Katz argues that they way we define abuse is changing:3

While Katz writes in the context of domestic abuse, the same pattern shows up in many systems where power and reputation must be protected, including spiritual ones.

That shift matters because focusing only on behaviors can miss the deeper pattern driving the abuse. Emotional and psychological abuse are not simply isolated hurtful actions. They exist to protect power – the power of a person, position, or the institution – by obscuring a person’s emotional world and sense of reality. In other words, a person’s intuitive knowing.

In faith environments, abuse often gains another layer: the spiritualization of abuse itself. Patterns of control begin to adopt the language of faith, reinforced with theological language, moral framing, appeals to spiritual maturity. What is harmful begins to appear righteous.

The harm is rarely obvious. It is clothed in the language of sincerity. Scripture reminds us that vice often imitates virtue.

As you read the descriptions and examples below, notice how ordinary patterns of control can be dressed up in spiritual language that mimics virtue.

Emotional Abuse: Conditions in the Emotional Realm

Since abuse targets different dimensions of a person, emotional abuse targets a person’s emotional world in ways that maintain power and position over them.

This isn’t about occasional conflict or emotional immaturity, but a patterned behavior that produces self-doubt and self-surveillance in the victim over time. It is a far more hidden and insidious harm than the common stereotype of put-downs.

The victim’s emotions are repeatedly corrected, minimized, invalidated, or weaponized. Meanwhile, the abuser’s emotional states begin to organize the relationship: anger which silences, disappointment inducing guilt or obligation, collapse that pulls others into caretaking, and tears that resist accountability.

Other indicators may include:

• Discounting, dismissing, or exaggerating the victim’s feelings

(“Your emotions are clouding your discernment. You need to submit your feelings to truth.”)

• Withholding affection, communication, information, or presence as punishment

(Silence and avoidance, or “The elders have already addressed this privately. Not everything needs to be communicated.”)

• Shaming, belittling, mocking, or humiliating (even from the pulpit)

(“Sometimes loving discipline means naming things publicly.”)

• Rewriting the victim’s motives or intentions

(“You’re not raising concerns because you’re hurt. You’re trying to divide the church.”)

• Shifting expectations so the victim cannot succeed

(“You should have come to us privately. Why are you bringing this up again?”)

• Chronic criticism that erodes confidence and self-worth

(“You’re not being teachable.”)

• Invalidating or reframing emotions disguised as maturity or logic

(“Mature believers don’t act this way.”)

• Conditional or variable empathy or support

(“I’m here for you, but only if your heart is submissive.”)

• Focusing on the victim’s tone, expression, or mood instead of responding to the actual concerns

(“Your tone and contempt tell me your heart isn’t right.”)

Here, emotions are not responded to with curiosity or care. They are things to be managed, minimized, or weaponized.

At the same time, an abuser may use their own emotional reactions or states as a way to control others.

This often looks like:

• Playing the victim to draw caretaking, guilt, or compliance

• Lashing out in anger or using quiet rage to intimidate or silence

• Demanding loyalty to the leader, the relationship, or the institution

• Avoiding accountability by pressuring quick forgiveness or grace

• Overwhelming the victim with emotional intensity or drama

• Sulking or emotional collapse when challenged

• Using calmness, withdrawal, or unpredictability that doesn’t match the situation

• Disengaging or distancing, especially when concerns are raised

One key marker of emotional abuse is an internal shift in the victim.

They stop asking, “Is this wrong?”

And they start asking, “What’s wrong with me?”

The goal is not honesty or repair. The goal is compliance, submission, control, and escape from accountability.

Psychological Abuse: Conditions in the Reality Realm

Psychological abuse occurs when a person’s perception of reality, judgment, or sense of self is steadily undermined in order to control or silence. It can be communicated with a high degree of certainty and confidence which makes trust in self even more difficult to hold onto.

Where emotional abuse erodes emotional freedom, psychological abuse erodes a person’s internal compass: their ability to trust what they know, remember, and perceive.

This is not about ordinary disagreement or everyday relational conflict. Psychological abuse involves repeated patterns where the abuser or system become the narrator of reality and the arbiter of truth.

Psychological abuse can show up through patterns like:

• Gaslighting: denying, minimizing, or rewriting events that clearly occurred

(“That’s not what happened.”)

• Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)4

(“We’re the ones being hurt by the accusations you’re making.”)

• Spiritual bypassing

(“Let’s focus on healing and extending grace rather than revisiting the past.”)

• Rewriting someone’s motives or intentions

(“Your feedback was actually rooted in bitterness and anger.”)

• Creating double binds through shifting explanations or expectations

(“We value honesty.” “Your honesty is causing division.”)

• Contradictory or differing explanations that make clarity difficult

(“You’re misunderstanding what happened. You’re focusing on the wrong details.”)

• Reframing or selectively remembering events in ways that protect leadership or the institution

(“You’re misremembering the timeline.” “I don’t recall.”)

• Restricting access to information and decision-making while selectively asking for

input

(“We understand your perspective. Leadership will talk and tell you what we’ve decided.”)

• Pathologizing normal reactions such as fear, anger, grief, or confusion

(“You’re not seeing clearly because you’re so hurt.”)

• Using expertise, authority, or “pastoral concern” to override someone’s experience

(“God has placed us in leadership for your protection.”)

• Framing disagreement as moral, spiritual, or psychological failure

(“This division you’re causing is spiritual warfare meant to stop our mission.”)

• Blaming the victim for the confusion created by the abusive dynamic

(“If you were walking in humility and submission, this wouldn’t be so hard.”)

In psychologically abusive systems, questions are managed, ignored, or treated as threats, while naming harm and truth-telling are routinely reframed as sinful and divisive.

Gradually, the victim begins to doubt their own perception and instead looks outward for meaning and direction. This can feel easier because authority often appears strikingly calm, reasonable, or morally certain.

A key marker of psychological abuse is another internal shift. The victim stops asking, “What happened?”

And they start asking, “Did it really happen the way I remember?” and “Am I mistaken?”

Who Gets the Final Word

Emotional and psychological abuse work in tandem, each reinforcing the other. Emotional safety and interpretative authority are claimed by those in spiritual authority, creating long-term psychological harm that can be difficult to recognize and therefore slow and complex to heal.

Often what happens within the community is even more devastating. Credibility itself becomes uneven. Those who raise concerns receive a credibility deficit5 and are treated as unreliable witnesses to their own experience, just as in other examples of abuse. Meanwhile authority, granted automatic credibility excess, becomes the arbiter of what happened, what it means, and whose voice counts.

What is lost in the process is not only voice or belonging, but a person’s standing as a knower and God-given image-bearer. It undermines our capacity to perceive, speak, and bear witness to truth (to know what we know, to see what we see, and to feel what we feel). These are the very capacities required for truth, justice, and faithful witness.

Today, you can listen to this sneak peak podcast where Julia and Ann Maree discuss an important topic that emerged last week in Ann Maree’s story. Who are the real experts, who are those qualified to diagnose the disease of spiritual abuse?

I had the privilege of acting as a guest host of the Safe to Hope podcast so that I could interview Ann Maree Goudzwaard about her experience of spiritual abuse in the church context. It is a beautiful and God-honoring thing to provide a space for victims and survivors of abuse to share their stories and thereby participate in their healing.

Healing requires reversing the dynamics of abuse. Abuse removes agency. Healing restores agency. Abuse removes dignity. Healing restores dignity. Abuse removes a voice. Healing restores a voice.

In the context of spiritual abuse, it is the church or church leader who controls the narrative, who has a corner on the market of “perspective”. Giving a victim the opportunity to challenge and shape that narrative by sharing her own perspective should be a welcome and healing experience.

And yet, Ann Maree described how the word “perspective” was twisted and used as a tool for further silencing. Instead of viewing her testimony as a necessary component in a faithful pursuit of truth, it was dismissed. “Well, that’s your perspective.”

When survivors come forward with their story of harm, they are often met with rebuke from Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

The observing world may assume that the survivor is the one who “states his case first”. And yet, in the context of the church, the abuse victim is the cross-examiner, the one who comes with questions - and yes, perspective - to challenge the prevailing narrative of the church leadership, which seems right until “the other” comes and examines it.

In my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, our Book of Church Order specifically upholds the idea that those closest to a situation have the most reliable and relevant perspective. When a decision of a lower court is appealed to a higher court, our church polity states that “great deference” must be given to the lower court in matters not just of fact, but also of judgment.

“A higher court should ordinarily exhibit great deference to a lower court regarding those matters of discretion and judgment which can only be addressed by a court with familiar acquaintance of the events and parties. Such matters of discretion and judgment would include, but not be limited to: the moral character of candidates for sacred office, the appropriate censure to impose after a disciplinary trial, or judgment about the comparative credibility of conflicting witnesses.”

Do the courts of the church similarly “exhibit great deference” in matters of “discretion and judgement” to those individuals who are more proximate to the events in question than the officers in a room hearing about them for the first time? Does the perspective of those with “familiar acquaintance of the events and parties,” such as “the comparative credibility of conflicting witnesses,” carry greater weight?

Whenever a victim of abuse comes forward to disclose what happened to her, she is essentially communicating, “Your perception of this person or situation is inaccurate or at least incomplete. I need you to reevaluate your perception in light of the perspective I have to offer. I need you to be willing to hold your own perspective loosely so that you can be informed and impacted by my perspective.”

She may not use those words. In fact, she likely won’t. But the fact remains: she is asking church leadership to be willing to doubt their own judgment. She needs them to be open to the possibility that they don’t know what they don’t know. If the default of church leadership is to assume that “different from my perspective” equals “irrelevant” or “wrong,” how can a victim of abuse ever disclose harm and seek help?

…but separately, as helpmate, the woman herself alone is not the image of God; whereas the man alone is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman is joined with him. St. Augustine1

You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: man! Tertullian DeCultu Feminarum.2

Even if we move forward several centuries, the message doesn’t get much better,

Man’s existence as male and female is not something secondary to the image but is at the very heart of the image of God. Karl Barth3

God created the world with sexual differentiation at the heart of what it means to be human beings made in the image of God. Kevin DeYoung4

Women, who are generally more contextual and sensitive to the feelings of others, may be on the whole more particularly tempted to doctrinal deception. Kevin DeYoung5

Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18). Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14). Danvers Statement6

It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom. Presbyterian Church in America, Book of Church Order7

When God created the world, He made people. God fashioned distinct human beings; men and women are fully human image bearers on our own. We share a common nature, receive common grace, are common heirs, and we have “a common destiny in glory.”8 However, each person’s primary identity is “child of God.” We came into existence as sons and daughters. When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, He began with the words, “Our Father.” Thomas Watson asks, “In what sense is God a Father?”9 We are His offspring (Acts 17:28), born of God (1 John 3:9), chosen by Him (Eph. 1:4). As God’s children, men and women are God’s vice regents. As the highest order of creatures, His children each represent the King of the universe.

I’m not saying that we, male and female, don’t —together— image God. What I’m suggesting is that messages we regularly hear are that women are not fully God’s image. Perhaps, like me, your experiences substantiate that thought process as well.

In 2014, I enrolled in the MDiv program at RTS Charlotte. The seminary offered a full scholarship to a full-time student’s spouse so that they could also pursue one of the degree programs. Typically, that happens when a male student, pursuing ordination, attends seminary and his wife gets a degree as well. In our case my husband was still working full time in the banking industry. Though he aspired to retire young enough to work full time in ministry, he still labored through the daily grind of 10 hours at work in the corporate world plus the time it took to commute. His schedule was very limited. He needed to be the one to attend school part time, while I could manage full time responsibilities.

So, in seminary, if anyone spoke with me at all, I was asked who my husband was. It was assumed I was there because my husband was going to be a minister. Once, I met up with an old friend who was at the seminary recruiting for Mission to the World (MTW) and my husband came with me. One of our professors walked past us and (smiling broadly) patted my husband on the back and told our MTW friend, “If you get this one, you’ll get a ‘two-for’!” Laugh, laugh. Chuckle, chuckle. Everyone thought that was funny except me.

When we graduated, my husband and I pitched an idea to our church of having us both come on staff and head up what could be a lay counseling and crisis discipleship ministry. We met together with some of the pastors and excitedly discussed all the possibilities. At one point during those meetings, one of the pastors looked at me as if surprised that I was there and asked, “Oh, is Ann Maree going to join us?” Then proceeded to explain during lunch that the church was interested in hiring my husband. Not me. I was to think of myself like one of the other staff pastor’s wives; a valued participant but not serving in a staff position.

After four years of seminary, and a masters degree program that nearly killed me, I was qualified to be a volunteer—the same space I’d filled the previous 11 years (prior to forking out 50k out of pocket for my education).

Years later, when we told someone in leadership that story, he said, “Sure, we can afford to change the carpeting, but we can’t afford to hire a female counselor?”

It was a really big church. Lots of carpeting.

Now, you may be thinking, what does this have to do with women not fully bearing God’s image on her own? Well. Frankly? Everything.

In Scripture, God presents us with a picture of two opposing spiritual systems. One is under His reign and has the intent to bring life and freedom to people. The other is a false spiritual system. It is under the rule of men, and it attempts to drive people to perform in religious or “pseudo-spiritual”10 ways.

The spiritual “system” that brings life does so abundantly (John 10:10). God’s very words promote healing (Prov. 4:22), the Holy Spirit enlivens mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11), God Himself sustains this life (Acts 17:25) as His very breath animates humanity (Ezekiel 37:5). It’s a picture of human flourishing.

Conversely, a pseudo-spiritual system makes life harder for people with its unattainable rules (Matthew 23:4), focuses on outward appearances and behavioral modifications rather than deeper heart issues (Matthew 23:25-28), blocks access to God (Matthew 23:13), Neglects the weightier matters of the law (justice and mercy—nothing to see here, folks!) and refuses to strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the injured, bring back the strays, or search for the lost; it uses others—feeds on others—takes care of itself (Matthew 23:23, Ezekiel 34:2, 4), protects institutional image at all costs (Matthew 23:7), misleads people from the one true God and His truth (Matthew 15:14), and majors on the minors11 (Matthew 23:24). It’s a picture of wolves in sheep’s clothing leading the flock off the side of a cliff.

In Matthew 9:36 Jesus describes the result of a “false spiritual system.” People end up harassed (distraught, pressured, beleaguered, struggling) and helpless (powerless, weak, vulnerable, defenseless).

What is Spiritual Abuse?

Ok. Stick with me here. You may be feeling whiplash, like, “How’d we get here?” I promise, I’ll explain.

Although spiritual abuse (SA) has been a “thing” for a very long time12 it has only recently been a matter for discussion in the church. And, because of a perceived “newness,” as a concept it doesn’t have an agreed upon (nor comprehensive enough) definition.13 One of the most influential academics doing work on this topic (Lisa Oakley) suggests that, in researching for her dissertation, there didn’t seem to be a consensus for what it means. However, having done the work herself, Oakley landed on this concise yet broadly consequential, definition.

SA is coercion and control of one individual by another in a spiritual context.14

She goes on to include several manifestations, which may or may not include, “Manipulation and exploitation, enforced accountability, censorship of decision making, requirements for secrecy and silence, pressure to conform, misuse of scripture or the pulpit to control behavior.”

Are you seeing any patterns yet? Here, let me help…

Manipulation and exploitation

Neglects the weightier matters of the law (justice, mercy, and faithfulness—nothing to see here, folks!) and refuses to strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the injured, bring back the strays, or search for the lost; it uses others—feeds on others—takes care of itself (Matthew 23:23, Ezekiel 34:2, 4)

Enforced accountability

Makes life harder for people with its unattainable rules (Matthew 23:4)

Censorship of decision making

Blocks access to God (Matthew 23:13)

Requirements for secrecy and silence

Focuses on outward appearances and behavioral modifications rather than deeper heart issues (Matthew 23:25-28)

Pressure to conform

Protects institutional image at all costs (Matthew 23:7)

Misuse of Scripture or the pulpit

Misleads people from the one true God and His truth (Matthew 15:14)

Majors on the minors (Matthew 23:24)

Basically, spiritual abuse happens within the Psuedo-Spiritual system.

Whew. Ok. Are you with me still? We’re almost there.

Oakley goes on to say that, while “the focus of SA is often placed upon the personality of [an] abuser or the abused,” it neglects to factor in the spiritual context in which the abuse happens. She emphasizes that, “Any definition of SA must be informed by the culture in which the abuse occurs.” In other words, when it comes to acknowledging whether SA is occurring in any given situation, context is king.15

We’ve arrived. Let’s pull this all together.

The waters in which many women have been swimming are stocked full of big fish ideas such as complementarianism, submissiveness, and authority, while a bunch of little fish ideas like usurping, silence, deception, and transgression scavenge around us in groups like piranhas. They suck the life from our being, from our image. All of these ideas invisibly shape not only what we think about ourselves and who we are (even what we do), they structure how others relate to us as well.

Spiritual abuse is not just an act. It’s the atmosphere. It’s a context. It’s the milieu in which many women live and breathe and have our being. In it, we are considered only a portion of a whole, incomplete without a man to make us fully realized image bearers. Is it any wonder our footing in religious spaces is diminished? Even unacceptable?

This, my friends, is a breaking of the second command, a misrepresentation of the image of God in (wo)man and subsequent impeding of our relationship with Him. Because, as fully human image bearers of God, whole persons, we are created with a capacity. Our mind, intellect, feelings, and will—along with our bodies—all the ways we image our Father, was created perfectly for the purpose of accomplishing our primary call.

We have His image so that we can relate to God. Perish the thought anyone would inhibit that relationship by minimizing His image in us.16

How did we miss this? Well, let me ask you. Do you consciously look for a sense you live and breathe in a spiritual environment designed to help you thrive? Flourish? Do you find you are inspired to take in large swallows of air in your Christian context that enlivens your heart, soul, mind, and strength? Does it propel you in your calling? Are your gifts being used, valued, compensated?17 Are you encouraged toward such a closeness to God that sometimes you can even feel His breath?

Or are you challenged to “trust your leaders”?

In Created in God’s Image Anthony Hoekema writes, “What one thinks about human beings is of determinative significance for his or her program of action.”18 If we want to be “successful” in caring for women we’ve got to get this right. We need to ask ourselves (and those we care for), do we bear God’s image individually as human beings? Or are we a portion of a whole…

Safe to Hope

Season 7, Is It Spiritual Abuse? drops today. Click the button to listen in as Julia Fillnow and I interview expert contributor Wade Mullen.

Today, Julia and I pick up on other aspects of the uses (and abuses!) of language and discuss that it matters how words are defined (and by whom) in your circumstances, whether a context can be safe for your words, and ultimately whose perspective (words) will have authority.

In this segment, Julia and I discuss one aspect (language) discussed more fully with Wade on next week’s episode Introduction to the 2026 Safe to Hope podcast series, “Is it Spiritual Abuse?” Watch for the February 10th episode to drop on your favorite podcast platform.

Wade’s latest (excellent) Substack draws out more from our conversation and expands on “Reality Bending Phrases,” which we discussed in our upcoming conversation.

Visual resource included with Wade’s permission.

This series was designed to help sufferers to lift their gaze to things above, where Christ is (Col. 3:1). It isn’t meant to fix anyone, nor is it a substitute for trauma-specialized care. It is one potential way to connect our real and present circumstances with the God who remembers. Suffering isn’t ignored in this journal, rather the purpose of the entire series is to help see the ways in which the eternal and living God meets us in those very circumstances.

From the introductory note in Remember his Benefits (Vol2)…

Even before the words of God permeate our thoughts, the mind is assessing our environment. Is God close? Does he love me? Am I his? How can I be sure? The Father knows it requires both left brain truth and right brain functioning to encourage character formation. So, in addition to instruction he explains the “how” of obedience...remembrance. Central in the content of remembrances are his benefits. That’s not just to focus on the things he gives us, although it’s not less than that either. Primarily he gives of himself; his image, his covenant, his promises, his gifts, his Son, his grace. All of these benefits provide very concrete ways for remembering in such a way to grow our trust, belief, and faithfulness. But I’m not going to sugar coat this either. Remembering is not always easy. At times, remembering can be quite painful. So, we hesitate to even let memories gain access to our minds. No worries. And, no pressure. There is no requirement for what types of things to remember or when. Perhaps consider this option today, this opportunity to remember him and his benefits. Let all other recollections remain stored away until the right time. Consider what he accomplished, what he endured, and how intimately he comprehends our own suffering. Walk with me and consider him...ponder him anew...forget not his benefits.

Our hope is that this might become a trusted resource to accompany you on your healing journey. Journals are available for an introductory price with the code OFFER55 through the end of January.1 Let us know what you think! We’d be privileged to come alongside and remember together.

2025 has been the busiest year on record at Help[H]er. If you’ve noticed our failure to post in recent months, it’s largely because our ministry plate has been filled with so many good things. Here are some of the things we have accomplished this year, only by God’s grace and his continuous help.

1. Our Board added new members.

2. Our admin and advocacy staff expanded.

3. Donations have tripled this year, increasing our ability to expand ministry goals.

4. We attended the Crimes Against Women Conference in May where we made new professional connections, received extensive continuing education, and met new partners.

5. Safe to Hope Season 6 was released, recounting Cayra’s story. We dealt with topics such as childhood abuse, ritualistic abuse, and Dissociative Identity Disorder. Our prayer is that this season equips pastors, counselors, lay counselors, and churches to minister more effectively to survivors of extensive trauma.

6. Our second “Festivals of Remembrance” journal (Remember his Benefits) was published and is ready to be launched in January of 2026!

7. Our Board went away for the first annual board retreat in December and laid out the infrastructure to expand the ministry going forward. Watch our Instagram posts Dec 26-31 for further exciting details!

We are so grateful for your partnership in 2025 and are anxious to see what the Lord has in store for 2026. Here are some of the things we anticipate.

1. Safe to Hope Season 7 - “Is it Spiritual Abuse” will launch in February. This season we will add video to our YouTube channel with our expert contributor episodes.

2. Implementing HIPAA compliant procedure and software for Confidential Client Care Management and Confidential Reporting Intake.

3. Trauma-specialized interviewing.

4. Theology of Story self paced introductory eLearning module.

5. Dr. Ann Maree Goudzwaard will be presenting a workshop at the national Crimes Against Women Conference in May, and also leading two workshops at the Called to Peace “All Things New” retreat at Lake Junaluska.

just to name a few!

Are you excited about what the Lord is doing at Help[H]er? Would you be interested in partnering with us? Scan this QR code to go directly to the donations page of the website!

At Help[H]er we help women. However, sometimes resourcing and educating men is the most effective way to serve the women who seek help from our ministry. This article fits into that category.

I’ve been thinking about an upcoming event we’re hosting locally to introduce the ministry to those who may benefit from our services. I keep wondering why a man would want to attend a female specific gathering. Then, the voice of my friend (and fellow HH board member) came to my mind. “Ya know,” she said, in her very New Jersey way of saying things, “Men don’t benefit from patriarchy either.” I’ve heard her say that more than once and I know a couple of the ways she’s been thinking male rule negatively impacts not just the female gender. But suddenly it occurred to me how simple this should be for us to consider. Men don’t benefit from patriarchy. Men don’t benefit from patriarchy. Why? Because men don’t need what patriarchy provides.

When I say, “This isn’t rocket science,” this time it’s obvious. Let me explain.

Typically, I’ll be the first person to rail against a plain, literal interpretation of the word. All too often, neglecting to find out what the entirety of Scripture has to say about a particular topic gets humanity into a whole heap o trouble. As it relates to complementarianism, literal interpretation is literally the problem. It’s a problem, because proponents actually engage in a good bit of gymnastics—somersaults, flips, back bends, and pirouettes—in order to fit God’s words around their already determined conclusions, and then tell us those conclusions are “plainly” discerned. The resulting impact of such a claim is that the average person in the pew can’t plainly see such teachings, and so they end up dependent on the so-called theological experts to do their interpretive work. I advise using great caution developing a single word or passage into an entire doctrine.

However, in the case of Genesis 2:18, the meaning is fairly easy to see.

We serve a Creator who knows us intimately (Psa. 139). Of course, His needlework determines our inner and outer being. So, He is the authority for what man (and [wo]man) need. In the Genesis 2 passage, God, having repeatedly told us what was good during the creation process, then shifts to what isn’t good; what’s not good about His new creation. God tells us there is a gap in man. What does He say is missing?

A like companion. Adam was alone. Aloneness was the liability. Adam existing as the only creature of his kind was, evidently, a fairly big problem, one large enough to be considered “NOT good."

But alone in what? When God sent Adam to name the animals what was He intending he see was missing? Up until this point, and in the couple verses that proceed the creation of Eve, the following would be what Adam was created to do, and, without a woman, he would have to do it all alone.1

Produce fruit (physical and spiritual)

Populate the world (physical and spiritual offspring)

Rule

Lead

Eat

Share dominion

Enjoy God

Fellowship

Help with naming

Walk through life with

Help care for the earth

Help care for the animals and inhabitants

Inherit the earth

Intimacy

Communication

Physical connection

Know someone like him

Bear God’s image equally with

Leave his home for

Leave his family for

Love

Yet, patriarchy, hierarchy, and authoritarianism all suggest Adam’s need was something completely different. Those who interpret Genesis to say Adam’s need is patriarchy, hierarchy, and authoritarianism suggest he needed someone who would fulfill particular roles.2 For instance, Adam,

Needs a follower3

Needs someone he can make decisions for4

Needs someone he can teach5

Needs someone to rule over6

Needs a servant for his home7

Needs someone he’s smarter than8

Needs someone to protect from being deceived9

Needs someone who respects his role10

Needs someone who would bolster his ego11

Needs someone who is available for sex12

If you’re trekking with me still, none of the above are ever mentioned in the Holy Writ as the things Adam lacked, nor that he needed. And, if that’s what the female gender is helping him with, he’s not actually getting what he does need. What might that be?

To have someone to produce fruit with (physical and spiritual)

To have someone to dine with

To have someone to populate the world with (physical and spiritual offspring)

To have someone to rule with

To have someone to lead with

To have someone to share dominion with

To have someone to inherit the earth with

To have someone to enjoy God with

To have someone to fellowship with

To have someone who will help with naming

To have someone to walk through life with

To have someone to help care for the earth

To have someone to help care for the animals and inhabitants

To have someone to share intimacy with

To have someone to talk to

To have someone to have physical connection with

To have someone who is like him, but unique

To have a relationship with someone else in this world who bears God’s image equally

To have someone to leave his home for

To have someone to leave his family for

To have someone to love

Patriarchy, hierarchy, and authoritarianism can’t be “good” for men because the inherent needs of patriarchy, hierarchy, and authoritarianism are not what man’s Creator said he lacked. And if we, as helpers, are providing the men in our lives with needs essential to patriarchy, hierarchy, and authoritarianism, we are not actually helping.

Think about it.

There are many listeners who report how much this particular story has been helpful. Perhaps they aren’t referring to having had the exact same experience, but as we say often on the podcast, the concentrated version of this story has touch points with many other forms of abuse. So, the depth of the trauma impact and the profundity of the healing necessary starts to make more sense.

Then, similar to another podcast recently aired (and to which we gave pushback), there remains those listeners who can’t (or won’t) believe this type of abuse, this level of evil, exists. They find it far too difficult to fathom. It doesn’t fit their mentality. It flies over their comprehension. There’s no rational explanation, so they dismiss the experience as implausible.

Why is that?

At first, I received those comments of pushback as a challenge to provide more factual evidence. But I’ve changed my mind. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of credible evidence. But I think I’ve come to realize that “facts” and “evidence” are not what’s going to advance plausibility in the discussion. Why? Because (and I should have recognized this sooner) the sheer prevalence of abuse in our families, our friendbase, in our workplaces, and in our Christian institutions clouds our perceptions of what constitutes abuse, evil, and abusive behaviors. As Rachael Denhollander said in Episode 10 on Safe to Hope, “Our sense of normalcy defines our perception of reality. Our experience of reality defines our understanding of what's normal.” Sadly, abuse has become our new “normal.” Or, maybe a better way of saying it is, “we’ve normalized abuse and abusers.” And, just as it’s impossible to rationally reason with an abuser, it is also not likely rational reasoning will persuade naysayers who are already convinced many abuses don’t exist.

So, one of the things I think we should do to effectively care for victims without creating more harm is to help others, and ourselves, identify the kind of abusive contexts (contexts in which abuse takes place) that breed a class of unbelievers of the type of evil we’ve heard on Bearing Witness. What’s the read on that atmosphere?

I’ve taken the liberty here of copying the dynamics Steven R. Tracy outlines in chapter 4 (Portrait of a Family) in his book, “Mending the Soul”1 and adapted them somewhat to this discussion. See his book for a more comprehensive and (dare I say) “biblical” treatment of the same dynamics as he exegetes the story of Tamar and Amnon. It’s worth the price of the book imo. Heck, the book is worth it, regardless.

Abuse victim’s needs are expendable

In our current Christian culture, complete with celebrity pulpits, superstar platforms, and fawning enablers, vulnerable, broken, and traumatized individual’s needs are fairly low on the priority list. When there’s an image to manage, a mission to accomplish (and I’m not talking about the “great co-mission”), nay–even a budget to finance–those considered “high need” are simply fodder to feed the hungry appetites of the powerful. The needs of broken people don’t matter (and to be clear, trauma necessitates significant need, and rightly so. See the 2025 Safe to Hope season, for example). By their very nature, our Christian institutions demonstrate a “greater good” that is at stake. It takes a lot of time, money, and effort to maintain appearances of the behemoth we’ve created. The institution necessarily takes precedence over victims.

Reality is difficult to discern

Chris Moles says this all the time, “The church should be the safest place in the world.” And yet, it’s not. But who of us walks into a church building and thinks, “Oh, there’s a really good chance I’ll be abused if I attend here.” Churches, bodies of believers, fellowship of brothers and sisters, all denote places of care, love, and safety. So the cognitive dissonance when something unsafe happens is crushing to navigate. Victims walk away asking, “what just happened?” Or, “did I think what just happened actually happen? Or, “am I insane?” Default mode is to take the blame. Or worse. Believe they themselves are those living in unreality. What’s real, and what’s not, gets fuzzy.

The victim is “responsible”

I’m just going to quote Steven Tracy here. He nailed it imo. “In abusive [contexts], the victim is made responsible for solving needs–even evil needs–they didn’t create and could never legitimately satisfy.” This circular way of “reasoning” that happens in abusive systems post reports of abuse is crazy making. The abuser and the system created the need. The abuser and the system sought out the “need-meeter,” The abuser and the system exploited the need-meeter’s vulnerabilities, position, availability, passions, gifting, heart, empathy (the list is endless), and then when said victim tells someone, they become the problem. Their advocates share that load. Blame lands on everyone EXCEPT the abuser and the system.

Appearance is deceptive

This should be a no-brainer but it happens over and over. The guy who is accused is almost always a “nice guy.” One that would never “do that.” The reality is that nice families sometimes produce perpetrators of harm. Steven Tracy writes that King David’s family dynamics are helpful to remember. On the outside the royals were celebrated, while a look at the inside of the family home revealed many different stories. Since when are we capable of reading a book by its cover?

Truth is ignored

And this is big! Institutions that have gaslit members with false doctrines for decades condition us to totally miss the truth even when it stares us in the face. Who and what is a woman? Do we interpret her humanity from Genesis 3:16 and a few random passages in Paul’s letters? Or do we build her being from the image of God forward? This is just one example of faulty doctrine, but it impacts the Christian church significantly. What we believe about woman will inform every response we have to her claims (if she’s reporting abuse especially), every assumption about intent and motivation, and every action we subsequently take. When we cherry pick a passage from the fall and then jump to an apostle’s letters to the burgeoning new church to define women, we completely miss God’s intent for creating her in His image. If this truth in particular is ignored, all other “truth” will be mistaken.

Force

In some ways this may feel like a small word. Of course, abuse involves force. What’s missing in that literal interpretation is the implication of the act (by “good and necessary consequence”). To use force against someone is to create powerlessness in them. Conditioned powerlessness in one relationship does not disappear in the context of another. It’s an all encompassing position. Suppression of a human spirit by any perpetrator will carry over into every other avenue of life. Especially other relationships with those in a position of power. For example, if a woman has no agency in her own home, if she’s taught that her husband is the final decision maker because she’s easily deceived, when she interacts with similar “authority” she will be conditioned to believe the same thing. Even if she attends a church that’s gender affirming, she’s been conditioned to believe she’s the weaker vessel, her gut and intuition can’t be trusted, and her goal is to usurp authority. This is a dangerous place to be, because when she mistrusts her conscience she is ripe for missing when an authority figure is misusing and abusing his power and control. She’s been trained to submit in everything.

No healthy communication

In the context of an abusive culture, good communication is (necessarily) inconsistent. Evil and lying go hand in hand. What is lied about may surprise you. There may be truth spoken about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but lies about the finances. In Bearing Witness, Carya’s abusers taught beautiful, theological truths, while simultaneously serving the Father of Lies and seriously harming God’s children. Or, as mentioned above, there may be lies about who a woman is theologically. Or the alleged perpetrators (or their flying monkey’s) will lie about you, the caregiver or whistleblower. Why would we expect to find truth to consistently come out of an abusive context? At a minimum we have the responsibility to learn the truth, patterns of abuse particularly and God’s truth especially, to be able to recognize lies.

Victim’s response is futile

Who suffers in abuse? The abuse itself is a form of significant suffering, that’s the first thing. Then not being believed–or worse, dismissed and blamed–is a form of suffering. Lack of response once abuse is reported is to endure suffering. Betrayal can happen when people choose sides (and any other number of ways). This is also a suffering. Victims have been known to be arrested and charged with falsely reporting crimes. They’ve been victims of their own tortured minds and bodies, sometimes to the extent that they’ve committed suicide. What are some ways perpetrators suffer?

The comparisons are non-existent.

Abusive systems are emotionally unstable

Communication in abusive systems is not the only place of instability. Emotions are also amiss; unstable and unregulated. Inappropriate physical touch is labeled “love.” Birth order denotes a position of intimacy (as in the oldest daughter “filling in” where the mother is “lacking,” or the youngest child is entitled simply because they are “the baby”). Fear is used as a weapon for harm (beatings), and for “good” (to discourage bad behavior). Anger exhibited by a perpetrator–whether acted upon or not–sets everyone into motion; to prevent, to respond, to negotiate.

Isolation/lack of intimacy

Abuse is isolating. As a result, there’s little chance of intimacy. Those who exist within abusive systems tend to think and act as though they alone experience this hardship.2 Often, that’s what they’re told. People in these situations might pull away from social opportunities, avoid conversations that might reveal their reality, think they need to “protect” the system’s reputation, may even want to protect the abuser. Shame causes us to hide, and abuse is certainly shame inducing.

Strict code of silence

Shame can also cause us to hide in our abusive systems in silence. Or perhaps there’s risk involved in revealing what’s happening. Maybe a perpetrator has threatened to harm, or cause embarrassment, or ruin someone. Tracy writes, “The conspiracy of silence is one of the most characteristic dynamics of abusive families, and is documented in much of the literature on abuse.” Silence is used to perpetuate control. Silence hides sin and evil. Silence suppresses the human spirit. Silencing dehumanizes as it paralyzes the primary organ God created for His children to use in order to praise Him.

Denial and/or distortion of healthy emotions

Empathy, according to one misguided author, is, “The greatest rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21st century.” In fact, he calls it a sin. Dani Treweek, in her Substack review of “The Sin of Empathy,” writes that the author is “primarily concerned about a particular kind of sinful inclination (i.e. being emotionally swept away from reason and truth) which he sees as inherent to a particular group of people (i.e. women).” Women have historically been accused of being overly emotional. Women (including teenagers and little girls) are also the largest group of people who suffer from abuse. What better way to control a narrative when a woman reports they’ve been abused than to discredit her (typically appropriate) emotions?

The wrong people are protected

I wish I could explain this but I can’t. Tracy mentions the Catholic church as an example. “In God’s House” by Ray Mouton about the initial revelations of clergy sexual abuse is also a super helpful read. Or listen to the iHeart podcast “The Turning,” Season 1 for an excellent treatment of the patterns that flow throughout just about every abusive system and, in this case, even within Mother Teresa’s Missions of Charity. And lest any of my evangelical brothers and sisters dismiss these examples because the Protestant church is “reformed,” let me assure you–not much has really changed since 1517. Certainly not the patterns of responding to abuse which are proven over and over to be universal to all Christian institutions historically AND today.

Enmeshed relationships leaving victim with nothing as they try to escape

This is just another way to hold all the power, discourage dissent, and crush those who dare to defy. This could look like social capital within a denomination, employment, business relationships with other congregants, private school or homeschool connections, etc. Suddenly a victim finds themselves with no family, no friends, no paycheck, and no social capital to get back on their feet. In some cases even your family doctor or dentist may have been a church connection at one point.

As a young adult emerging from my family of origin, I began a trek of understanding more fully what healthy families look and act like. Suddenly, my own experience didn’t seem so great. At the time, the only phrase I’d heard that might describe it was “dysfunctional.” Today, we have more language to explain those experiences. And, in looking back at my childhood experiences from this vantage point, I can now more easily identify them. Our most recent, influential generations (mine on the cusp between Boomers and Gen X) brought those “learned and practiced dysfunctional life lessons” into every corner of life we touch. Generations of Christian “architects” replicated their family of origin dynamics into not only our own family homes, but also every other relationship we’ve established. When I say we’ve normalized abuse and abusers it’s because it’s what we knew. And we knew it intuitively. Therefore, reversal of the climate I’ve just described above must begin with recognition, then move toward the opposite in mind, emotion, and action. It takes concerted thinking and effort. It takes believing. Then, and only then, will a culture that receives horrific, evil, satanic, and sadistic reports of abuses to God’s image bearers will we respond well. Belief must come first.3

As I continue to integrate aspects of my own story into these Substack posts, please know I’m doing okay. Sure, I still have random triggers. Like when I search for an old email and a communication from a difficult time pops up. Or that flight/fight/flee feeling if I see a former church “friend” on Facebook or in my local Target. But overall, my processing has been good, and it continues to lead me toward gratitude. God really has provided peace. I can remind myself He is inviting me to share not only in Christ’s sufferings, but also to comprehend suffering on a whole other level for the sake of learning and helping others. I don’t say that to guilt anyone who isn’t experiencing the same, I simply want to tell readers that I’m not sharing my personal story for the purpose of lamenting, rather I share because I know there will be those who can relate. Far too many women have a similar, if not same, situation. I want them to know I know on a whole other level of knowing. So, my story on these pages progresses.

On that note, I’ve been thinking a lot about another of the accusations leveled at me during that “investigation” (that wasn’t supposed to be considered an investigation). It’s laughable, to be sure. But leadership in one of the most significant “platform” churches in the PCA literally told me, “I understand and appreciate the vital role you played in leading and executing so many aspects of [the HelpHer resources]. However, our participation in this project and agreed partnership1 with CDM was not intended to, in effect, platform another ministry or person. We would not have moved forward with the use of our platform (both facilities and name) for this project if we thought that to be the case.” (emphasis mine)

This artwork is what came to my mind. It continues to haunt me.

“The Unseen Ministers,” Artwork by Talitha Koum Shan on Etsy

I can assure you “platform” was the absolute last thing on my mind. If the new leadership at our church had taken any time whatsoever to get to know me, they would have known how much I deplore Christian celebrity. This disapproval is grounded in both professional and personal convictions.

Professionally I disapprove because the “high places” Christian celebrities adore have little to do with demonstrating and glorifying God, and more to do with satisfying and elevating self. See this excellent article for more on that topic…

Mary DeMuth

Beware of Today's High Places

Beware of Today’s High Places…

Read more

a year ago · 59 likes · 20 comments · Mary DeMuth

Let me ask you this question. Who was the biggest personality at your most recent Sunday worship service? How about at the Saturday morning women’s prayer breakfast? If it was anyone but Christ, you’ve got a celebrity church and a platform problem. If we are simply listening to a monologue, complete with jokes, personal impressions, and clever arguments, we are the culture that enables Christian celebrity. Not sure yet? Well, what did you learn about said celebrities walk with the Lord? Does the celebrity talk to you as a real person, not as an inconvenience? Do they share in the daily life of the congregation or are they booked out for months because they are on the speaking circuit? Does this person confess and ask forgiveness specifically when they have sinned (or made a mistake)? How about suffering, what do they tell you? In rooting out their own sin, do they exhibit genuine repentance? What did they teach you about caring for the oppressed? What did they share about how they contribute to that problem? How you answer these questions might be telling.

I also have personal convictions regarding celebrity and platform, many of which were shaped by early experiences wearing the skin of the female gender. If you are a woman who has been objectified for a man’s purposes you may also experience this similar dynamic. That’s not to say the following is everyone’s response to objectification, it is to suggest it is one way.

As a young girl I was tall for my age, thin, and I developed early. My parents actually enrolled me in modeling school to encourage improving my stature. At 13, I learned how to accentuate my outward appearance, stand up straight, walk tall, dress for success, and exude confidence in who I was (as it related to what I looked like). At that time, I could have easily passed for 16.

My childhood experiences also included accompanying my Dad as he worked in the building trades. I spent a lot of time on construction sites. This would be some of my earliest memories of cat calls, lewd suggestions (spoken or demonstrated), and even more vulgar physical proposals. As a kid, I hung out in all the other places my parents went as well. Like, every Saturday afternoon, after all our family chores and errands were done, you might find me playing air hockey at the local tavern. My Dad and his buddies gathered weekly for a few beers and friendly verbal jostling one another. After a few drinks, my father’s friends would, shall we say, get more friendly with me. Their comments mimicked construction workers at a jobsite. But not just their comments.

I was observed, checked out from floor to ceiling.

I was hugged, unapproved by me, and hands generally fell in conspicuous places.

I was ogled, and I felt it. Literally in my body and mind.

I was examined, front and back. And sometimes the examiner shared their observations.

The lust in their drunk eyes made me sick to my stomach. So, I compensated. I began to wear clothes that disguised my developing figure. I learned how to get out of situation before someone came in for that “hug.” And I avoided walking in front of people. It got so bad I would not walk to the front of a classroom to turn in an assignment without a panic attack (though I didn’t know what that was at the time). I would tremble and cry if my mom asked me go in the local Chinese restaurant to pick up our food order. I’d shrink to the nearest corner in EVERY situation where there might be men potentially gazing.

One might think I’d grow out of such ogling as I got older. But I distinctly remember as a 30 something new mother, shrinking inside as I walked through an airport in an Eddie Bauer, heavily lined trench coat while still witnessing eyes bounce top to bottom and that smirk as businessmen walked by. Or the times I sat in ministry meetings and, despite no eyes bouncing up and down my body, I could sense the awkward “heat” in the room.2 And lest you find yourself rationalizing men’s behaviors because my childhood experience happened in a bar, there was also that time when I was well into my 50’s that “the hug”^[3 happened once again…in my seminary.

I am aware that, because of these instances, my go-to remains “FLEE!” to this day.

Please know, many women have had it far, far worse. I don’t want to diminish those victims nor their experiences. These were just (some of) mine, and they certainly shaped me.

Back to platform. You might be able to see where I’m going with this. Over the years, God has provided places for my voice to be heard. It has taken all of the strength I can muster to agree to occupy those spaces. It doesn’t come without a cost. I know many people have a difficult time speaking in front of others. That’s a problem I also have, for sure. But what it takes to put my body out there in front of people is sheer agony. Those who DO know me know I avoid it at all costs. So, to hear from church leaders that all I was after was a platform, propelled me to prove their theory wrong.

You with me still? Here’s the point of this post.

Recently, I’ve begun working with a coach. She’s a WONDERFUL woman who encourages what she sees in me from an outside perspective. I’ve shared my “platform avoidance disorder” with her and asked (seriously) how I can promote the Help[H]er ministry, find donors, supporters, encourage victims and survivors to get help, without having to create a platform. I pretty much concluded what she’d say before she even spoke.

You don’t.

In order to get a ministry structured, to network and find those willing to support the needs, the executive director needs to be “out there,” vision casting, sharing, and promoting.

Ick.

Yet, my coach has been “coaching” me to a new way of thinking about this topic. She’s encouraged me to see a platform as something used for the good of others, rather than platforming for oneself. She suggested I flip the artwork (The Unseen Ministers) I posted above literally on its head and encouraged me to see it as me holding up the stage for those I help while they are on top. A platform that encourages their flourishing. One that renews their importance, their God given uniqueness, and His image shining through them and their circumstances.

Coincidentally, I recently read a devotional in Diane Langberg’s In Our Lives First, vol 2. In it, she exegeted the Corinthian people around the time Paul wrote them his letters. Listen to some of the ways she articulates the ungodly, unrighteous aspirations of those people at that time. Many, if not all, provide incredible insight into a community shaped by driven aspirations, social climbing, and clever rhetoric—some of the things celebrity cultures are made of.

Loved wealth

Loved lust

Centered on the intellectual

Centered on clever arguments

Centered on the philosophical arguments of the hour

Had God’s name (they were new Christians), but departed from His ways

Obscured the presence of Jesus

Obscured His splendor

Gathered around their own views and ideas

Created church schisms based on opinions

Focused on the material

Lost understanding of spiritual

Moral failures rocked the church

Sin was ignored or covered up

Failure to deal with sin

Didn’t bring sin to light

Didn’t grieve sin

They were rotten to the core, corrupt and lewd

What would it look like to pursue a platform that, instead, had those we serve at the center and not ourselves? Certainly, no less than the opposite of those things above.

Use wealth to support others

Thirst for the ways of God

Center on the whole person

Center on being the most (genuinely) humble person in the room

Center on truth

Follow His ways

Step aside to give Christ His glory

Gather around other people’s needs and what’s best for them

Reciprocally share and hear opinions

Focus on the eternal

Seek further understanding of the spiritual

Eradicate moral sin in Christ’s body, take steps toward healing and redemption instead

Transparency

Sin acknowledged (BY ALL)

Sin scoured out

A posture of lament

Whitewashed tombs revealed

Basically, it would look a lot like an under rower, ὑπηρέτης (hupēretēs).

This is where I cite Chat GPT.

“Here’s the nuance:

Not the captain – Paul isn’t the one steering the ship; Jesus is.

Obedient role – Like an under-rower, he takes orders from the one in command.

Hidden service – Most of the work is unseen by the public.

Team effort – The ship only moves if all rowers work together in sync.”

This is a definition I feel I can get behind. Literally! In all my years of hiding from spotlights, this gives me the courage I need in order to pursue a “platform” for those I am called to serve. Paul did not shy away from platform. In Athens he literally jumped on the platform. But his purpose was not his glory. His purpose was to show off the glory of his captain, Jesus. The problem is not platform. The problem is whether one rightly understands their role on the ship, in word, mind, and deed. As I hold this calling from the Lord in my hands, Paul’s example of under-rowing guides me.

Anyone want to under-row with me?

In recent years, the term “grooming” has entered the mainstream lexicon, and rightly so. The PCA Ad-Interim DASA committee defines grooming as “manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of getting caught.”1

For example, a youth group leader befriends a child in a single-parent home. The youth group leader also builds rapport with the parent. Slowly but surely, the leader carves out exclusive access to the child alone. This could be through phone calls, car rides, private hikes at a campout, etc. The community sees a self-sacrificial and upstanding Christian who just wants to care for kids. The child sees a hero and a friend. Predators often use subtle crossings of boundaries to test the waters. This could be an R-rated movie, a cigarette, p0rn, or a “shirts on skins” football game. Once a child engages in “shameful” behavior, the predator has leverage of shame to hold over the child. Abuse has thus begun.2 Both the child and the parent are now in boiling water - caught unaware that they had been frogs in the pot the whole time.

This tactic is vitally important for churches to understand and recognize. But grooming is just one tool in an abuser’s toolkit. There is a category more nefarious, if that were even possible. This category is one of structure and training.

If you are following along with Safe to Hope Season 6, you will have picked up on a tactic in Carya’s story. Her very life was brought into this world so it could be destroyed for her parents’ sick pleasure. She was intentionally trained with precision by her father to comply with his every wish. She was trained to perform particular acts. Trained to respond on cue. Her social reality and schedule were structured around the abuse from childhood. An abuser who trains and structures does not need to groom.

Do you feel like vomiting yet? Yeah - me too.

While abuse education has increased in recent years (which is great and should continue) there is really only so much general information that can be passed on in an hour or two. How many times have you taken the required training for church volunteering? I think I’m up to 6. This training is important, but it functions much like an “Intro to Abuse” Survey Course during your freshman year. The dangerous thing about such a course is that the freshman walks away thinking they know everything they need to know simply because they know more than the general population. But if that freshman went on to get a masters degree, he or she would recognize that the issues are far more complex and nuanced than the survey course made them out to be.

This concept of incorporating structure and training into abuse is part of the proverbial graduate curriculum. Why does this matter for church ministry? I am sure there are more reasons, but here are a few to get the conversation started.

First, if a survivor of ritualized abuse comes forward, you may be hesitant to believe them because the abuse sounds akin to insanity. What do you mean your father “cut your heart out?” (See episode 9). There are only two options here. Either a victim is making it all up or an abuser is using mind games to torture the victim and prevent detection. How can an abuser make sure no-one ever believes the victim? Create a scenario so outlandish that it is unbelievable. This is gas-lighting on steroids. Is your theology of evil big enough to encompass this? It should be.

Second, years of training takes time to undo. Actions that may be typically categorized as “sinful” may actually be involuntary trauma responses. Actions that are typically categorized (in biblical counseling circles) as “bitterness” are, in fact, symptoms of trauma. When small children are brought up to believe their deviated culture is “normal” (See episode 10), defining “abnormal,” let alone “sinful,” is going to take a lot of care-filled partnership with qualified individuals, and reframing without reharming. It definitely requires a cautionary approach that does not shame. In advocacy, we’ve come to the place where very few things surprise us (as it relates to a victim’s behavior), MUCH of that does NOT alarm us, and none of it prevents us from treating victims with dignity, love, encouragement for who they are, and acknowledgment of them as full –whole person– creations made precisely in His image.

Third, the survivor in the pews will need particular care. Oftentimes the body will respond in childhood to such trauma by splitting into parts (also known as personas or alters). This is known as Disassociative Identity Disorder (DID). Having a category for this is imperative. Right after college I worked for Christian group home for children in foster care. This was the first time I ever encountered DID and I did not have a category for it outside of demon possession. Knowing that this was not in fact demon possession, but a gift of God’s grace to a traumatized child would have made a world of difference for both our staff and the child. Our staff failed to give the child the care she needed because we did not understand what was happening. This is true for spiritual care as well. Pastors and leaders who approach those suffering from having been shattered at the hand of their abusers will help them thrive by simply walking alongside as fellow sufferers, building one another up in love. To approach these victims as naturally as you’d approach anyone else dignifies their humanity, even while that humanity has been so significantly diminished.

In episode 11 Carya states the pain of the challenge she faced when choosing whether or not to allow a fellow church member into her story and diagnosis:

If you are in ministry, this is one of the excruciating burdens survivors in the pews bear. Is your [present] theological training big enough for DID? What pre-conceived ideas are you bringing to the table that need to be re-evaluated? Are you able to dignify the survivor’s humanity and avoid accidentally affirming the abuser’s satanic narratives? How do you preach on this part of the human experience? These are questions that I am asking myself even as I write this.

During this episode, Ann Maree asks the question, “how can we be people who invite others’ stories, and hold them safely?” Folks, we need to encourage one another as servants of the Living God to respond well.

Finally, there is a temptation to look at such abuse and ask, “Why did you stay so long?” We covered this recently in another post. But Carya, instead, helpfully re-frames that question - “With such training and structure, how [do] you ever get out?” Walking alongside survivors in our churches allows us to see the God who delivered the Israelites from Egypt work mighty miracles in our own generation. It also allows us to look in awe upon our fellow believers for their faith that has endured unspeakable evil in the name of God but still show up to the extent they can. They are our encouragement to stay in the good fight, following after Jesus Our Captain.

I think I’ve written about this before, and I’ll likely be discussing it again on the 2026 Safe to Hope season. But one of the things that got me in trouble at my former church was the accusation that I was speaking authoritatively to a pastor and his session.1 In one of the multiple meetings I had with my own church shepherding and discipleship committee, the meetings I was told not to confuse with an investigation, I was instructed not to do that. I couldn’t instruct ordained men. I’m a woman.

What constituted “speaking authoritatively?” I don’t think I ever officially found out. But from my perspective it was totally confusing. I wasn’t claiming authority over any leader, I was simply educating my client’s church about her situation, what she needed in order to accomplish her goals, and how best to care for her in the abusive circumstances she endured. The leaders didn’t have to listen to me (and boy golly gee they surely didn’t). I wasn’t exegeting Scripture or teaching anyone doctrine. I simply had an expertise in an area pastors and elders never receive training and I hoped I could assist them devise a plan that would help my friend instead of further harming her as she made important life decisions.

Boy. Was I naïve.

What I didn’t know at the time was that there was no way around this “complementarian” perspective of male authority and female submission. I was under the impression that, to complement one another in the church, we (each gender) would bring our gifts and expertise to the table and together work toward another person’s good. Each gender is gifted in particular ways, not necessarily gender specific ways, and the unique ways in which I think—though different than how a man thinks—is valuable insight into the “workings” (thought life, feelings, etc.) of a woman. This, of course, is something a man will never completely understand. I was under the impression complementarianism meant we actually complement each other.2

Nope. Women, as “submissive” in complementarian roles are to receive from men. We are to support, encourage, and respond, nurture a man’s authority and realize our relational purposes by submitting to a man’s God-given—by nature—authoritative role. This, my friends, is why a woman experiencing abuse in complementarian spaces will find it difficult, if not impossible, to find the care she needs to endure, escape, thrive, or survive.

In a recent, non-scientific survey, fifteen advocates3 were asked what patterns they observed in helping abuse victims within complementarian communities. Answers included,

Church leadership told the woman to submit to her abusive husband

Female victims had no voice even in defense against accusations made against them

Decisions were made without consideration of the woman

Directives were issued apart from the woman’s input

Leadership didn’t think they needed a caregiver’s help

The victim ended up not feeling cared for

When asked how their recommendations were received by leadership, advocates said,

They were respected in conversation (though not always), yet ignored in practice

Their voices were not heard, their recommendations (even as it related to safety) were not heeded

“Communication” was only one way (from the top authority down)

In my line of work, a victim (or survivor) is the expert who informs her own care. Advocates don’t act like the boy scout insisting a little old lady cross the road because he assumes that’s what she wants to do. Advocates follow the victim’s lead. We ask them a lot of questions. And when we find out the answers we ask even more questions, more specifically. We want to make sure we are hearing accurately and helping them find the resources and education to get where they want or need to go.

When we advise a Christian organization, the phrases we emphasize are victim centric, victim led, and victim paced. Victim centric means that everything we do revolves around the victim; her needs, her wants, her desires, her actions. So, for instance, if a church leader believes it’s a good idea to begin the excommunication process for a husband proven to be heavy handed—OR severe and harsh mouthed4—he first asks the victim how that decision might impact her either positively or negatively. Victim led means the pastor defers to the abused wife before beginning any process. And victim paced means that, if the victim calls one day in fear for how her husband might respond when confronted, the pastor puts his plans on hold until she can be safely stowed away from the husband, or the situation somehow defuses. This is a simplistic example, but I think it gets the point across.

The victim is the leader for her own care.

There’s the rub. Articulating and following this dynamic is often when a Help[H]er® advocate gets the most pushback from male church leadership. And, if you skim back up to the first couple paragraphs, you’ll see that, sometimes, it’s also when the risk of church discipline for us, as the woman’s advocate, ramps up.

Recently, Pastor and advocate Chris Moles hosted a webinar and interviewed lawyer, author, and victim advocate Rachael Denhollander. You may remember Rachael from her days in court after she and multiple other young women accused USGA team doctor Larry Nassar of sexual assault. Nassar was convicted and, before sentencing, Denhollander read him her brilliant, gracious, and forgiving impact statement. She was hailed in the Christian stratosphere as a darling. As soon as folks found out she was an advocate for those broken by all types of abuse, however, she found herself frequently dismissed from speaking or writing engagements. Apparently, it was acceptable for her to be a forgiving victim, but not a fierce defender.

The title of Chris’ webinar was “Biblical Womanhood, Everything You Told Me To Be.” In their discussion, Rachael pointed out some of the dynamics of so-called, present day understanding of “biblical womanhood.” Listen to what she said when Chris asked why the pushback he receives is “passive aggressive” when he speaks up, while the pushback toward Rachael is much more just plain ole aggressive.5

As long as a woman’s words (feelings, actions, and desires) don’t shape the curves of her own care, she won’t be cared for well. The power dynamic that dictates the “how” a reporter of a crisis needs help, and the “what” it will look like, will itself perpetuate the harm. If you want to know fairly early in the process whether a victim’s leadership will be helpful—if the victim will be safe—challenge her leaders to be victim centric, victim led, and victim paced. Then watch to see what happens.

If we want to care well for over half the membership in our churches, a woman’s voice is going to be imperative.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, “Why didn’t they just report?” For many, when a victim comes forward with their story years after the abuse occurred this seems to be a red flag. Failure to report immediately causes people to doubt the veracity of the claim.

Carya actually brought up this question in Episode 9 of Safe to Hope Season 6. To better unpack the answer, we asked advocate and attorney Rachael Denhollander. We wondered, what are the barriers victims face in reporting abuse to authorities? What are the reasons they often don’t report? Here are just a few examples from Rachael’s answer:

1. The authorities are complicit in the abuse - Carya herself faced this challenge - men and women who participated in her abuse arrived at her room wearing police uniforms. Regardless of whether the uniforms they donned were authentic, this act erodes any trust a victim might have that the police could be a source of comfort and aid. Not only does it erode trust, but it can also exasperate the danger of reporting for a victim.

2. Lack of awareness - For some, especially children raised in abusive systems, their experience has taught them that this is simply how life is. An adult who was controlled by such a system since childhood may not be able to recognize that the abuse is abnormally harmful or illegal. Rachael stated this beautifully in Episode 10 - “Experience shapes your perception of reality.”

3. The process is too grueling - The start to finish trial process for a victim is challenging under the best of circumstances. Describing the abuse to others is invasive and vulnerable. Testifying in court in front of your abuser takes profound courage. Until the trial is over, your life is on hold. The same loss of autonomy experienced under the abuse is now experienced again under the state. Some victims may find the abuse itself has zapped their strength and don’t have enough to face the aftermath of reporting.

4. The odds of successful prosecution and remedy are low - Conviction rates in sexual assault cases are shocking. NBC News recently explored rates around the country and found that some jurisdictions were under 2%.1

5. “No one will believe me” - Sometimes reporting feels futile because a victim has little reason to trust that others will believe their story. To not be believed is crushing. It tells a victim that their perception, emotions, and experience are wrong.

6. The cost is too high - The cost of reporting is brutally high in many circumstances. A recent New York Magazine article explored the lives of several women who came forward during the #MeToo movement. Rather than finding justice and healing, these women have been ostracized and targeted by their communities. The cost has included lost homes, communities, possessions, and vehicles. One victim was run off the road by another car. Coming forward has only exacerbated the harms they were already experiencing. At some point, any human will weigh the cost benefit analysis and realize it is simply too high.2

7. Shame - Victims often experience great shame following abuse, shouldering the weight of what happened as if they themselves were responsible. Fear of exposure or future shame can stop a victim from coming forward.

In this short article alone we have looked at seven legitimate reasons why a victim may choose not to report. Far from being a red flag about the veracity of an abuse claim, this is an opportunity for curiosity and compassion. Many of the underlying systemic reasons behind a victim’s choice not to report may provide much needed information about the harms experienced.

In episode 9, Carya takes us deeper into her story. Personally, I found this to be the hardest episode to listen to yet. I paused multiple times. I did eventually finish the episode with tears running down my cheeks.

There is much in this episode that could be unpacked. An entire article series could be dedicated to the existence of human trafficking rings within churches. Similarly, pages could be written about forced pregnancy, forced termination, and what motherhood looks like when you know your living children were produced so that they too could become fodder for abuse.

But at this moment, words have failed our team. Despite our best efforts, anything we have written just seems futile. The book of Job comes to mind. Job’s friends chose “wise” words over the wisdom of silence. So instead, if you have listened to the episode that was released today, we invite you to sit in silence with us as we acknowledge the indescribable sorrow of a mother’s lament.

How do we help “helpers” learn to offer better one another care in this post? By recognizing the simple truth that sometimes there are no words.

A couple weeks ago, several of the HH staff attended a Crimes Against Women conference in Dallas, Tx. It’s a major training event, drawing care providers from multiple walks of life—advocates, law enforcement, Homeland Security, medical personal, counselors, and attorneys. This multi-disciplinary crowd gathered from all over the United States and beyond. It’s not a Christian conference, yet faith-based communities are represented in the workshops, and pastors, ministry leaders, and lay counselors are encouraged to attend. If you’re in a position to provide care for women, this is the conference you’ll want to go to.

Last week, The Female Seminarian chimed in on some of her take aways after attending the conference. This week, I’d like to add some of my own.

Overall, the most striking thing at the conference was the sheer volume of crimes women, globally, endure. Entering into the vast sea of individuals gathered around a common goal (i.e. gender specific care) reminded me that the Christian bubble in which I reside protects my mind from noticing just how evil this world is. When I listened in to the attendee conversations and speakers of the workshops, it was as if I could hear the Holy Spirit whisper, THIS is the real world, it IS the devil’s domain. And while many of my brothers (and sometimes sisters) lightheartedly dismiss the “lather” some of us are generating online and in social media about the prevalence of abuse, “the world” is out there hitting it head on. They’re naming crimes. They’re using accurate language. They’re convinced what’s happening is evil. They’re taking a stand to say, “Yes, women are targets of serious offenses, and it’s our duty to get involved (aka, “meddle” as it’s referred to in the church), fight the culprits (aka, “slander good men”), and eradicate the deeds of darkness (aka, “scandal-spreaders”).

The WORLD, my friends, is fighting against Satan while we, the church of celebrity pastors, mega revenue generating conferences, publishing contracts—internet personalities—self-marketing superstars, are not. In fact, in many cases, Christian orgs are actively participating in the darkest of deeds. Take, for instance, the stark contrast between the evil named on our 2025 Safe to Hope series “Bearing Witness,” versus the ridiculed opposition of the same in the CT podcast, “Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.”

Did I just digress? Again? It happens.

What are those devoted to full time careers in the pursuit of justice saying? Well. Much the same as what we as advocates in Christian circles speak of. The difference is that the audience at this conference are already convinced, while people in the church still need convincing. The professionals in these disciplines have been working in their field for 10-20-30+ years (WELL in advance of the #metoo “liberal feminist” movement), they’ve witnessed enough devastation to be able to unequivocally contend that women are indeed vulnerable to be victims of criminality, and they just want to learn how to care for them better. If we, in the church, were similarly positioned, the following would be some of the ABC’s we could be learning.

A - Always believe the victim. Yes, even secular disciplines need to be reminded of this idea. What is it about false accusations and its attribution to one particular gender? How did women become so “Unbelievable?” I wasn’t really surprised to learn of the need to reiterate this idea to public servants, I’ve heard enough in the news and media to believe, yes, disbelieving a victim is a thing happening more broadly than just in the church. What was surprising, however, was to learn more about why belief is so important—beyond the benefit for victims and survivor’s healing. It turns out that, by centering on this need for victims, interviews are more effective, facts are more readily discovered, and there’s a better chance of discovering corroborating evidence. The result is a more thorough investigation and successful outcome. PLEASE don’t read what I’m not saying. Believing a victim does not negate thoughtful examination of the circumstances being reported. Victims and perpetrators deserve comprehensive investigations. But if a report of abuse is communicated to a church leader, we start with belief. Only then can we follow the evidence, and when appropriate, press ecclesiastical charges.1

B – Be Trauma Informed This includes a basic understanding of the body, specifically the brain. It doesn’t take a degree in medicine to simply comprehend what happens in the control center of a person if they encounter an event that has the potential of overwhelming said system. For example, have you ever witnessed a car accident? What happened in your body? What did you feel? Did your blood rush? Could you sense your heart pounding faster? Did you smell burning rubber? Did you see things you wouldn’t see on a normal day in a typical situation (disconnected body parts? Blood? Devastation)? Were people screaming? Shouting directions (“Call 911!!”)? Did you happen upon an injured body and need to feel for a pulse? Stop the bleeding? Did you taste bile in the back of your throat while you witnessed the carnage? Did you find yourself trying to slow down your thoughts in order to think clearly for what you needed to do next to help?

Would you remember any of that linearly?

These are all normal, bodily responses originating in the brain, sent throughout the nervous system, and perfectly designed by a Creator for a very important reason. They help you navigate traumatic experiences. Trauma informed care of someone who has been similarly devastated at a minimum understands that asking the question, “what happened next?” is not helpful. Situate questions around the five senses (see, hear, feel, smell, taste). This can help lead a victim to other details (ie “what did you see when you heard the screeching tires?”). Ordering events should be your job, not theirs. Set a tone of patience, don’t press for details that haven’t yet been remembered. Assure them they can come back to a question when they don’t know the answer. And, as mentioned in (A) above, don’t treat trauma like deception. They aren’t the same thing. Good care recognizes these limitations in traumatic situations.

C – Collaborate with Others When everyone works together as a team, focusing on the needs of the victim, proper care can be implemented. With collaboration, it is more likely corroborating evidence can be found. Any investigation then leads to successful results.

Care teams are more effective if they are led by someone other than a pastor (senior, associate, or other). There are multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is that a pastor has an entire congregation to shepherd. It’s unrealistic that they would be able to serve each congregant personally given the intensity and time requirement inherent to traumatic situations. Also, if the circumstances include a report against one of the pastors, and one of their colleagues guides the investigation, what happens to that relationship? It’s incredibly difficult to restore relationship when questions regarding one’s character (whether true or false) have been raised by a colleague. And if the threat of loss to income is involved, how unbiased can the “investigation” be?

Care teams may include (but not be limited to)

• Shepherd/elder

• A licensed professional counselor consultant (possibly in house? Network and find out their specialty)

• A lay caregiver

• An attorney consultant versed in adult victim’s protection (possibly in house?)

• A deacon/deaconess for practical matters

• Female advocate for women trained in domestic abuse, sexual assault, clergy sexual misconduct as needed per case (see also this incredible resource for clergy sexual misconduct)

• Any other local social services

• A point of contact for checking in with victim that their needs are being addressed and met

• A point of contact for checking in with care team/evaluating condition of each and finding additional care if needed (support systems can be drained in highly intense cases, perhaps consider identifying and including additional “sub” team members that might be available should something happen)

• An adjacent prayer team (limit information re confidentiality)

Have you been a recipient of care in a faith-based organization? Would this information have been helpful for your leader to know? Would it have helped your situation? If you’re a subscriber to this Substack, you can leave your comments below and help us further inform ministry leaders regarding the myriad of crises women endure. Friends, encourage Christian leaders to seek continuing education; to supplement their theological degree with more insight into (typically) over half their congregation’s needs. Women deserve to be tended to in the body of Christ, the very place God ordained to be safe for His flock. Let’s help make that true.