Driven by a desire for adventure, freedom, and a rejection of societal norms, Chris McCandless graduated college, gave away his savings, abandoned his possessions, and set off on a journey across the U.S. Ultimately his solo journey led him to live off the land deep in the Alaskan wilderness. While the exact details of his death have been speculated and argued about for decades, what is clear is that he eventually died of starvation after consuming toxic wild plants that slowly poisoned and paralyzed him, rendering him unable to hunt or forage.

If McCandless had been able to define the danger, he would have walked out of the Alaskan wilderness alive.

Over the past ten years or so, the phrase “spiritual abuse” has come more into the common vernacular. It has become a more well-known topic, but that doesn’t mean that we’re actually talking about it. Or that we even know what we’re talking about when we do.

And that includes me. I’ve still got a lot to learn.

As is typical with any newly burgeoning field of research, the public usually lags behind the academics and professionals. What seminaries, parachurch research organizations, and therapists have been identifying for a couple of decades, the pews are just now only beginning to understand. That’s just simply the pace at which information and education travels.

A few months ago I had a conversation with an upper level denominational leader. This man has had decades of church leadership experience at both the local and translocal level—hence him now serving in a capacity in which he is overseeing roughly half of the churches in his denomination. All that’s to say: he knows a thing or two. So in our conversation, when the subject of spiritual abuse came up, I thought it was a great opportunity to ask someone who might have more clarity that I did. I asked, “How do you, and/or your denomination, define spiritual abuse?” His response was rather bumbling and vague, and included an admission that it’s all kind of difficult to define.

Bummer.

At the moment I thought, “Fair enough.” Spiritual abuse is difficult to define. But are we content to leave it fuzzy and vague? IMHO, perhaps such denominational leaders should not be left having to think on their feet regarding such issues, but should instead be among the most informed, trained, and educated people we can find.

Since then, I’ve come across three definitions that I’ve found helpful.

Spiritual abuse is a form of emotional and psychological abuse characterized by a systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behavior in a religious context.

—Dr. Lisa Oakley and Justin Humphreys, Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse: Creating Healthy Christian Cultures

Spiritual abuse is the misuse and abuse of power, which harms the flock but also exploits God and the things of God.

—Chuck Degroat, “Spiritual Abuse in the Church: Power to Harm, Power to Heal”

Spiritual abuse, then, is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him, as a means of accomplishing what he takes to be biblical and/or spiritual goals.

—Michael Kruger, President of Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte)
“What is Spiritual Abuse?”

(That last one is from Kruger’s blog series “Bully Pulpit”, which later developed into a book by the same name. If you’d prefer to watch a video, I also recommend this interview with the Gospel Coalition.)

At a very basic level, it seems to me that the Church suffers from a case of semantic blindness: the inability to recognize or understand something because a person lacks the necessary language, knowledge, or conceptual framework to perceive it. This occurs when an individual is unaware of certain concepts, ideas, or distinctions, so they fail to notice or comprehend something that others with that knowledge might easily recognize. Without the appropriate vocabulary or understanding, the person effectively becomes “blind” to aspects of reality that would otherwise be visible or meaningful.

We need language. We need knowledge. We need conceptual frameworks.

When we can’t accurately identify toxic plants, we eat them. We when can’t accurately identify toxic leaders, we follow them. When we can’t accurately identify toxic environments, we support and sustain them.

If McCandless had been able to define the danger, he would have walked out of the Alaskan wilderness alive.

If the church is able to define the danger, we will walk out of the wilderness alive.