Spiritual Abuse: Avoiding Two Extremes

Author

James Rochford

Extreme #1. Seeing Spiritual Abuse Nowhere

Some express considerable discomfort with the very concept of spiritual abuse. After all, what is it? If we are going to call something “spiritual abuse,” we should at least be able to define it. Moreover, if we are going to charge someone with perpetrating spiritual abuse, we should be able to explain what it is. But what exactly are the indications that spiritual abuse has occurred? And at what point does sinful behavior cross the threshold into the category of spiritual abuse?

The category of spiritual abuse exists, but it needs to be accurately articulated and carefully defined. Without proper care and caution, this term will only create shock value without carrying any meaningful substance. Here is the working definition that we hope to describe and defend:

Spiritual abuse is a pattern of serious, objective, and sinful behaviors that center around control and coercion, whereby a spiritual authority exploits their position and perhaps Scripture for the purpose of selfish gain.

Let’s look at each part of this definition closely.

Is it objective?

Spiritual abuse needs to be based on objective, sinful behaviors—not subjective intuitions, perceptions, or emotions. This criterion comes directly from Scripture. Indeed, the Bible repeatedly tells us to identify deceptive or destructive leaders based on what they do—not on how they make us feel. False teachers might “disguise themselves as servants of righteousness,” but they will be revealed “according to their deeds” (2 Corinthians 11:15; cf. Titus 1:16). In fact, the apostle John planned to publicly expose an abusive leader by “calling attention to his deeds” (3 John 10). The New Testament spills considerable ink about how to identify false teachers, mentioning them in 17 out of the 22 letters. In every instance, objective criteria—not subjective intuitions—are specified.

With this in mind, imagine if someone said, “I never felt safe around that leader.” That’s too subjective to constitute abuse. A statement like this would be worth investigating further, but this alone wouldn’t qualify as abuse. However, consider if the same person said, “That leader used to corner me with long anger outbursts for 20-30 minutes at a time. He would stomp and scream, rebuke me, call me names, and put his hand on the door if I tried to leave the room.” Now, this is a different picture entirely! Why? It details concrete behaviors that are objectively sinful.

Pastoral application. If someone gives abstract accusations against a leader, it’s important to listen with care, seeking to understand how the person felt about what happened (James 1:19). It’s also important to discover the concrete and objective events. Some helpful questions might be:

• “Do you have any specific examples of what you are talking about?”
• “How long has this been happening?”
• “How did others respond when he did that?”
• “Just to clarify, did he say those specific words to you?”

We need a good understanding of what happened before we focus on the person’s interpretation of what happened. Both have value, but we need a clear picture of the former before discussing the latter.

Is it coercive and domineering?

Spiritual abuse occurs when leaders use their authority to “manipulate, control, and dominate”[3] or to “coerce, control, or exploit a follower.”[4] Coercion can occur through various means such as bullying, lying, name-calling, intimidating, threatening, and badgering others. The goal of this behavior is ultimately selfish—an attempt to take from the person in question. Of course, this fits what we see in Scripture as well. Peter tells leaders not to serve in the office of leadership for the purpose of “sordid gain,” nor should leaders be found guilty of “lording it over”[5] those under their pastoral care (1 Peter 5:2-3; cf. 1 Timothy 6:5; Titus 1:11; 2 Peter 2:3). Likewise, Paul writes that leaders should not be “bullies” (plektes), intimidating or domineering others (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7).[6]

Pastoral application. Leaders should listen carefully to see if any sins surround common themes of domineering others through manipulation, power plays, and controlling behaviors. This sort of behavior (or a combination of these sorts of behaviors) could be a sign that a person is not simply sinning, but actually crossing the threshold into the realm of abuse.

Is there a pattern?

Spiritual abuse consists of a “systematic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context.”[7] The key word is “pattern.” Specifically, the pattern looks like this: The abuser will treat the victim with affection, charm, and promises, only to follow this up with acts of coercion, control, and manipulation. Then, whenever the victim acts out, the abuser will repeat the cycle, pouring out warm words of affection, apologies, and promises all over again.

Of course, even godly leaders have besetting sins that appear and reappear throughout their lives. Does this sort of a repetition constitute abuse? No. Godly leaders take responsibility for their actions, admit fault, repent, and continue to strive for growth. Spiritual abusers, by contrast, keep themselves and others in a vicious cycle that increases in frequency and intensity over time. One author argues,

I see intent and impact as important factors for discernment. A good parent will make mistakes—and then own those mistakes, through repentance and a real empathy and care for a child. A good pastor will make mistakes—and then own those mistakes, once again with sincere repentance, and with a real curiosity for how she’s hurt others. However, abusers intend to stay in a powerful, one-up position. Their abuse is more than a momentary behavioral lapse; it’s a pattern of violation or oppression or crazy-making. Their intent is revealed in a deep need to be in control, to remain invulnerable at the expense of the other. And their intent is often seen in the impact they cause, especially over time.[8]

A spiritual abuser will say whatever is necessary to win back a person into compliance and to keep his position of authority. This may look like repentance because of the outpouring of warmth and affection. But if the pattern continues to repeat itself, it’s reasonable to conclude that this was a charade—a form of manipulation. As Solomon wrote, “Smooth words may hide a wicked heart, just as a pretty glaze covers a clay pot. 24 People may cover their hatred with pleasant words, but they’re deceiving you” (Proverbs 26:23-24 NLT).

Pastoral application. None of this means that abusers are unable to repent and change. This simply means that they will not likely repent until this destructive cycle of control is recognized, admitted, and surrendered. This is why Scripture repeatedly tells us to discern a person’s character based on actions, rather than on words. As Jesus said regarding the Pharisees, “They say things and do not do them” (Matthew 23:3).

Is Scripture being twisted?

Spiritual abuse overlaps with other forms of abuse—specifically, emotional and psychological abuse. Spiritual abuse is unique, however, because of its “religious context” and “the ways in which people are controlled through the misuse and abuse of Scripture.”[9] Indeed, twisting Scripture is a powerful tool in the hands of an abusive leader. After all, “when someone shows you Scripture or quotes it to you to support their request, it is very difficult to disagree or to question.”[10] When people are under this sort of leadership, their view is that “they have little or no capacity to discern God’s Word themselves.”[11]

Pastoral application. The abuse of Scripture shouldn’t stop the rest of us from engaging in its proper use. In fact, training Christians to understand the Bible for themselves is a key solution to prevent spiritual abuse. One expert writes:

Many church leaders have not been intentional in the task of discipling Christians to discern truth from error and to distinguish valid biblical practice from that which is questionable. This has further resulted in Christians not understanding solid principles for biblical interpretation or developing appropriate skills for the hermeneutical task. This lack of skill makes a person vulnerable to persuasive leaders with captivating teachings. Therefore, people need to hone these skills and feel confident to interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Fortified disciples are then able to compare their insights with those of other followers of Christ—this is an added protection and guard against weak and unorthodox beliefs and practices.[12]

This solution comes straight from Scripture. Paul writes, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (1 Corinthians 14:29). He also writes, “Examine everything carefully” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). It is the role and responsibility of every Christian to “test” the teachings that they hear—no matter the source (1 John 4:1; Revelation 2:2).

Is leadership authority being abused?

Spiritual abuse is also in a unique category from other forms of abuse because the abuser uses his “divine position” to give himself “unquestionable authority,” even using the fraudulent concept of “God to coerce and control.”[13] When a leader seizes the infallible authority of God for himself, danger quickly follows.

The Bible teaches that leaders have limits to their authority. To cite just one example, even the great apostle Peter didn’t tell Ananias and Sapphira how much money to donate to the church. Instead, he told Ananias that “the money was yours to give away” (Acts 5:4). This is because a person’s finances fall outside of a Christian leader’s God-given authority. Spiritual abuse can occur when leaders exceed these God-given limitations.

Pastoral application. Some experts seek to solve this problem by significantly restricting the authority of vocational leaders. Thus, many opt for a “congregational model” of leadership.[14] This seems like a mistaken solution. It would solve one problem but create many others in its wake. After all, the “reason spiritual abuse is a real possibility is because spiritual authority is a real category.”[15] We shouldn’t get rid of the problem of abusive leaders by getting rid of all leadership.

Others have suggested just the opposite: Increasing the authority of the clergy and doing away with lay leadership and every-member ministry. However, it isn’t as though abuse only exists among lay leaders but vanishes among clergy. This also is a mistaken solution. Discarding every-member ministry is not just pragmatically problematic; more importantly, it rejects God’s vision for the church (Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 12).

Instead of pursuing either of these options, we should train leaders and members to know the Bible’s definition of healthy leadership (Mark 10:42-45) as well as the limits to spiritual authority. This includes encouraging those who see a leader overstepping his authority to admonish or gently correct that leader. (For our theology and training on this subject, please read “Leadership and Authority in the Church”).

Is it severe?

This might be the most important criterion of all: Where do a leader’s actions land on a continuum from mildly to seriously harmful? Consider a number of questions:

• Was this a foolish blunder that had a negative impact? Or is there good reason to think that this was intentional?
• Has the person repeated this behavior despite receiving feedback?
• Was this an isolated incident, or is this an ongoing problem?
• Has the person admitted fault?

It’s often helpful to ask, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the severity of what happened?” Many people fall into the fallacy of binary thinking when they are sinned against. It’s either “no big deal,” or it’s “abuse.” Questions like these help others to see shades of grey, rather than falling into black and white thinking.

We cannot hold leaders (or anyone else) to a standard of perfection. Indeed, we can do great harm to leaders who are trying to serve in good faith, only to be labelled as “spiritual abusers.” If a leader’s actions are truly abusive, then they should be stepped out of their office. Most of the time, however, actions such as teaching, admonition, mediation, and moving toward forgiveness are more effective in restoring errant leaders and mending relationships.

Pastoral application. As followers of Jesus, we know that the key to healing is forgiveness—whether the offense is great or small. Paul writes, “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Colossians 3:13 NIV). One expert states that “forgiveness is the central factor in emotional healing… [and is] crucial to recovery.”[16] This doesn’t mean that “spiritual pain is ignored or excused but that it is recognized and then let go.”[17] She writes,

Forgiving is a journey, sometimes a long one, and people may need some time before they get to the station of complete healing. The intriguing thing is that people are being healed en route. It has been said that forgiveness is for the benefit of those giving it, not for the benefit of those receiving it. When genuine forgiveness is offered, a prisoner is set free. It is then discovered that the prisoner set free is the person who experienced the offense.[18]

So true! How can we consider someone to be actively healing if they continue to justify hatred, bitterness, and backbiting? Indeed, what sort of methodology supports such an approach to counseling victims? Whatever this is, it is not God’s way. We need to ask God to give us grace and patience as we walk alongside those gripped with pain, hurt, and hostility. Yet we cannot ignore or minimize forgiveness as the chief goal. Without forgiveness, healing is illusory.

How did leaders respond to verified cases of abuse?

Sin and Satan are alive and well in every church. Sadly, despite our best efforts, abuse can occur in any church. One expert states the obvious: There are “no perfect churches to emulate.”[19] Indeed, abuse occurs in “many denominations and in many ministry settings,” not just in “radical churches on the fringes.”[20] This being the case, a key issue is how the leadership of the church responds after someone is confirmed to have been abused.

• Did they cover it up or lie about what happened?
• Did they support and protect those who were abused?
• Did they do their best to honor God with the knowledge that they had at the time?
• Are they taking feedback, improving over time, and growing in their ability to handle such difficult and delicate cases?

In the midst of a crisis, not all of the facts are known, emotions run high, and people express a lot of hurt and pain. Therefore, years later, it’s likely we will grow in our wisdom and discernment. That being said, did your leaders do their best to act with integrity and care with the knowledge that they possessed at the time? Have they taken feedback, and are they striving to grow?

Conclusion

To review, here is the working definition of spiritual abuse that we hoped to describe and defend: Spiritual abuse is a pattern of serious, objective, and sinful behaviors that center around control and coercion, whereby a spiritual authority exploits their position and perhaps Scripture for the purpose of selfish gain. If this definition is accurate, this will help followers of Christ to correctly identify spiritual abuse, understand the dynamics of abuse, and defend those in need of God’s love and protection.

Failure to define spiritual abuse accurately and biblically can result in various problems—not the least of which are the victims of abuse and the reputation of Christ in our world. On the other hand, if we can define spiritual abuse accurately, we will also be able to avoid the second extreme that confronts us—a problem that also requires careful consideration and reflection.

Extreme #2. Seeing Spiritual Abuse Everywhere

An obsession over spiritual abuse can lead to hysteria, false accusations, and what sociologists call “moral panics.”[21] Think of Joseph McCarthy’s “Red Scare” in the 1950s, where suspicion toward communists ran rampant. Yet, at the time, communist infiltrators did exist, and these people were a serious and harmful threat. In retrospect, though, we see that McCarthyism was a medicine that was worse than the disease itself. False accusations, indictments, and overall paranoia ripped people’s lives apart.

More recently, the phenomenon of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) swept across the country in the 1980s and 1990s, primarily in churches. A total of 12,000 children and adults claimed to have been the victims of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Satan-worshipping death cults. Yet not one of literally hundreds of criminal investigations produced a “single piece of corroborative evidence.”[22] These lurid and bizarre claims of abuse spread by means of churches, Christian counseling centers, the media, and poor psychotherapy techniques that resulted in False Memory Syndrome (FMS). This resulted in thousands of people honestly believing that they were victimized by Satan-worshippers.

Of course, we might think that this was all harmless because these Satan-worshipping ritual rapists didn’t exist. But think again. If there were 12,000 alleged victims, this means innumerable others were falsely accused of heinous crimes. Lives were ruined, and families and friends were torn apart by this phenomenon.

We need to defend and protect victims of spiritual abuse. However, turning spiritual abuse into a “moral panic” can have dire consequences. One early expert on the subject of spiritual abuse warned that we should not “turn our concern with spiritual abuse into the Salem witch hunt of our time.”[23] Truly, such paranoia isn’t healthy for churches—whether members or leaders. This is why one expert states that it would be a mistake for churches to “be paranoid” or to “suspect everyone.” Instead, members and leaders should live with “attentiveness and awareness.”[24] For these reasons, consider some of the ways to avoid a “moral panic” in the area of spiritual abuse.

1. The overuse of terms like “abuse” can minimize the experience of survivors of abuse

Words like “gaslighting” and “abuse” are charged terms that should be reserved for serious offenses. However, the use of these words has exploded in recent years. The term “gaslighting” was Merriam-Webster’s word of the year in 2022, and searches for the word increased 1,740% in 2022 alone.[25]

But when a term is thrown around frequently and carelessly, it begins to lose value. Sociologists refer to this as “concept creep.”[26] This refers to when a concept grows in both its scope and its severity. For instance, the term “abuse” can keep expanding in scope until it includes more and more concepts (e.g. verbal, psychological, emotional abuse, etc.), and it can expand in severity until it applies to everything from major to miniscule offenses. Here’s the resulting problem: Concept creep robs the word of its meaning.[27] Those of us who know survivors of physical or sexual abuse cringe when we hear people flippantly using the term “abuse” to describe comparatively minor harms like gossip. This is why we shouldn’t throw these terms around carelessly—they lose their meaning for those who have experienced genuine abuse.

2. All abuse is sinful, but not all sin is abusive

Two popular authors state that spiritual abuse occurs when “someone is treated in a way that damages them spiritually.”[28] This could result in a “lack of joy,” “tiredness,” “disillusionment about God,” “lack of trust,” or “cynicism.”[29] At the risk of sounding flippant, many of us fit these criteria before we get our first cup of coffee in the morning! Elsewhere, these authors define spiritual abuse as the “mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person’s spiritual empowerment.”[30] We agree that mistreating people is a sin. But is it abuse? No. All abuse is sinful, but not all sin is abusive. This stretches the language of abuse to mean just about anything.

3. Abuse results in hurt feelings, but hurt feelings are not always the result of abuse

Two experts claim that spiritual abuse involves overriding the “feelings and opinions”[31] of others. Where is the category for our feelings being a poor measure of reality? Is it ever possible for a person to feel hurt by a leader, even though no abuse was committed? Our emotional life is a great companion, but it is a poor leader. As one expert writes, “Being hurt is not, in itself, proof of abuse.”[32] Indeed, Scripture regularly confronts us with things we don’t want to hear. This may cause us to feel negative emotions. Yet, this is not abuse. Sometimes we need to hear truth—even if it can be distressing—for God to bring us to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8). Moreover, “despite the claims of our postmodern culture, it is not harmful or abusive merely to uphold biblical standards of conduct in the lives of God’s people.”[33]

4. Every story has two sides—not just one

Solomon teaches, “He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18:13). However, he also states, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). Many Christians (and even researchers) ignore this basic biblical and relational principle. If spiritual abuse is truly such a serious sin, then surely we should take the time to listen to both sides of the story.

Even one of the better studies on spiritual abuse asserted that the data mined from victims was entirely “based on self-report.” Indeed, “no attempt has been made to hear the ‘other side’ of the story.” While this might seem “unfair,” this is how the victims “perceived their circumstance.”[34] This same researcher argued that because the participants had been “regular attenders,” “fairly mature in their faith,” and engaged in “voluntary service in the church,” the idea that these people were removed from fellowship because of some “moral sin is not reasonable to consider.”[35]

Even regarding anonymous posts on the Internet, the “assumption stands that most of the postings actually represent real people facing real issues of personal spiritual abuse.”[36] But how does this fit with a biblical view of human nature? Humans all have an extraordinary ability to:

• Become “darkened in their understanding” (Ephesians 4:18).
• Become “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Hebrews 3:13).
• “Suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18).
• “Lie” and “deceive” (Proverbs 24:28; Colossians 3:9).
• “Slander” (Matthew 15:19; Ephesians 4:31).
• Be unaware of their own deceitful motives (Proverbs 16:2; Psalm 139:23-24; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Corinthians 4:3-5).

Given this biblical data, are we honestly in a position to claim that our perception of a conflict is 100% accurate? When engaged in conflict, we all possess an amazing ability to exaggerate harms, omit crucial facts, and even distort our recollection of the events.

Consider the psychology of divorce as a case in point. One marriage expert asks troubled couples, “What made you fall in love in the first place?” Sometimes, he is met with blank stares or outright contempt: “I never loved that witch!” or “She has always been such a nag!” But this raises an obvious question: If they were never in love, why did they get married in the first place? Clearly, their recollections are distorted. The hostility in their relationship has “metastasized like a virulent cancer, actually spreading backward in time and destroying the couple’s positive memories.”[37] It’s no wonder that the first psychological stage in divorce consists of “blaming the spouse… for past, present and even future problems.”[38]

Marriage might be the most intimate human relationship that we experience, so this is surely an extreme example of the psychology of relational conflict. However, the point is simply this: We would be naïve to think that only one side in a conflict is completely innocent or accurate in their recounting of the events. Though not always, in the vast majority of cases, we find fault on both sides (Matthew 7:3-5).

5. Both the abused and the accused should receive a fair hearing

Some researchers state that the stories of victims shouldn’t be “dismissed or minimized in any way.” Amen! However, does this same standard apply to the accused? They state that the listener is “not being asked to judge the accuracy of what is being related. Rather, the simple requirement is to actively listen and to respond well.”[39] The goal is to “always put the person at the centre and operate in a manner which seeks to protect the individual not the institution.”[40] Oddly, only the individual and the institution are mentioned. But what about the person being accused of abuse? Have these authors considered the harm done when false accusations are made? Consider that Jesus’ reputation may be publicly ridiculed. Churches may fall apart. Good men and women might be thrown out of vocational ministry. Hushing up victims of spiritual abuse is an egregious sin, but perpetuating unsubstantiated accusations is also deeply destructive.

We shouldn’t trust every claim from an alleged victim any more than we should every claim coming from an alleged perpetrator. Both stories need to be carefully investigated, because both sides experience consequences if we handle these poorly. On the one hand, we could be silencing a victim who was spiritually abused. On the other hand, we could be ruining the reputation of a leader who is being falsely accused.

6. Beware of emotion-based diagnostics

Here is one “objective assessment tool” from a licensed therapist and PhD in psychology regarding the concept of “gaslighting.” She tells readers to “answer these questions as honestly as you can, trusting your gut instinct.”[41] But as we look through the list, we find that half of the questions deal with the person’s emotions (emphasis mine):

• Do you often question yourself, wondering whether your memory is accurate?
• Do you feel that you can’t trust your emotions?
• Do you often fear that others won’t believe the truthful things you say?
• Do you find your recalled version of events frequently challenged?
• Do you feel as though most or all conflicts are your fault?
• Does talking to that certain someone leave you feeling ‘a little crazy’?
• Do they often suggest or insinuate that you are ‘too emotional’?
• Do you feel less than or smaller when talking with them and unsure why?
• Do they emphasize their presumed position of authority?
• Do they diminish, laugh at, ignore, or devalue your feelings and experiences?
• Do they consistently downplay your accomplishments, while celebrating their own?
• Do they never seem to admit fault?
• Do you leave encounters with them questioning what is wrong with you?
• Do you find yourself questioning whether it really is as bad as it seems?

Some of these diagnostic questions are quite good because they focus on the objective actions of the abuser. However, half of these questions deal with the individual’s emotions. Later, she writes that potential victims should “listen within” and “scan your body” for any tension or tightness. Then she counsels readers to “allow your felt sense, your most primitive wisdom, to guide you to your intuitive knowledge, and trust that intuition. If you suspect you are being gaslit, you probably are.”[42] Elsewhere, she repeats, “Trust your gut.”[43] In contrast, both Scripture and experience tell us of the dangers of trusting intuition as our primary guide for discerning truth or goodness. Solomon writes, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). And elsewhere he writes, “Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe” (Prov. 28:26 NIV).

This is particularly troubling because the stakes are so high. This therapist suggests fully excommunicating the gaslighter from your life. Moreover, if the gaslighter sends friends and family to contact you, “you might decide to cut or strictly limit contact with them as well.”[44] In other words, if this diagnosis is correct, it could protect a victim from an abuser. However, if it’s incorrect, this could involve cutting off a person’s loved ones—perhaps permanently.

7. Beware of “machine gun” diagnostics

Consider one more diagnostic test—this time for spiritual abuse. Two popular experts state that a person needs to struggle with only “one or more of these issues” to qualify for the “possibility that they were spiritually abused.”[45]

1. You develop a distorted image of God (God is “never satisfied,” “vindictive,” “apathetic,” “fickle,” etc.).
2. You may be preoccupied with spiritual performance.
3. You have a distorted self-identity of yourself as a Christian.
4. You may have a problem relating to spiritual authority.
5. You may have a hard time with grace.
6. You may have a problem in the area of personal boundaries, an unclear understanding about “death to self” teachings and “rights.”
7. You may have difficulty with personal responsibility.
8. You may suffer from a lack of living skills.
9. You may have a hard time admitting the abuse.
10. You may have a hard time with trust.

Remember, you need to qualify for only “one or more of these issues” in order to qualify for the possibility of spiritual abuse. Most of these claims could apply to just about anyone. You might call this the “machine gun” assessment: If you fire enough shots, you’ll eventually connect with the target (even if you’re blindfolded!).

Conclusion

The lives of people and the life of the church are at stake if we get the subject of spiritual abuse wrong. Instead of taking the extremes, followers of Jesus should take a balanced, biblical, and measured approach in this complex cultural moment.

Bibliography

Blue, Ken. Healing Spiritual Abuse: How to Break Free from Bad Church Experiences. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1993.

Campbell, Bradley, and Jason Manning. The Rise of Victimhood Culture. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018.

DeGroat, Chuck. When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community from Emotional and Spiritual Abuse. IVP Press, 2020.

Johnson, David, and Jeff VanVonderen. The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority within the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House, 2005.

Kruger, Michael. Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022.

Oakley, Lisa, and Justin Humphreys. Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse. London: SPCK, 2019.

Orlowski, Barbara. Spiritual Abuse Recovery. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.

Vinall, Deborah. Gaslighting: A Step-by-Step Recovery Guide. Emeryville, CA: Rockridge Press, 2021.