The Boys (and girls) Who Cry Wolf: Defining and Identifying Abuse

I have read a number of articles containing information and analysis of the Ravi Zacharias sex scandal. The details are more than troubling and my heart breaks for the victims who were obviously groomed and traumatized by a man who was profoundly deceived. It is tragic and demands the brightest light of transparency for the Church and its leaders to awaken, learn the important lessons, and appropriately change its operating procedures in order that this type of violation would become a rare exception within our community. It may be impossible to completely eradicate such perverseness due to the sinful nature of humanity, but safeguards and zero-tolerance are more than possible. Any abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, and the like) should be exposed and appropriately addressed. Period. As a husband whose wife has experienced first-hand and given public testimony to an abusive situation, this is no trivial matter in our household.

Which leads me to a point of analysis which hasn’t been addressed but I see developing on the horizon. I guess I would call it the trivialization of vocabulary.

There is an ancient tale from Aesop (the famous fable writer) of a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks the people of a village into thinking a wolf is attacking the town’s flock. He cries, “Wolf”, on several occasions, and everyone comes running to repel the attack of the predator only to find out they have been fooled. When a wolf actually does appear later and the boy cries for help, the townspeople disbelieve the alarm and the sheep really are eaten by the wolf. The story actually has a couple of “morals”. The first is the traditional lesson of not issuing false alarms repeatedly because when it’s time for a real alarm, no one will believe you. The second is the more subtle of warnings. It has to do with trivializing a word (or concept like “attack”) that is significant in the minds of most people with repeated usage in situations which do not warrant such use. After a while, such a word becomes meaningless in application because it has been overused to the point of trivialization.

I think we need to start being careful with the word…abuse.

It is an incendiary word.

To claim abuse or to be accused of abuse is rightly considered to be a serious statement.

There is no doubt nor argument that the word is needful and applicable in numbers of situations.

To those who claim to be abused, we should by every means possible demonstrate compassion, sympathy, and if possible justice. No one, in my universe of friends or acquaintances, would ever consider anything less than the full support of an abused person. Conversely, if one is accused of abuse and it is properly proven, that person should be corrected, arrested, and appropriately shunned. An abuser cannot be empowered or enabled by any compassion until the sin is repented and atoned for, as well as the criminality of certain abuse adjudicated. Like I said, abuse is not a trivial matter.

Our era is not exempt from the tragic cases of real abuse. State social workers and private psychologists could easily line up and testify to their personal experiences, interactions, and work in assisting the truly abused. Again, no one would minimize the pain of those victims who have experienced such traumatic events.

The problem we face in a victimhood era, however, is the overuse, misuse, and misapplication of such an important word. Much like the words, cultist, racist, or heretic, when a word is applied to situations flippantly, casually, or imprecisely, the significance of what these words mean are actually trivialized into the fog of meaninglessness.

For example, I was curious to understand how “spiritual abuse” is defined, so I decided to research the most accessed sites on this topic and what I found was fascinating. One site defined it as, “Any attempt to exert control over someone using religion, faith, or beliefs.”

Ok, sort of vague and ambiguous, but let’s read on.

“An example of religious abuse is a religious leader using scripture or beliefs to coerce or control the behavior of members of the organization.”

Ok, spiritual “abuse” has now been narrowed to use of scripture to “coerce” another person’s behavior. That’s helpful. Nobody wants or likes coercion. However, the door to triviality starts to open. Do churches or pastors get to hold its members or leaders to a biblical standard of ethics and character? If a Sunday School teacher is acting non-integral in his business can that conduct be addressed by use of Scripture? Can certain “behaviors” be considered disqualifying for service and a reminder of that actually be abuse?

The site continues with “signs” of spiritual abuse…

“Religion and spirituality should be a source of comfort, peace, community, and inspiration in your life. If that is not the case, you could be experiencing spiritual abuse. You may be experiencing spiritual abuse if your religious leadership or intimate partner is using scriptures or religious beliefs to control your:

Clothing

Behavior

Sexuality

Decision making

Choice to have children or not

Finances”

I would suspect the key concept is “control” or “power” in these matters and what constitutes inappropriate or unacceptable control. The application (and depending on the relationship, the expectation) of scripture declared to any of these topics listed is not necessarily “abuse”. It could be biblical pastoring and preaching. And herein lies the problem.

I am quite sure (and grieved) that “abuse” has and does exist in churches to our shame. I am sure abuse exists in every conceivable way possible as human beings congregate with one another in churches. The Ravi Zacharias’s need to be weeded out and dealt with. Those who practice psychological manipulation and coercion need to be exposed. Certainly, physical abuse would rank as despicably as sexual abuse. These things are beyond question.

The problem is using a word where it isn’t accurately applied.

The comment threads underneath some of the Zacharias’ analyses and posts are filled with both legitimate victims of abuse, as well as the pseudo-victims who simply want to jump on the victimhood train to be able to say, “me too”.

Disappointment with a leader is not necessarily abuse.

Discouragement is not an abuse.

Broken promises are not always abusive.

Accountability as a sheep or under-shepherd is not abuse.

Biblical expectations are not an abuse.

Character standards are not an abuse.

Confrontation is not an abuse.

Faithfully exegeting and preaching the Bible is not an abuse.

Church discipline is not abuse.

When we live in a culture that is antinomian to the core, as well as “wise in its own eyes”, then we really need to be careful that the words we choose to label our experiences in church life are accurate to the incident lest we are guilty of minimizing the truly abused. Your feet may have been held to the fires of accountability at church or with a church leader, but to call that abuse is to grossly minimize Ravi’s deception and true actions of abuse.

The only way the true and false abusive situations will ever be untangled is when there is transparency and light confidently applied to the accusation. Something is grossly wrong when true victims of real abuse are hesitant to come forward, while those who simply had their feelings hurt or experienced a disappointment try to hijack the word “abuse” to magnify their personal offense. (I would recommend reading Gene Edwards’ book, “Letters to a Devastated Christian”. It makes a good faith effort in addressing these issues.)

There is little doubt that God is shaking, sifting, and pruning His Church in this hour. Nefarious and evil deeds are coming to the light to be confronted and cleansed. It can be a healthy thing if we handle this moment transparently. However, we will perpetuate and even create new problems if don’t get definitions correct. Aesop was certainly no disciple of Jesus Christ and his fables are in no way Scripture, but the point he makes should be embraced.

Don’t be the boy (or the girl) who cries wolf.