Toxic Faith, Arterburn & Felton

[OBW]

The problem with some of these points is, just as SC has pointed out, they exist at some level all over society without there being any cult, aberration, or abuse. The problem is in degrees.

There is a greater discussion than the condition of the LC going on in Christianity concerning the so-called “Emerging Church” movement and more significantly the “Emergent” subset of that. I read a book recently that, in James Fennimore Cooper style, listed a page and a half of potential characteristics (all in one sentence) that are indicative of Emerging churches. Every church in America, no, in the world fits into some of these, even the LC. But most are not Emerging Churches.

The same applies to many of the statements Nell has provided. The problem is that finding some evidence of an item or two on the list does not create proof of abuse, or a cult. It requires evidence of a level of such trait(s) in which abuse is actually in play.

Tiger Woods has a following that probably qualifies as a personality cult at some level. But they are not going to burn the clubhouse at PebbleBeach when Woods doesn’t win, or riot in the streets when he does. It takes more than a label for it to have the meaning we seek to establish.

That is our job. It is not to apply the label at any level, but to establish that it is, or is not at a sufficient enough level to warrant concern, or some negative label.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with some of these points is, just as SC has pointed out, they exist at some level all over society without there being any cult, aberration, or abuse. The problem is in degrees.

...The same applies to many of the statements Nell has provided. The problem is that finding some evidence of an item or two on the list does not create proof of abuse, or a cult. It requires evidence of a level of such trait(s) in which abuse is actually in play.

...That is our job. It is not to apply the label at any level, but to establish that it is, or is not at a sufficient enough level to warrant concern, or some negative label.

Mike,

I can concede the existance of these 10 items in culture. There is no argument here. I can also concede the existance of these 10 items as a whole and/or in part in multiple levels of society and culture.

However, that these 10 items exist in the church is the more compelling topic, and is in fact the point of the book. It was never my intention to put these 10 items out for discussion apart from the context of book. It is certainly your liberty to do so, but that would need a new thread.

If you haven't read the book, we have two choices:

1) Read the book then discuss the 10 items in context.
2) Discuss the 10 items as another topic, apart from the book "Toxic Faith" by Arterbern and Felton.

"Toxic Faith" was very helpful to me to understand what happened to me and how I was derailed in my walk with the Lord. I highly recommend the book to those who are reading this forum who were just like me: hurt, confused, and full of guilt and self-blame for the mess I had made of my life.

Nell

[Nell]

(Toxic Faith, p. 243)

Ten Rules of a Toxic Faith System

Whether it is a family or ministry, any system must have certain rules to maintain it and keep its members in line. The rules form the distinct character or culture of the organization or family. Toxic faith is no different. Its rules are not written down, but they exist. Sometimes they exist only in the minds of the religious addicts who thrive on the system. Everyone within the system understands the rules and abides by them. As the system grows, new challenges arise, and the rules are periodically changed at the whim of the religiously addicted parents or leaders. Those who do best quickly figure out the rules that have been eliminated and the new ones put in their place. The following are some common rules of toxic faith systems.

[Nell]

CONTROL

TOXIC RULE #1: The leader must be in control at all times.
When a person becomes addicted to something, he or she is completely controlled by it. Deluded by the addiction, the addict is unaware of this loss of control and believes that he or she is in control. Control is a primary issue for people who suffer from an addiction. Toxic faith or religious addiction is no exception.

When the toxic faith leader struggles with control on a personal (p. 244) level, he or she attempts to be in the center of control within the system in an effort to affect all the outcomes. The leader desires to have the family say in every decision, whether minimal or monumental. When a religious addict is a parent, the children grow up with little ability to think independently because adherence to the system is so strong. Anyone not adhering to the leader's tough standards is immediately dismissed so that total control, or at least the illusion of total control, can be maintained by the leader who is addicted to the organization and the control it provides.
Control is really an illusion. No parent has complete control in any family. No leader can predict all the circumstances and stress that the ministry will confront. The more the person seeks to control the details, the less likely that person will be able to maintain a clear vision of the larger issues of balance and focus in the ministry or family. The more control is sought, the less there is to be had in any circumstance....

If faith is toxic, it exists outside God. It creates a god much different from God the Creator. The control rule exemplifies how God has been re-created in the minds of the toxic faith leader and the religious addicts who follow that leader. There is little or no trust in the almighty God. Faith in self and the ability to keep things under control replaces a true trust that God is control. Persecutors are very controlling people, and their conspirators are just as controlling. In the entire system people fight for control while attributing complete control to the leader.(p. 245)

... With a rule that the leader must be in control of all things at all times, the persecutor tries to change everything and control everything. The bigger the ego, the bigger the belief in the ability to change everything. Until the leader relinquishes control, the ministry continues to teach through example the philosophy, "I must take things into my own hands." That is exactly what religiously addicted followers do.

[Nell]

Elders' Training #7, p. 55

...A wife could say to her husband, "I love you and I take you as my husband, but whatever you say I have to bring to the Lord to see if it is really His leading for me. I need to pray to find out whether I should take your word wholly or in part and whether it fits in with my situation." If a wife had this attitude, how would her husband feel? Her attitude is a kind of subtle dissension, and her husband would not be able to tolerate it forever. I have been tolerating such an attitude from some, though, for the past fifteen years, but my toleration has ended.

p. 79 . . . This helped me to realize that although we are holding the proper ground, possessing many divine truths, and enjoying all the divine riches, we have lost the morale. We have become a weak person with germs. . . I not only have to be faithful to the Lord and faithful to the churches, but I also have to be faithful to myself. I sacrificed my whole life for the Lord's recovery. I have passed through different kinds of sufferings in my ministry for the sake of the Lord's recovery. This is why I must speak the truth regardless of whom I would offend. I must do something to kill all these germs.

(p. 80)... The Lord started something new in Taipei, and I originally had no intention to start something among the churches in the United States. Instead, I intended for the churches in the United States to wait for a time so that they could see something as a model in Taiwan. I do not want to have a start when so many old poisons remain. Because I realized that the poisons still remain in the United States, I felt burdened to call this urgent training.

. . .The army is here, but the morale has been lost. We must get the morale back before we talk about the army. . . .

. . . The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain (p. 81) sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that. The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry.

After I read in "Toxic Faith" the section on "control", I read the book Elders' Training #7, quoted above in part. I finally got it. I can't quote any more of ET#7 because of the "fair use" clause about quoting the material of others. Some of you may have this book. It's a real eye opener about the events of 1984 and the thought process of the man who believed himself to be in condrol as the "commander-in-chief."

I read ET#7 side by side with Toxic Faith. What a help that was!

The "I do not control any church" quote reminds me of the Nixon quote "I am not a crook!"

Nell

Note: If your page numbers do not match mine, there was a later reprint with repagination. The reprint is not acknowledged by the publisher in the cover pages.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

I can concede the existance of these 10 items in culture. There is no argument here. I can also concede the existance of these 10 items as a whole and/or in part in multiple levels of society and culture.

However, that these 10 items exist in the church is the more compelling topic, and is in fact the point of the book. It was never my intention to put these 10 items out for discussion apart from the context of book. It is certainly your liberty to do so, but that would need a new thread.

The difference between these items in society and in the society of believers is number one that compulsion should exist at all in the church (other than avoidance of sin and heresy we shouldn't be telling one another what to do), and number two the degree of control we are dealing with.

The Cleveland Browns may offer to sell you a jersey with the football logo on it. They would love that. Free advertising. Same with Coca-Cola and Ford Motor Company. Yes, everyone is trying to get a piece of your time, interest, attention, and especially money. But Ford doesn't say that you have to give them 10% of your income or you will be disciplined in a dark room for 1,000 years. Ford doesn't say that every word out of your mouth must be "Ford, Ford, Ford" or you will be cut off from society.

The degree of compulsion in a toxic faith group is on another order entirely than what is even in the regimented areas like schools and the military. What to wear, what to eat, what to think, what to speak, what to pray, who to talk to and what to say to them, all these things are no longer part of the dialog between believer and God. No, they now are given in detailed instructions from the "oracle" who has the "inside track" to God's will. And woe to the "rebel" who doesn't toe the line! No, this is another level of control entirely apart from culture, family, work, and society.

Infants need structure, and rules. For them, constraints are the norm, along with inducements to grow. But at some point, as an adult one needs to be able to think, move, act, and decide. The system which keeps people forever as infants, unable to think for themselves, is a toxic system. Maturity and responsibility are obviated. "The oracle told me to do it."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

If you haven't read the book, we have two choices:

1) Read the book then discuss the 10 items in context.
2) Discuss the 10 items as another topic, apart from the book "Toxic Faith" by Arterbern and Felton.

If we need to discuss them in the context in which they are described in the book, then either the topic requires the reading of the book, or you should put them in context (short of quoting the entire book).

OK, add to what I said that these items, by existing in society and culture at large, also exist in the church. I'm not saying "so what?" but instead saying that we can't just run off and say that the LC is there. We have to do the work of establishing that they have crossed some line that goes from some innocuous level to that of being truly abusive.

I would agree that, locality by locality, there are various traits as different levels. And further there is a level of abuse seen in the hierarchy that emanates from Anaheim. Where are the examples that prove the crossing of the line and where are they messing. While the LC is at one level, at least with respect to those who follow the LSM, a denomination. But even among those are differences. It is hard to paint the errors of Ray Graver onto the church in Atlanta, or the errors of Ron Kangas onto the church in Denver.

My point is that a list is just a list. We can say that some/all of them can be found somewhere on the list. But that is not proof of anything. It is in a pattern of actual abuse that is linked to the list. We can say that they are deep into the list, but if we cannot substantiate our claims, we are no better as we point at them than they are when they point at Christianity.

I realize that the discussion is just getting off the ground. But it was started with several stark statements by various writers concerning issues with abusive religious systems, cults, etc. The statements did not provide a basis or linkage to anything. It was sort of like getting the quote of the day via email with absolutely no commentary.

SC saw some problems with an undirected topic (or more correctly series of topics since each one has its own thread) that only provides out of context quotes.

I do not suggest that there is nothing to find or nowhere to go. But there needs to be direction. And sending everyone to read these books is not a viable option for most of us. I already have a reading list. I have already bypassed several good books because there is already too much.

Can someone provide ground rules for the discussion? Can we agree that simply saying “it is so” is not worthy of the bandwidth required to transmit the bytes through the internet? Can someone with knowledge of the books provide context?

BTW. Your comments about God’s word as definitive for “faith” is problematic in a discussion about the LC since they have added that one church one city is one of the six tenets of the faith, per Lee’s 1971 book on the subject, The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. So we are already at an impasse when discussing with the LC.

[Nell]

Mike,

Please see my posts #8, #9 and #10. Something you can sink your teeth into.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

If we need to discuss them in the context in which they are described in the book, then either the topic requires the reading of the book, or you should put them in context (short of quoting the entire book)

I think “Toxic Faith”, in almost any context, will be worth discussing on our forum. 10-15 years ago I probably would have told you that there is no such thing. I believe the great majority of the current participants (and lurkers) here would now confirm that, not only does toxic faith exist, the Local Church is probably to be considered the poster child for this phenomenon in the modern Christian church. Nell will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think she only posted the individual books here as jumping off points for discussions, and not necessarily as a “set in granite” guideline to be followed to a tee.

OK, add to what I said that these items, by existing in society and culture at large, also exist in the church. I'm not saying "so what?" but instead saying that we can't just run off and say that the LC is there. We have to do the work of establishing that they have crossed some line that goes from some innocuous level to that of being truly abusive.

Points well taken. Nevertheless, I would think that the vast majority of ex long-time members would have no problem in saying that the Local Church has, to some degree, “crossed some line” over into being truly abusive in many different ways. These abuses have been well documented and chronicled over on the BARM forum over a period of many years across thousands of posts.

My point is that a list is just a list. We can say that some/all of them can be found somewhere on the list. But that is not proof of anything. It is in a pattern of actual abuse that is linked to the list. We can say that they are deep into the list, but if we cannot substantiate our claims, we are no better as we point at them than they are when they point at Christianity.

Again, I think the list was not posted here as a be-all-end-all, but rather just a primer to get us going. Not exactly sure what you mean by “substantiate our claims” (especially since no claims have even been made yet on this thread)…but I would remind us all that “Christianity” was not the one to claim that they, and they alone are “The Lord’s Recovery”. Christianity was not the one who claimed that their apostle was the One Apostle with the One Ministry for the Age, and so on and so forth. If there are burdens of proof, they fall on the ones who have made these outrageous and ridiculous claims, and not on the shoulders of those of us who spent years finding out the hard way that these claims were patently false.

The statements did not provide a basis or linkage to anything.

I think the basis and linkage to the toxic faith many experienced in the Local Church will be forthcoming very soon. Hang on to yur hat…it’s a comin…I guaraaannnnteee.

Can someone provide ground rules for the discussion? Can we agree that simply saying “it is so” is not worthy of the bandwidth required to transmit the bytes through the internet? Can someone with knowledge of the books provide context?

I think so long as everybody keeps within the general theme of “toxic faith” then we should be ok. Now apparently some of these authors have related this notion to us in black and white. This does not mean that every little jot and tittle is going to match the abuses and excesses that we see in the Local Church, but from what I read in Nell’s openings post it looks like the shoe fits rather well. Just my opinion of course. I can’t recall if this is the book that is published in full on line or its one of the others, but there are probably enough significant quotes available on line to get us going.

[OBW]

Nell, Admin,

I understand the points you are making. As for Lee's discussions in the Elder's training in 86, that is just before Benson started giving a brief series in Irving on the citizens and the army. While I do not recall the kind of requirement for a lock-step follow the leader mentality for the army, it did not yet appear that it was being applied to the citizens.

And it probably wasn't. But they were taking all the supplies and giving them to the army, so the citizens were starving.

I note Admin said there are lots of us who have experiences. I never denied that. I know they are true. I have seen some of it. My comment was that saying that there are a lot of experiences means nothing. We have to set them out for viewing. They must be entered into evidence.

Forget the LC faithful. SC and Ohio will not let you label because you say it is so, and rightly so. My comments were more rhetorical than a challenge. I know there is proof. Don't say there is. Lay it out.

And my comment about the lack of clarity on where to go applies to each of them, not just this one. Put the same kind of "meat" in the other threads you have applied here. You've sort of put your boat in the water with no tether to the dock and it's now drifting out to sea. Start the motor. Get the rudder set. chart a direction. There is a lot to put in these (although I haven't figured out if each truly needed to be in a separate thread).

[Thankful Jane]

Here is my testimony about these books. When I first discovered them in the early 90s, I didn't say "Aha! material with which to convict the LC! Let me make a case. Let me examine things to see if there is enough volume of evidence to be able to judge them as places of toxic faith or spiritual abuse ...."

Such thoughts never crossed my mind. These books helped me personally, mainly because I discovered that my experience and the LC experience was not unique to that period of time. There were many other groups with the same kind of dogma such as "the true church," "the one minister and ministry," "the place were real brotherly love was," etc. There were other groups with Christian leaders who were overstepping and making inroads into the personal and practical lives of believers. That realization shocked me to the core. Until that time, I thought my experience in the LC was unique.

What these books did for me was like a camera panning back so I could see the bigger picture and realize that the devil was active all over the place trying to frustrate the outpouring of the Spirit that happened during those years which brought so many people to faith in Christ.

I think this board is an offering to people who are grappling with their own personal pain from what happened to them. Frankly, it doesn't matter if it happened to 1 or 100 other people. If it happened to me, I need help.

Maybe the boat on this thread hasn't been able to get out of the dock because its trying to answer the objections of the police on the docks blowing whistles at it.

Thankful Jane

[aron]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

What these books did for me was like a camera panning back so I could see the bigger picture and realize that the devil was active all over the place trying to frustrate the outpouring of the Spirit that happened during those years which brought so many people to faith in Christ.

I agree. The bigger picture, for me, is that we sinners one day got a revelation of God's saving love for us in Jesus Christ. Then, as we attempted to go on in our human lives, following the vision that was imparted in this revelation, some of us found ourselves in what, looking back, we can refer to as "abusive" or "toxic" spiritual environments. To me, whether it was in the Witness Lee-led local churches or in another group is not so important as the realization that our spiritual journey was derailed, was hijacked by someone with control issues.

How much the "shoe fits" to our particular experience is not so important as discussing the phenomena of people leaving thier allotted portion and trampling on thier neighbors' portion. The 'boundaries' thing is huge, huge, huge. We don't get into the Holy City until we get clear what is mine, yours, ours, and God's. This is basic, foundational stuff, and in the toxic spiritual community it gets distorted, and needs to be addressed, irrespective of the particulars involved.

Relationships between the believers is an important issue, one of the most important we can discuss. Also follows the relationship between the believer and his/her family, whether christian or not, and with neighbors, co-workers, other people in "the world", etc. Look how the toxic spiritual realm spreads out and poisons all those other relationships as well. Look how the 'pyramid scheme' of hierarchy, with its pecking order of pride and judgment, elevating some people and denigrating others, spreads into the relationships outside the spiritual fellowship.

I am not interested in Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, Ray Graver, or the Living Stream Ministry. I am interested in continuing my journey of faith. This discussion is interesting to me because it sheds light on the bigger picture. Relationships among the believers is a huge part of the journey. In healthy spiritual environments, the relations between the believers edify, uplift, encourage, strengthen, fortify and equip the sojourners on their way. In toxic environments the believer becomes a commodity in someone else's realm, and is sucked dry until the husk is discarded. I daresay that on this forum the consensus would hold that faith in Jesus Christ being equated to being "absolute for the ministry" equals a spiritually toxic environment.

I think there are lessons here for everyone, regardless of the particulars. But OBW's point of not assuming all the particulars fit every case is also worth remembering. That, to me, is why the 'bigger picture' is so important. Otherwise we mislabel, or say "that doesn't apply to me" and miss the bigger point.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Forget the LC faithful. SC and Ohio will not let you label because you say it is so, and rightly so. My comments were more rhetorical than a challenge. I know there is proof. Don't say there is. Lay it out.

And a good morning to you Brother Mike!