Is It Normal?: Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
There is such a thing as “normal”. Used as an adjective, it is “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.” As a noun, it means “the usual, average, or typical state or condition.” Now, such definitions allow for exceptions, which are described as being “abnormal”, that is, outside of the range of a standard or usual set of circumstances or, perhaps, behavior.
When something is “normal” it usually transcends a variety of settings or expressions. For instance, over the past forty years of pastoral and academic ministry I have been involved with evangelicals, a large charismatic church, an LCMS seminary, and Anglican communities both in the US and the UK, just to name a few. These are very different settings, yet there have been in all these places the opportunity to observe certain aspects of pastoral ministry and church life that I would today classify as “normal”.
Recently, as certain churches and para-church ministries have been credibly accused of pastoral or spiritual abuse, we might do well to consider what we should consider as being normal, that is, what should be expected in a faith community.
Often, spiritual abuse manifests itself in “charismatic” church leaders who make use of their “force of personality” to control or manipulate their followers. Such men or women will engage in bullying, displays of anger, belittling someone, humiliation of an individual, etc. This behavior may take place privately, as in pastoral counseling, or publicly (although this is more rare). Let it be said, loudly and clearly – This is not normal. Indeed, it is altogether outside of the bounds of mere Christian conduct, much less acceptable pastoral practice in 99.9% of the Christian Church. Moreover, this is usually the flip side of the concurrent practice of pastoral favoritism which, in an extreme form, can involve grooming, seduction or financial exploitation. Again, let it be said loudly and clearly – This is not normal.
Now, it might be asked, how do these abnormal situations arise? While the causes may be multifaceted, I believe that there are a few indicators that a problem might arise.
The first is accountability, or the lack thereof. It is normal for a pastor to be accountable to an independent board (or vestry) which will provide oversight, handle the finances, and set salaries and budgets. The board, likewise, is accountable to both the pastor (or leader of a ministry) and to the congregation (or constituent donors). Such a board is not “hand picked”, but is nominated and elected. This is simply normal in the vast majority of churches and, indeed, the vast majority of not-for-profits. If some sort of an arrangement such as this is not in place, one should be worried and start asking questions. Those who say, “I’m only accountable to God”, need to reacquaint themselves with the New Testament. They need to read again the passages concerning mutual submission. They need to consider Paul returning to the council at Jerusalem and submitting himself to others, some of whom he did not know. Moreover, this sort of accountability protects not only the congregation, but the pastor as well. Sometimes those in leadership need to be told, “You’re wrong”. The manner is which a pastor or leader reacts to such correction is an indicator of their understanding of ministry and what they consider to be normal.
The second indicator has to do with preparation and training. The normal preparation for ordination in the US today is as follows: an undergraduate degree, three years of seminary, a battery of psychological tests, six months to a year training under an older pastor/priest, and only then are you set loose upon the world. Some denominations have additional requirements such as a separate denominational exam and hospital chaplaincy training. Even with this, some “bad apples” still get through the process. Additionally, much could be improved in numerous seminaries. There is however, something to be said for the process. Setting aside theology, biblical languages and all the rest, you are required to take courses in pastoral counseling and you are observed as you make your way through the system. You become acquainted with your own church identity and history. You soon learn that you may, or may not, be the smartest person in the class. You are exposed to differing opinions. Perhaps most importantly, you begin your own spiritual formation. Now, for numerous reasons, some placed in pastoral positions have not had the opportunity to go through such a normal process. Some belong to churches in which they were ordained and placed in leadership simply because they “felt a call” and/or they planted their own church or ministry. In such cases, the question becomes, “What are you doing about it now?” There are multiple resources available near to you or even online. The person who despises learning from others is, most often, someone who thinks they already know it all… and they are usually dangerous. They are dangerous because of what they think they know, and they are dangerous owing to what they do not know. It is not normal.
The third indicator is more difficult to address as it has to do with family. Nepotism is defined as, “the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs”. To put it simply, churches are not meant to be “the family business”. Now, in some mainline denominations I do know of husband and wife teams being called to co-pastor churches. Yet, such arrangements are rare, usually resulting from two seminarians marrying and then both being ordained and seeking a post where they can work together. When such a call takes place, very specific contracts are put into place to avoid favoritism. Yet, there are other situations in which you read the staff listing of a church or ministry and read the names of wives, sons, daughters, in-laws, etc., in salaried positions or, perhaps even worse, occupying board positions. Most of us know of churches in which a pastoral or leadership position has been passed from father to son (or daughter). The conflicts of interest created are myriad. The issues of confidentiality as it relates to pastoral care are more than can be delineated in an article such as this. Once again, we need to say it loudly and clearly, “This is not normal”.
Now, you might come up with some additional indicators, but my guess is they will all end with the question, “Is it normal?”.
It is easy, when we love a pastor, a church or a ministry, to make excuses for what, on considered thought, we know to be abnormal. We may even believe that excuses must be made to indicate our loyalty. Yet, if we indeed do love a pastor or a church or a ministry, I would suggest that the most loving thing we can do is to ask the simple question, “Is it normal?” For by asking the question, the pastor, the church or the ministry might be saved, or, we might be kept safe from harm. It is not a difficult question to ask, nor is it a difficult question to answer.
Duane, I like the way you break this down. Thank you!
JM
Thanks! It really is basic. So many excuses are made for conduct and actions that are way outside of anything that might be considered normal…
This is brilliant and the place we need to start to move forward.
I hope everyone involved in the current debacle reads this and makes it a foundation piece to rebuild their ideas of what a church is.
Duane,
Do you see any dangers with being normal? For instance can churches end up systemically abusing the sheep simple because everyone else is doing it? For instance it was normal to have slaves at one time. That doesn’t make it good or right. Infact it was evil. Jesus never told us to be normal. To be honest I think this article needs a lot of improvement but also the points you did make were right on. I just don’t like the term normal. I never was a normal kid growing up and compared to the world, the church certainly is not normal. Can we use a better word. Maybe Holy?
While I haven’t related all that I saw and experienced in my tenure at CC (or other entities, for that matter), I can safely say that all of it forced me to look at ways to identify what is not “normal”. Coming from a background in which my family was influenced by a cult, I have been essentially traumatized by what I have seen happening inside of what was supposed to be orthodox “Christian” institutions. Much of the disgusting activity that happened seems to mimic the Magician’s trick. (He causes the eyes to look in one direction while the real “trick” is happening out of view.) As in the case of the recently exposed perverse ministry of PFM, it is apparent to me that they were able to get people (including leaders) to believe and focus on the supposed “orthodoxy” of the group. All the while, abuse was rampant and their orthopraxy was that of a cult. Many have said that the reason CC (McClure) did not recognize what they were seeing was because CC had much of the same unchecked operating practices. This site is glutted with accounts that would make such a view reasonable. (Some PFM accounts state that CC people even looked on while interns were being berated.)
In my early Christian walk, my heart was very much towards exposing aberrancy because of the tragedies suffered in my family from the cult influence. I merely wanted to see people set free as I felt I had. In my innocence, I was shocked to see that CC’s promotion of discernment ministries cloaked extreme and unrepentant immorality all the way to the top and decidedly unChristlike behavior by many of its leaders who had complete power over their people. The shock continued when I read materials published by CC’s own people that supported this awful behavior by pastors. CC was so void of shame about their unbiblical practices they actually codified it and put it into print. When a man like Chuck Smith has been allowed to have the kind of power over people’s minds such that they will defy Scripture because he says it’s okay–you have a major component of a cult. I have never had trouble saying that “outloud”. No theology will save that group from the eventual chastisement they deserve when they foolishly allow themselves to rationalize cruelty to God’s people. God does care for His people and there are consequences for those that continue to treat them badly. If I was a leader inside of CC, I would want to deal with this issue sooner rather than later. It’s better to do it voluntarily.
I am watching the CFM situation with a magnifying glass because of the wider implications. Let’s see if the “wise” who are willing to clean up that situation will understand the greater opportunity that they are being given.
Steve,
I could have said much more in this article! I used the word “normal” in terms of a basic standard of conduct and practice. One person mentioned that we should simply act as “Christians”. I’m sure that many involved with abuse, may consider themselves to be “holy” as they claim (falsely) that they are doing God’s work. Some things – proper boards, not being involved in nepotism, and proper pastoral care – are in my mind, normative…
JM
” Let’s see if the ‘wise’ who are willing to clean up that situation will understand the greater opportunity that they are being given.”
The question is, will it be “cleaned up” or “covered up”?
Thank you Dr. Duane W.H. Arnold. As much as I love the Jesus People days of the 70s and 80s, I’m afraid we threw the “norm” (normal became a very bad word), out with the preverbal baby’s bath water. As young Christian families, many of us veered off the beaten path of “normal” and in many ways became fearful of using or teaching our children critical thinking and the boundaries needed to keep us all safe with each other. My prayer is that we turn this way of thinking around and make “normal” a good word in our own lives and in the church. Your article here shines a bright light on the correct path we need to understand and hold our pastors and elders accountable to.
History says, “Covered Up.” 🙁
Duane had to step away with a family emergency…he’ll be back when able…
Duane,. I see your point. However Guassian bell-curve normal in CCA circles has a long history. For these pastor’s I suggest they become abnormal. This new way may become normal in a good way for the rest of us.
Michael
Back for at least a time…
Steve,
It’s probably time, and perhaps past time, to say that much of what passes for “normal” in CCA circles, is “abnormal”.
When I read several of the testimonies, which described what you call “bullying, displays of anger, belittling someone, humiliation of an individual, etc.,” I was reminded of my experience in military basic training. These were intentional tactics of breaking individuals down, to be rebuilt into a cohesive unit designed to follow orders.
I am shocked and disappointed that a Christian ministry would engage in such tactics, and, while I have no evidence, I wonder if these tactics were imported into the ministry intentionally to obtain similar results to military basic training. Analogous to church growth methods of evangelism, these ministry abuse tactics import worldly methods to build and support a ministry. What may be normal in certain secular contexts is abnormal in the kingdom of God.
At the root of the problem, in my opinion, is a severe lack of trust in God and His Word, which mediates His will to the Church. Leaders who claim immediate (or special) access to God’s will for the purpose of (or the end result of which is) controlling and dominating others should IMO be marked and avoided.
Jean,. I think you are on to something with the military. I know ? n my bad experience in my ex-CC the second in command from Moses himself was infact a retired military officer on a Nuclear powered submarine. The Moses supposedly gets the vision from God and the first officer will do everything to make vision a reality taking the heat off of the supreme leader for it’s implementation.
Jean
Yes, I think you’ve hit on at least part of the psychology of the situation.
I think as well, it has much to do with lack of personal integrity. Fully formed adults recognize the “give and take” of adult relationships. Most of us work with people who have opinions and perspectives that are different than our own. A person who lacks a sense of personal integrity, or who is personally insecure, is the one who tries to control and dominate in such situations.
Concurrent is the idea that if you can dominate, control or bully, questions will not be asked… about boards, about finances, about accountability…