Blogs

Salvation has been a topic for eons – both in the Christian religion and other spirituality based religions. Societies and people across the pages of history have asked the question, and attempted to answer, the age-old question, “What is there after death? Is there an afterlife? If so, how do I enter it?”

For modern Oneness Pentecostals, they believe they have revealed, re-discovered, dug up and reformed the ancient ‘truth’ of Scripture, how one makes it to heaven, pleases God, obeys the Scripture, is justified, and finds true holiness, something that was supposedly closed off from mankind for centuries due to paganism, false doctrine and the likes of the Roman Catholic church.

Recently, a young man and his wife contacted me on the YouTube channel asking what my thoughts were on the Acts 2:38 message taught by Oneness Pentecostals, known as their salvation doctrine (soteriology). They wanted to leave the United Pentecostal Church for all the legalism and dogma (false doctrine) but were confused about attending other churches that didn’t teach Acts 2:38.

If you are not familiar with the evolved doctrines of the Oneness Pentecostal church (Evolved because it has changed many times since 1901ad at its inception) on Soteriology, Acts 2:38, in a nutshell, means that you deny the Trinity, that you are baptized in Jesus Name only, not in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost (this is a forced effort in denying the Trinity), that you repent by adopting their holiness standards (woman never wear pants, cut their hair, etc), and that you speak in tongues (initial evidence) as the gift of the Holy Ghost.

While this doctrine can be explained in multiple ways, both favorably and unfavorably, I have determined it to be incorrectly dividing the Word and placing upon people a yoke that Scripture did not demand and more importantly, the divergent doctrinal error cascades to many more doctrinal errors.

Also, important to note that I am purposed to equip the children of God to spot doctrinal errors. I’m not bitter, or vengeful, nor attacking any one ‘faith’. I’m not attacking anything, I’m focused on correctly dividing God’s Word.

There are many doctrines of Scripture that can be debated, questioned, given the ‘we will never understand that’ brush off, but Salvation is a critical aspect of Christianity and getting this right is paramount to our experiences with God.

First and foremost, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that our justification is by the obedience of one man (Romans 5:19), not of our own, and that it is faith in Christ alone that produces the grace that saves us (Ephesians 2:8). There is more to the Christian life, but the root of ‘how do I get saved’ is found in fully trusting in the finished works of Christ on the Cross. Grace is a gift, not a paycheck.

By way of example of the error of Oneness theology, let us examine vs 37 of the Acts 2:38 narrative to see if it lines up with the entire picture of Biblical salvation.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

I want to compare this to Acts 16:30 which says, “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 

In the case of Acts 2:37 you have a band of Jews that just witnessed a miraculous event and then heard the preaching of Peter that condemned them for taking part in rejecting the Messiah. After being convicted that they had done something wrong, they asked, paraphrased, What are we going to do about this??

Here, Peter answers with the hallmark platform of the Oneness Pentecostal Church;

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ” ~ Acts 2:38, KJV

In the case of the Philippian jailer of Acts 16, who just witnessed an equally miraculous event, the question was specifically asked, “What must I do to be saved?”, which was not the case in Acts 2:37. We can make logical leaps, but I’m of the opinion we must take Scripture at face value.

Now – it is evident that Peter gave a pretty salvific response to the Jews, dwelling in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, speaking on forgiveness of sins, receiving the gift of the Spirit, being baptized, etc. Yet, something has to be wrong with the Apostle Paul in Acts 16 if that was the message for the Gentile Church because he did not repeat the same answer to the Gentiles. Or, something is wrong with the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation.

In fact, Paul outlined a very different salvation message to the Gentile believer, the Philippian jailer, and he repeated this same message dozens of times in all of his writings: “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31)

Now, I want to use an argument that the Oneness Pentecostals use all the time in this vein of thought, who will often counter the argument opposing Acts 2:38 (Salvation) with this question, “IF Peter was preaching false doctrine in Acts 2 the other 11 Apostles would have called him out because Scripture says, ‘And Peter, standing with the eleven’ (Acts 2:13).”

Likewise, in Acts 16:31, Scripture said that Paul and Silas both answered the jailer on how to be saved, “And they said…” They were in agreement – and that wasn’t to repeat Acts 2:38. Acts 15 shows Paul and Barnabas and the entire elder council of the Christian Church speaking of what it takes for a Gentile to be saved. False doctrine (and legalism) was being rooted out of the Christian Church from the very beginning.

The Day of Pentecost, Signs, and Wonders

The real reason I’m writing this is is an examination of the upper room experience in Acts 2, to highlight the eisegetical error of this theology. As miraculous as this event was, Scripture does not portray it to be a repeatable event, and this highlights the error of the Acts 2:38 salvation doctrine of the Oneness Pentecostal church.

When Acts 2:38 says, ‘and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost‘, this has been interpreted (eisegetically) by Oneness Pentecostal theologians as speaking in tongues, or as they call it, the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. This is a belief that when one receives the Spirit of Christ, i.e. the gift of the Holy Ghost, they will, as seen in the upper room, speak in other tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance.

Indeed, they have made the claim that if one does not speak in tongues, they have not received Christ, they are not saved, and heaven will not be their home until they do. Their soteriology is wrapped up in the signs and wonders gift of speaking in another language.

But – is this what that Scripture really means? Two examinations of both events prove this to be patently false. If Paul told the jailer to speak in tongues in order to be saved, we could take that message and run with it. If the elder council of Acts 15 said to speak in tongues, we could run with it. If Paul taught the Church of Ephesus “For you are saved, by grace, (which is received when you speak in tongues)…” we could take that message and run with it.

But that is not what Scripture declares.

First and foremost, we see this evidenced immediately following Peter’s preaching. Don’t forget, Peter did NOT say that the gift of the Holy Ghost was ‘speaking in tongues’. This is an amalgamation of examples where people did speak in tongues on several occasions in the book of Acts (Cornelius Acts 10) so thus, every one will/must. Is this true?

Act 2:40  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

It is commonly accepted by theologians and scholars that vs 41 indicates 3,000 people became new converts, Christians in the aftermath of Peter’s message. If 120 were in the upper room speaking in tongues, with cloven tongues of fire sitting upon them, with reverberating rushing mighty winds seen and heard by all – imagine the attraction that 3,000 people repeating that event would create?

And yet – Scripture simply says they were baptized and added to the church. This is miraculous! Imagine today a town of 100,000 having THOUSANDS converted to the faith in one evening? Miraculous.

But, did they speak in tongues?

The Signs of the Upper Room Experience

If the Acts 2 experience at Pentecost was a repeatable event, to the degree that it was tied to an individual believers salvation experience, then we would be wise to follow it exactly as exampled in Scripture. Let’s take Scripture at face value.

Act 2:1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Act 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Act 2:5  And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The three signs of the Pentecostal experience are these:

• The Spirit was preceded by the rushing mighty wind. The Greek word here for ‘sound’ is ēchos and it means literally ‘a loud or confused noise, that is, a roar‘. If you have ever stood on the ridge of the Grand Canyon you have heard a rushing mighty wind. The upper room would have been similar.
• The Spirit was preceded by cloven tongues like as of fire. This was something that appeared to all of them, not an apparition only visible to a single person. These have been described by scholars as scintillations, lambent flashes of fire that appeared throughout the room, splitting licks of fire that sat upon each person.
• The tongues that were spoken by each recipient was an immediately translated known language. There was and must be someone in the audience that recognized the language being spoken. This was not a private ‘prayer language’ as some Charismatics call what is now known as babbling, nor a language of angels.

Equipped with this view of the miraculous event of the day of Pentecost, we must then approach the modern day sign of ‘tongues’, through the lens of the Oneness Pentecostal movement that calls it the ‘initial evidence‘, and ask the question, “Does it actually match the biblical model they claim to be following?”

Looking at this scripture and theology of the Oneness Pentecostal religion under the microscope of Scripture we find a virus or an infection in the teaching. To claim that the ‘gift of the Holy Ghost’ is a repetition of the Acts 2 upper room experience doesn’t line up with the Word.

Having been in this religion for 15 years and being connected with hundreds and thousands of Oneness Pentecostals, I can tell you that no one, ever, received the ‘gift’ evidenced in the fashion of the upper room experience. It has never been preceded with a rushing mighty wind, never was it accompanied with cloven tongues visible to all around, and most importantly, NEVER was it a known language that was immediately recognized by someone surround the event.

The only argument to support the Oneness theology on this topic is to say, ‘it’s changed’. To express that it changed is to then dismantle the entire theology. To claim that it did not change is to then admit that they, and no one else is repeating the biblical event as exampled in Acts 2, and thus, have made up their own experience or are disobeying Scripture.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the ‘gift of the Spirit’ is not the supposed initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In fact, Scripture makes it clear that the gift of the Spirit is the eternal promise (Ephesians 1:13) seal we receive upon believing in Christ. That the fruit of the spirit is the evidence of that gift, and finally, that the promise and hope of glory (Colossians 1:27) is the result of that gift.

Scripture also tells us that the ‘gift’ of God is free, and it is salvation. (Ephesians 2:8) Ephesians 4:7 tells us that each of us is given a measure of grace according to the gift of Christ. James 1:7 tells us that the gift is given by God and comes down from Him, who never changes.

We didn’t beg for this gift, we didn’t have to exert and stress and beg and scream and cry for it, we received it by faith! Freely we have been given this grace. In fact, 1 Peter 4:10 tells us that every man who has this gift is responsible for sharing and ministering the grace and freeness of God’s love to one another – being stewards of this gift.

As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. ~ 1 Peter 4:10

Scripture never indicates that the gift is the event or outcome of speaking in tongues. This outlines both the falsity of the Oneness Pentecostal theology surrounding the Acts 2:38 narrative, but more important than any of that, illuminates the wonderful miracle of grace – that it was given to us freely, because of the obedience and love of Jesus Christ and that the real gift of the Holy Ghost is His presence with us, working for us and granting us the fruit of His Spirit, which is Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, and Self-Control – against such God has no law!

Blessings

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

In September 2018, the blog section of the spiritual abuse website had 7,973 visits, with 5,128 being unique. Below are the top ten read posts for September from six different authors. I am also adding the top ten accessed pages from the main website.

We are always looking for new people to join our group of bloggers, so please consider registering and watch your email for more information. How frequently you post is up to you. Let your voice be heard and help others recover. You may even find it therapeutic. Read here for more information.

The Dress –  author Through Grace (accessed 1268 times)

The Pharisees and Apostolics Part 1–  author Lois (accessed 413 times)

The United Pentecostal Church and Sexual Abuse – author Lois (accessed 405 times)

Spiritual Abuse & Emasculated Men – author Lois (accessed 379 times)

Don’t brag about your good deeds – author Random Thoughts

Religious Cuckoldry – author Dr. Michael Warstler (posted by Lois)

Shaky Arguments – author Through Grace

Resilience: It Is All About Perspective – author Grace

When Extreme Churches Collide – author Sailor

Woman ‘in the Spirit’ on a Jamaican Flight – author Lois

And from the main website, the top ten pages:

Oneness Versus Trinity

Make-up and Fingernail Polish are a Sin

The United Pentecostal Church & Lee Stoneking at the United Nations

Qualifications For Delegated Responsibility – This is a new addition to the website.

United Pentecostal Church International Beliefs

What Is Spiritual Abuse?

Does the Bible Say it’s Wrong for Women to Cut their Hair?

Sexual Abuse Cases In United Pentecostal Churches

Anthony Mangun: That is Why I am for Television

The UPCI and the Movie Borat

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

In my own personal therapeutic recovery, I have come to understand some important truths about why I am who I am, and what causes me to function in ways that I’d like to overcome.

For example, I’ve been trying to work through why I assume I know what people are feeling, just by judging from body language and facial expression. Why do I get up and leave at the first sign of conflict, or freeze when I’m unable to get away? Why is it that I experience anxiety so severely that it affects my physical health at times? Am I naive about the intentions of predatory people, or do I just freeze when I get those predatory signals? What causes me to stay in situations where I feel unsafe? How is it that I can feel so emotionally numb when I’m trying to spend time with those I love? What causes me to freeze into silence when I’m around my extended family or in a religious setting?

These questions, and others, recently led me into a very deeply informative session with my therapist. Assuming that I knew what a loved one was thinking and feeling brought me into a confused state, as I saw how wrong I was. My therapist, having worked with me for three years, knew much about my life growing up and my background of spiritual abuse. He pointed out to me how this ability and talent to read others was a very adaptive skill for when I was in the abusive environments. My physical and emotional safety depended, oftentimes, on being able to properly read these cues from parents and religious leaders. Later, this ability allowed me to keep my children from worse abuse from their father, and made me hyper-aware of his moods in order to try to maintain a safe environment. Though I often failed in that protective role, I was able to prevent things from being worse than they were, by that adaptive skill I learned in childhood. However, now I no longer need this adaptive coping mechanism in my daily life. New relationships are with healthy individuals who will plainly tell me if they feel angry at me, and be upfront, safe, and secure about it. The skill that I once needed for survival is no longer helpful, but in many ways has become a detriment in my relationships with healthy individuals.

In my many years of experiencing the power of male anger in a world where females were subservient or “submissive,” that anger was destructive.  Avoiding it at all costs was important. Even female anger from an authority figure could be damaging. As a highly sensitive individual to start with, it wasn’t just the slaps and posterior beatings that I feared. It was the shame…the condemnation…the spiritualizing of human errors as sin. If I angered someone in an authority role it meant I was “sinful” in some way…”a nagging wife,” “not submissive,” “rebellious,” “lazy,” and other accusations could be thrown at me if I managed to anger someone in authority in any small way.  This is the power of spiritual abuse–being able to apply spiritual context to things that are not, in fact, of a spiritual nature, in order to control others.  So, after being born into such an environment, and spending over thirty years of my life entrenched in these situations, is it any wonder that my innate response to anger is to flee, or to freeze?  Anger is traumatic in my inner world.

Anxiety has been my haunting nemesis throughout my recovery. It seems that I can never get away from it. Although I’ve made tremendous leaps of growth and have become highly functional in the facets of life that were formerly unknown to me, I daily battle anxiety. My best new coping skill is avoidance. If I can avoid the anxiety triggers, I’m able to maintain calm and functional life skills on a daily basis. However, it is unrealistic to be able to avoid all triggers and still live in the world. Learning to handle stressful situations in a professional and appropriate manner doesn’t mean that the inner anxiety is non-existent. In fact, the very fact of learning to stay in the situation and outwardly handle it appropriately instead of running away comes at a very high price. Nightmares haunt me after such events. Strange physical reactions occur that have no medical explanation–like the most recent, waking in the middle of the night with full body tremors that were uncontrollable and involuntary. Full blown panic attacks that left me gasping for air and grasping my chest in pain. The embarrassment and helplessness of such incidents is tremendous. I hate not having control of my body and my emotions. However, when trauma is in one’s past, these are not controllable issues. The body responds to the stressor with or without your permission.

I have been re-traumatized repeatedly by trusting unhealthy people in my life, from church situations to job related incidents, and on to friendships and personal relationships. In almost every one of these cases since leaving the spiritually abusive environment, I appeared to be naive in my trusting of these individuals and then experiencing their abusive advances. As I sat in my therapists office discussing why I am so “naive” and “gullible,” I didn’t get any concrete answers. It was only later, when reading a book for work, that the answer came to me and I knew the truth.  It is not naivety that has landed me in these situations. It is the trauma in my past. Back in those times, I coped by freezing because I could not run away from the situations nor could I fight–for running away would be “backsliding” and fighting would be “rebellion,” both severe sins that would send me to hell. Freezing was my only option. Along with the freezing, I would use self talk to keep me from running–“Don’t be dramatic, everything is fine,” “don’t make a mountain out of a molehill,” “don’t be dirty minded, he’s not hitting on you,” etcetera.  As a result, I was able to keep myself in situations that were truly unsafe, but it kept me from the condemnation that was so powerfully used in spiritually abusive environments.  These learned responses to unsafe situations have followed me into my present functional life. It isn’t that I’m not able to recognize the un-safeness of a situation, but rather that I’ve been conditioned to stay and endure the situation. Learning to listen to that inner alarm bell and allow myself to flee in such situations is an ongoing work in progress.

I recently became aware that feeling emotionally numb is an aspect of post traumatic stress disorder. Although, to my knowledge, I’ve never been formally diagnosed with this disorder, I definitely could diagnose myself with it. The inability to be fully present with those we love is an important indicator of traumatic stress from the past. I have noticed this aspect in my life repeatedly. Although it affects my relationships with friends and extended family, the worst part is how it affects how I relate to my own children. I work very hard to overcome this and my children have a very close and warm relationship with me. Inside myself is where I feel the numbness.  I have a child who is grown and gone from home. I’m continually amazed at how little I worry about this grown child compared to other mothers in similar situations. Days pass where I don’t even think about this, my own flesh and blood, my beloved firstborn. Suddenly, out of my dazed fog will come a frantic worry when I realize I haven’t spoken to him in a week, or when I start calling and get no response. In these moments, I “come awake” to realize how much I love my children and want to be present with them in the moment. Yet, far to many evenings the numbness drives me to fall asleep with only a few words exchanged between myself and my teens still living in my home. Sleep has become an escape for the numbness. This saddens me and drives me to continue seeking help to fully engage in the present.

Silence is a friend, a refuge of safety to where I run when I’m feeling unsafe.  More than simply my introverted nature, I find myself retreating to silence when I’m with my extended family or in religious groups. The fully engaged student or career woman who has no trouble speaking up and sharing an opinion at work or in the university turns into a silent figure of stillness in these environments.  Safety is the key difference. In the world of my extended family, I’m unacceptable.  I’m “backslidden,” and anything I say can be used against me. I have to guard every word, every topic, every opinion. I’m not accepted for who I am.  In the religious world I currently inhabit, it is possible that they would appreciate me for who I am, yet years of spiritual abuse have taught my heart, and trained my mind to find religious people judgmental and un-accepting. My primal brain urges have been so trained throughout the years that my thinking brain cannot compete with the anxiety that arises in such situations. I freeze. I’m again that little girl who couldn’t be accepted for who she was, and I’m again awash in the pain of that rejection. So I freeze. I’m silent, thinking my own thoughts, and waiting anxiously for the moment when I can flee the situation that gives me so much discomfort.

I am the way I am for a reason.  I needed to guard myself from my environment when I was growing up in a spiritually abusive environment.  Now that I am out, there is so much re-programming that needs to be done.  I am not confident that I will ever have “normal” responses, but step by step I am working on allowing my brain to relax and learn new ways of dealing with stress.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

The following is a guest essay that goes along with my previous writing on Spiritual Abuse & Emasculated Men but is much more in depth. It is written by Dr. Michael Warstler.

Spiritual abuse is a phenomenon that most certainly occurs in a diverse range of religious organizations; from small to large and from organized to independent. However, while spiritual abuse might have specific elements, there is no formal method for measuring the significance of the experience. Recently, I read a post asking about thoughts on whether women experienced more abuse than men. In early 2017 I had similar questions and sought to answer them through conducting a formal study to satisfy the dissertation requirements of my Doctorate. Since it is rather difficult to quantify experienced spiritual abuse, a survey was adopted to measure the perceptions of one’s experiences in the frame of group psychological abuse. The survey provided 31 questions that fed into six primary elements of a group psychological abuse taxonomy. Options for each question were in Likert style format ranging from “zero” or “none” to “four” and “continually.”

While all elements of group psychosocial abuse were experienced to some degree, the element that rose to the top in perceived severity was the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority. Female participants experienced the component of the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority at a 76.69 percentage rank; whereas, male participants experienced the same component at a much lower 35.78 percentage rank. This admission does not denote that men did not experience the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority; it means, rather, that while they perceived it to a lesser degree, it still occurred. It is of interest that of the 68 men who participated in this study, 51 annotated that they were in leadership or had been in leadership. Being that groups who impose a single and extraordinary authority are often highly narcissistic, it was assumed that the results of male leader participants would be on the low end. Why would anyone in a leadership position with a faith tradition that is being studied admit that they were perpetrators of such abuse?

What I am trying to point out is that whether women perceived their experiences to be more severe than men, the fact is that both men and women experienced abuses – they are just experienced in different ways. The element of the imposition of a single and extraordinary authority is certainly of interest to me in how it applies to male followers. It seems that much of the abuse men experience with this element is that of deep psychological and emotional strain. The psychological and emotional strain that I would like to focus on here is that of infantilization and emasculation of men – elements that ultimately destabilize the home and weaken marital bonds.

One of the primary elements used to implement a single and extraordinary authority in religious traditions such as Oneness Pentecostalism is that of headship. Headship entails that God is ultimately the head of authority, and below that falls a pastor. Next in the line of spiritual authority is the husband, then wife, and lastly children. While I am not here to argue the biblical implications and precedents of headship, I am interested in why it is practiced and what the potential consequences are. Here I believe it is important that I discuss what might occur if a husband is not in the church (i.e. was never in attendance or a member), is “non-participant” while in attendance, or is “backslidden” (i.e. a former member who no longer attends church or believes). In these scenarios, a husband is typically deemed as outside the line of spiritual authority and not in a position of headship over his wife and children.

It is common in these situations that a pastor takes the place of headship over a woman when the husband does not “fulfill” his role. This also applies to many adult single women or divorced women within the congregation. But when a woman is still married, her unsuspecting non-believing husband might be in for a shock when he discovers that most of his wife’s basic and major life choices must be discussed with her pastor first. Every detail from taking a camping trip to major purchases will now be brought to the pastor for approval. This essentially removes the husband from his position in his own home – Thus, why I have labeled this essay as religious cuckoldry. This is a position that a man might find himself in when the pastor of his wife’s church replaces him. Two anonymous comments below detail similar experiences:

“Apparently, the pastor told my wife that if I don’t come around, and fall in line with all that he teaches. ‘She shouldn’t stay with me.’ The same man who married us suggests that, for the sake of her soul, she should probably leave me.”

“This is when the man is reduced to bringing home the bacon, paying the bills, and supplying non-emotional or non-spiritual needs. Anything else is perceived as an effort to try and convince or change the doctrine/beliefs of the wife, which in turn leads to accusations of the husband trying to break up the family.”

Men who find themselves in these situations ultimately either seek divorce or end up living with the situation despite the deep emotional and psychological pain experienced. In my own experience as a former Oneness/Apostolic Pentecostal divorce was essentially forbidden. In addition, my now ex-wife was a former Jehovah’s Witness and her organization duly forbid divorce. On one side I was being fed that I was to be a leader of my home and in a place of headship, and from another side the elders of my wife’s religion were replacing me – it was a lose-lose situation that ultimately took a major toll on our marriage for several years.

Legalistic religious beliefs ultimately lead to infantilization, and in groups led by an absolute authority, the emasculation in men. This requires that a grown man rescind his ability to make choices about his own life and family and give them to another man. To be “saved” one must fully submit to their pastor (to be under the headship and in alignment with God). While it should be understood that no two organizations are alike and that these experiences may be perceived on a wide spectrum, submitting to another man in a destructive organization quite literally strips a man of his own essence. This leads me to the discussion of a deeper nature found in such groups – the essence of man.

Legalism leads to an immature spirituality – one that is based on the constant attention of outward appearance and expression. One could easily witness similar phenomena in remote tribes – individuals within these groups can be often observed acting in a more “primitive” fashion than what we are used to (i.e. much like Pentecostalism, these groups can be witnessed practicing glossolalia, ecstatic dancing, etc.). In addition, religious groups that place their primary focus on the more primal urges (expression, appearance, and emotionalism) are just as often sexually repressed – and being sexually repressed, they become sexually obsessed. Since psychological control is also achieved at the physiological and physical level, it makes sense that sexual repression becomes a strong tool for coercion and control.

It is here that I believe we should discuss and accept that, physiologically, we are deeply tied to our primal roots on a subconscious level. For example, (and slightly off topic) some studies indicate that the menstrual cycle of women who interact in groups sync with the “alpha female” (a phenomenon formally referred to as “socially mediated synchrony”, as discussed by University of Oxford anthropologist Alexandra Alvergne). It might also be assumed that men are physiologically affected by being domineered by another man (some refer to this as alpha and beta males, but most research points to these as being concepts rather than scientific fact). Of course we do not enjoy discussing these topics, because it reminds us that “love” is more likely than not a chemical reaction in the brain and that we are ultimately controlled by our primal urges (we would rather continue to believe in soulmates and romance). However, it is not my intention to dehumanize us, but to simply consider why we do what we do.

The concept of the rebellious “alpha male” could almost be seen in any spiritual leadership manual. I can see it now, “Men have a strong difficulty submitting themselves to another male.” It is my assumption that primal groups act in such a way as to strengthen group survival (often referred to as herd immunity/strength). It makes sense that in order for a group to survive (however, unhealthy it may be) singular leadership is desired. Too many “alpha” or “strong willed” leaders and the group could easily split. This oftentimes entails in the destructive organization that the leader be the only one to express “apex” characteristics such as wealth, intelligence, etc. This factor also leads up to a husband never measuring up or being good enough (even if they are a member of the faith tradition).

When, then, is it okay to display “apex” traits or to enjoy wealth and intelligence? It seems from my observation that it is only acceptable to do so if one is close to the leader of the organization. In this sense, these individuals are referred to as “colluders” (those who obey in order to reap social benefits); as opposed to “conformers” (those who obey out of fear). I have heard this described to me as being a pastor’s “henchmen” or “muscle” – however, it is probably easier to describe this as the pastor’s “inner circle.” Men within the inner circle can oftentimes be seen enjoying the benefits of their social status. In the inner circle one can also get around some of the legalistic rules without scrutiny. However, I have also witnessed successful men outside of the inner circle be publicly scrutinized for the same actions. In these groups it is often expected that all members give as much of their time, energy, and money that they can to the organization. However, it always seems that the more toxic the group, the more the pastor seems to have while his followers continue to sacrifice.

The following are simple observations:
– “Strong willed” males will not deal well with being treated in such a manner so they will push back aggressively and ultimately leave “backslide.”
– It seems that the more rigorous and fundamental the group, the more young males leave as soon as they are at an age where they are legal to make their own choices.
– Fathers who are not in the church typically try to pull their sons out through secular activities such as sports (organized sports are highly frowned upon in Oneness Pentecostalism and by the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
– If one backslides (leaves the church), I have witnessed them being shammed as “homosexual” or “effeminate.” I believe the emasculation of men is at play here as well.
– Some men that experience repressed masculinity manifest destructive behaviors and increased control behind the closed doors of their home – leading to the perpetuation of spiritual and psychological abuse from the husband/father to his wife and children.
– The more primal and emotional a group operates the more primal and emotional their responses will be to those who “backslide” or those who raise inquiry of their practices.

In closing, it is agreed that we often don’t enjoy hearing about these topics because consciously we do not like to align ourselves with the primal side of our nature. In this sense the conscious battles the subconscious. Because our primal nature is oftentimes crude, not wanting to accept it, we repress it. I also realize that it might be difficult to have one’s experiences of group psychological abuse relegated in the simplified terms of primal nature – however, at the root of a primal group, this is what occurs. What I am asking my readers to do is ask the “tougher” questions. Perhaps some healing and consolation can be found when we view our experiences in the frame of a much larger subconscious system. In doing so, we do not deny our humanity when discussing our original nature; we simply learn more about ourselves.

**These observations are not simply my own, but are collected from 1,000’s of individuals who have written me over the past few years.**

**The above essay, while complex, is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of a topic – nor is it intended to pass judgement or express preferences – for like any topic, several books could be written to discuss them. My purpose here is to simply develop theories and generate provocative, if not heretical thought. As noted by the great essayist Montaigne: “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.”**

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

A meme shared on Facebook recently prompted some interesting commentary that I thought was worth blogging about. Please bear with me, as it requires a little bit of background, but I feel is an important point to make.

The meme pointed out a difference in the text between the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV), indicating removed verses in the NIV that had not been removed in the KJV. Although the meme showed no evidence of scholarship to back up the claims, the intention was clear: the KJV was the “true” translation, the NIV allegedly had an agenda.

I found and shared an article from a reputable site that pointed out how the KJV also has removed verses, with proof to back things up. A couple of friends, other than the friend who shared the original meme, weighed in with some good points:

1. Jesus probably doesn’t care what translation we use (very true!)
2. The KJV-only debate probably serves as more of a hindrance than a help to seekers/new believers

I especially wanted to point out how true I think Point #2 was. People who start attending new congregations are coming from different backgrounds and different places spiritually – and not all of those are places of spiritual health or safety.

Obviously, many less-than-healthy congregations insist on the KJV alone. Even when squabbles about translations aren’t part of the equation, hair-splitting over things that aren’t fundamental to the Gospel message puts people off.

Maybe the important thing that churches need to consider most is: are we helping or holding people back on their Christian journey? Just some food for thought!

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.