Signs of Spiritual Abuse by Steven Lambert

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Toledo

#2) I read a lot here about hierarchy. I suppose that to mean "Multi-level authority". Yet we were always quite firm that there is no higher authority than that of the local church. The churches are local; there is no central governing authority. That is to say, the elders in any given church were not subject to review from Anaheim or Cleveland (the co-workers, on the other hand, were under authority to the leading co-worker in their region, but not to any "higher authority").

#3) There was no "absolute authority" for any local elder. Always we were checked by the other elders. Plus the strong limitation of the Holy Spirit continually restricted us. If I overstepped, time and again I was compelled by my conscience to apologize.

Toledo, you make it all sound so good, but ... not all leaders could maintain your independence in the face of an overpowering "leading co-worker in their region." One example of this independence, was that Toledo was one of the few churches which neither supported nor rejected the quarantine by public letter. Many times these "leading co-workers" overstepped their place, yet all the while publicly challenging, "who did I control?" Patterns of open humiliation become extremely powerful tools indeed to ensure that none dare to even raise an objection.

What exactly does that mean to be "under the authority." Some have testified that they had to violate their conscience to carry out directives of that "authority," or face serious repercussions, akin to abuse. Others felt like they were treated "like a dog" or an "African American" before the civil rights movement. What are the boundaries of that authority? Are there any at all? Doesn't the word "under" have vastly different connotations in different cultures?

How convenient does it then become when elders in the church are also workers "under the authority." Whole churches along with their other elders could then be very effectively controlled from headquarters. Isn't that a conflict of interest when the elders are also workers "under the authority"? For example, worker activities nearly always take precedence over church activities. And most definitely, the schedule of a worker/elder is determined by "the authority" rather than the church he serves.

I have seen some whose conscience got "re-trained" during their time in the work. "The authority" defined what was "right," and what the conscience should be bothered by. To "overstep" the saints may not require an "apology," if the directive came from "the authority," now would it? This phenomenon, in effect, reproduced bullies on many levels.

I understand that some things have changed recently, since the quarantine fiasco, but that does not negate decades of abuse and misconduct. You know more than I all the many gifted, precious, and fruitful brothers who have passed thru the GLA, and are now gone, but for no other reason, than they supposedly "had a problem" with "the authority."