“worship cannot happen by simply expecting minority groups to join the audience and adopt your preferences”
I believe this also applies to the minority group of spiritual abuse survivors, and trauma survivors generally (which is arguably *not* a minority, although it’s assumed to be). Trauma-informed worship is another green flag.
Nope. I’d love to hear others’ ideas of what that might look like. One idea is a reframe of a typical practice: printed orders of service. Knowing what to expect is very important for survivors. Not being surprised, having the freedom to leave if a triggering song comes up, etc.
This is a great piece, and seeing these things on display certainly reflects some sort of value paradigm that is more of the "green flag" nature, which provides hope for a safe church, at the very least. As you say, these things don't guarantee a health family of God, but not having these things would probably guarantee an unhealthy context.
I've been in several churches in various contexts where at least some of these items you list are explicitly and practically valued. Though, some have been toxic nonetheless. I believe this is because the underlying structure of such churches is still based on "authority-over," a point you mention casually as a positive when that authority is shared by non-dominant cultures. I'll admit, it is vital for dominant (i.e., white) cultures to submit to others, and you make great points about ways that can happen (e.g., ceding the microphone, appointing leaders from various and diverse backgrounds, etc.).
However, I wonder how authority should play out in a community of faith. Personally, I don't feel there is a place for sanctioned authority of one person over another in Christ-centered community, because we are all siblings in that family. That said, I realize that many denominations center and affirm authority in people and positions. What do you think the role of authority (and the power that comes from it) should play in a church? You can certainly have healthier expressions of that than others, but every person and group of people has flaws, so how do we ensure that the true authority is Jesus and that we all equally serve as members of his body?
I’m so glad you brought this up. I probably should have clarified that phrase. I have significant concerns with the idea of believers practicing “authority over” one another in the church. (Though in our former denomination, this would have been the way preaching was framed.) Describing it as “submitting to” minority cultures would be much better, and consistent with NT terminology as well! I could and hopefully will write a post — or 2 or 3 — on authority and leadership within the church, and how we use biblical words while using corporate models. Would appreciate any further thoughts you have on this topic, too!
I would absolutely love to read whatever you write on authority and leadership (so, please do write many posts on it!), and I believe these are core concepts upon which a lot of our ecclesiology goes askew. We ask questions like, “Can women have authority?” or “Can LGBTQIA+ individuals be in leadership?” without asking “What is authority, and what does it mean to ‘lead’?” These questions are still very much worth asking, but we take certain things for granted and leave a lot to assumption when we try to answer meaningful and necessary questions sometimes. This pursuit is further complicated by so many things, including cultural and denominational differences, where authority can mean a ton of different things.
That said, I have written some of my own thoughts on authority and how Jesus and the New Testament epistles refocus that conversation through the context of family (https://mattmckirland.substack.com/p/we-need-better-questions-for-the). I also have written out some of my assumptions about the church in a series of posts (https://mattmckirland.substack.com/t/christ-centered-community). These are not academic, but if I can offer another shameless plug—this one from a brilliant scholar, Dr Christa McKirland (https://www.christamckirland.com/)—for a project set to launch later this year about the theology of authority. I think it will ground a lot of these important topics (abuse, leadership, power, flourishing, etc.) in some solid theology.
These are all so important. Thank you for writing. I will say, though, that some abusive churches can do some of these things that are green flags and still be abusive. Our former church seemed to value women and minorities and did many of the things you shared. But now looking back I see it was just smoke and mirrors. Another green flag I’d add is the church following its own bylaws, even when it seems unnecessary or annoying.
You’re absolutely right. I’ve heard of churches that seemed to be doing the “right “ things in similar ways to what you mentioned, but turned out to be unhealthy or abusive anyway. It’s the patterns of relationships that will ultimately determine the culture, and there’s just no way to find a 100% guarantee of safety ahead of time. Which is a somewhat frightening prospect…!
The sad part is that in my experience, very few people actually end up seeing the rotten fruit. And when you try to tell everyone else about the rotten fruit, they don't believe you. I'm currently in the midst of challenging abuse at a former church, and it is so exhausting to try to reason with people who are so blind to the manipulation of the leaders.
I’m so sorry. It’s almost impossible to get people to see abuse in a church if they aren’t the ones being personally harmed. There are too many factors pressuring them to ignore or explain it away. And of course, one of those is the leaders who will almost never think what they’re doing is wrong.
I came here to say this also and I recognize she points out it doesn’t guarantee a healthy church. I think of Jesus words when he said we’d know them by their fruit and fruit takes time to grow. So, we watch and wait for what it is to be revealed; truth and flourishing or smoke and mirrors!
Good fruit vs. smoke and mirrors is a great way to frame it. You need to be patient to see what’s really there! (Which can be hard — we’re currently trying out a new church, hoping and praying that what looks healthy and good now will still be good months and years from now)
“worship cannot happen by simply expecting minority groups to join the audience and adopt your preferences”
I believe this also applies to the minority group of spiritual abuse survivors, and trauma survivors generally (which is arguably *not* a minority, although it’s assumed to be). Trauma-informed worship is another green flag.
This is a GREAT point. I don’t know if I’ve encountered trauma-informed worship yet, have you?
Nope. I’d love to hear others’ ideas of what that might look like. One idea is a reframe of a typical practice: printed orders of service. Knowing what to expect is very important for survivors. Not being surprised, having the freedom to leave if a triggering song comes up, etc.
This was all really helpful. Thanks Joy!
Thanks for reading ☺️
This is a great piece, and seeing these things on display certainly reflects some sort of value paradigm that is more of the "green flag" nature, which provides hope for a safe church, at the very least. As you say, these things don't guarantee a health family of God, but not having these things would probably guarantee an unhealthy context.
I've been in several churches in various contexts where at least some of these items you list are explicitly and practically valued. Though, some have been toxic nonetheless. I believe this is because the underlying structure of such churches is still based on "authority-over," a point you mention casually as a positive when that authority is shared by non-dominant cultures. I'll admit, it is vital for dominant (i.e., white) cultures to submit to others, and you make great points about ways that can happen (e.g., ceding the microphone, appointing leaders from various and diverse backgrounds, etc.).
However, I wonder how authority should play out in a community of faith. Personally, I don't feel there is a place for sanctioned authority of one person over another in Christ-centered community, because we are all siblings in that family. That said, I realize that many denominations center and affirm authority in people and positions. What do you think the role of authority (and the power that comes from it) should play in a church? You can certainly have healthier expressions of that than others, but every person and group of people has flaws, so how do we ensure that the true authority is Jesus and that we all equally serve as members of his body?
I’m so glad you brought this up. I probably should have clarified that phrase. I have significant concerns with the idea of believers practicing “authority over” one another in the church. (Though in our former denomination, this would have been the way preaching was framed.) Describing it as “submitting to” minority cultures would be much better, and consistent with NT terminology as well! I could and hopefully will write a post — or 2 or 3 — on authority and leadership within the church, and how we use biblical words while using corporate models. Would appreciate any further thoughts you have on this topic, too!
I would absolutely love to read whatever you write on authority and leadership (so, please do write many posts on it!), and I believe these are core concepts upon which a lot of our ecclesiology goes askew. We ask questions like, “Can women have authority?” or “Can LGBTQIA+ individuals be in leadership?” without asking “What is authority, and what does it mean to ‘lead’?” These questions are still very much worth asking, but we take certain things for granted and leave a lot to assumption when we try to answer meaningful and necessary questions sometimes. This pursuit is further complicated by so many things, including cultural and denominational differences, where authority can mean a ton of different things.
That said, I have written some of my own thoughts on authority and how Jesus and the New Testament epistles refocus that conversation through the context of family (https://mattmckirland.substack.com/p/we-need-better-questions-for-the). I also have written out some of my assumptions about the church in a series of posts (https://mattmckirland.substack.com/t/christ-centered-community). These are not academic, but if I can offer another shameless plug—this one from a brilliant scholar, Dr Christa McKirland (https://www.christamckirland.com/)—for a project set to launch later this year about the theology of authority. I think it will ground a lot of these important topics (abuse, leadership, power, flourishing, etc.) in some solid theology.
These are all so important. Thank you for writing. I will say, though, that some abusive churches can do some of these things that are green flags and still be abusive. Our former church seemed to value women and minorities and did many of the things you shared. But now looking back I see it was just smoke and mirrors. Another green flag I’d add is the church following its own bylaws, even when it seems unnecessary or annoying.
You’re absolutely right. I’ve heard of churches that seemed to be doing the “right “ things in similar ways to what you mentioned, but turned out to be unhealthy or abusive anyway. It’s the patterns of relationships that will ultimately determine the culture, and there’s just no way to find a 100% guarantee of safety ahead of time. Which is a somewhat frightening prospect…!
The sad part is that in my experience, very few people actually end up seeing the rotten fruit. And when you try to tell everyone else about the rotten fruit, they don't believe you. I'm currently in the midst of challenging abuse at a former church, and it is so exhausting to try to reason with people who are so blind to the manipulation of the leaders.
I’m so sorry. It’s almost impossible to get people to see abuse in a church if they aren’t the ones being personally harmed. There are too many factors pressuring them to ignore or explain it away. And of course, one of those is the leaders who will almost never think what they’re doing is wrong.
I came here to say this also and I recognize she points out it doesn’t guarantee a healthy church. I think of Jesus words when he said we’d know them by their fruit and fruit takes time to grow. So, we watch and wait for what it is to be revealed; truth and flourishing or smoke and mirrors!
You are right! There is no guarantee, and the author does say that.
Good fruit vs. smoke and mirrors is a great way to frame it. You need to be patient to see what’s really there! (Which can be hard — we’re currently trying out a new church, hoping and praying that what looks healthy and good now will still be good months and years from now)