When Spiritual Care Becomes Control

Faithful shepherding, spiritual manipulation and the limits of pastoral authority

By Mary Small-Burke Returning to the Ancient Path Ministry

Scripture references follow the King James Version (KJV). Explanations are paraphrases unless quotation marks indicate otherwise.

Preface

Returning to the Ancient Path Ministry exists to help people know the Father through Yeshua, walk faithfully in His ways and become a people among whom He dwells. Within that purpose, the restoring mission must address what happens when spiritual authority damages the people it was entrusted to serve.

This article considers two related situations. In one, a leader deliberately uses affection, claimed revelation or fear to obtain control. In the other, a pastor sincerely desires to protect the congregation but adopts restrictions that discourage examination and make organisational loyalty the measure of faithfulness. Their intentions may differ. The practices and their effects still require examination.

We cannot know a person’s motives merely from a distance. Neither sincerity nor suspected malice should replace careful attention to teaching, conduct and evidence. This article therefore examines practices rather than naming contemporary personalities. It does not assume that every prophetic ministry, denominational commitment or strong pastoral instruction is abusive.

We will hear Scripture’s commands to honour faithful leadership and guard against deception. We will also hear its commands to test teaching, resist domination and grow into maturity. Neither set of passages may be used to silence the other.

Readers who have experienced harm should not hear these pages as an accusation against their sincerity. Pastors should hear an invitation to examine whether their care cultivates mature faith or dependence upon their permission. The same examination belongs within RAPM. No founder, teacher or organisation should demand an exemption from the standards it applies to others.

Our purpose is restoration: truthful teaching, accountable leadership, protection for those at risk and patient care for those recovering from harm.

When belonging becomes dependence

A person may enter a ministry looking for prayer, biblical understanding and a place to belong. Someone notices them, remembers their troubles and calls them a son or daughter. The welcome may be sincere. Yet in a harmful setting, the same language can become the beginning of a relationship in which belonging depends upon obedience to a particular leader.

The change may be gradual. Guidance becomes permission. Affection becomes obligation. A question becomes rebellion. Eventually, leaving the leader feels like leaving God.

The restoring mission must address this confusion. Restoration calls people toward the Father through Yeshua; it must also confront practices that exploit their desire to belong. Our purpose is to help readers recognise harmful conduct, examine authority biblically and respond with support. We need not decide whether a group merits the label “cult” before taking coercion seriously. An unfamiliar doctrine, prophetic title or large congregation does not, by itself, establish abuse.

The flock belongs to God

Ezekiel 34:1–10 addresses Israel’s shepherds, condemning leaders who feed themselves while neglecting and harshly ruling the flock. This is a prophetic judgment in Israel’s covenant history, not an automatic identification of any contemporary pastor with an ancient figure. Its searching question nevertheless remains: whose interests does leadership serve?

In 1 Peter 5:1–4, elders are charged to tend God’s flock willingly and by example, without domineering. Their responsibility is exercised beneath the chief Shepherd. The people entrusted to their care do not become their possession.

This gives us a starting point for discernment. Faithful leadership serves the people’s maturity and wellbeing. An abusive leader makes the people serve the preservation of the leader’s power. The difference becomes visible in decisions, treatment of vulnerable members and responses to correction.

Affection must not become ownership

Paul uses parental imagery in 1 Corinthians 4:14–17, describing his relationship with the Corinthians through the gospel and urging them to follow his ways in Christ. His words show that family language can express genuine pastoral affection. They do not establish a universal requirement that every believer acquire a spiritual parent whose instructions govern all personal decisions.

Matthew 23:8–12 must also be heard. Against the pursuit of religious distinction, Yeshua directs His hearers toward their one heavenly Father, shared brotherhood and humble service. Christians differ over the application of this passage to titles. Its challenge to self-exalting religious status cannot be avoided.

These witnesses together do not support ownership of another person’s conscience. Paul’s own refusal to dominate believers’ faith in 2 Corinthians 1:24 reinforces that boundary.

Calling someone “daughter” is therefore not sufficient evidence that the leader is cultivating trust for exploitation. The concern is the conduct surrounding the expression. Can she disagree, decline a request, maintain outside friendships or leave without intimidation? Is affection withdrawn when she sets a reasonable boundary? Does “my son” become an argument for financial, emotional or sexual access?

Family language must never be used to make exploitation sound like covenant faithfulness.

A claim to speak for God must remain examinable

“The Lord told me” is a claim, not evidence that the claim is true. It must not end biblical examination.

In 1 Corinthians 14:29, prophetic speech is weighed by others within the assembly. In 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22, openness to the Spirit is joined to testing. Acts 17:10–12 commends the Bereans’ examination of Scripture when hearing Paul. None of these passages gives a modern leader immunity because of title or reputation.

Deuteronomy 13:1–4 adds an important safeguard: even a sign that occurs does not validate an invitation to abandon covenant faithfulness. The passage’s ancient judicial setting must not be turned into permission for private punishment today. Its relevant warning is that an impressive occurrence cannot make an unfaithful message trustworthy.

Likewise, Matthew 7:15–23 warns against deceptive appearances and reliance on claims of mighty works. Fruit requires examination over time. Popularity, emotional intensity and impressive testimonies cannot replace it.

Responsible testing asks what was actually claimed, whether Scripture supports it, what conduct it demands and whether the claimant accepts correction. An accurate detail about someone’s life does not establish authority over their marriage, finances or future.

Honour and obedience do not abolish accountability

Hebrews 13:7, 17 gives real weight to faithful leadership. Believers are to remember those who taught them, consider their lives and respond to those who watch over them. Leaders must give account. This passage should not be silenced because leadership can be abused.

Neither should it be detached from the wider witness. Peter forbids domineering; Paul refuses dominion over faith; prophetic speech is weighed. Together, these passages support accountable guidance rather than unlimited personal control.

“Touch not mine anointed” also requires context. Psalm 105:12–15 recalls God’s protection of the patriarchs as they travelled among kingdoms. It is not a rule preventing investigation of a pastor. In 1 Samuel 24, David refuses to kill Saul, yet names the injustice done to him. Refusing violence does not require pretending that a leader has done no wrong.

A command to honour cannot rightly become a command to conceal exploitation. Nor should seeking outside protection be dismissed as gossip. Confidential reporting through appropriate channels serves a different purpose from spreading unverified accusations.

When protection becomes confinement

Some restrictions arise in ministries whose leaders are committed, generous and deeply concerned about error. A pastor may have seen people harmed by misleading teaching and conclude that the safest congregation is one with as little outside contact as possible. That history deserves understanding. It does not settle whether the resulting rules are justified.

The rules may reach beyond who teaches from the congregation’s pulpit. Members may be forbidden to read material from another ministry, visit another Christian congregation, attend an outside religious gathering, consider a different interpretation of a foundational belief or marry a Christian from another denomination. Questions may be received as signs that someone is about to scatter the flock.

Not all these situations are identical. A church has responsibilities concerning its own teaching platform. Attendance at an event, endorsement of its message, formal membership and leadership participation are also different actions. We should examine what is actually being restricted and why.

A congregation may explain, “This is our teaching position, and those teaching on our behalf must represent it accurately.” It makes a further claim when it says, “Members must not examine whether our teaching position is correct.” The first concerns responsibility for public teaching. The second shields an interpretation from scrutiny.

A rule should be identified honestly as biblical command, reasoned pastoral counsel or an organisational condition. Those categories are not interchangeable. A local policy does not become the Father’s command because leaders consider it prudent.

Guard the flock—including against error within

Acts 20:28–32 gives elders a serious charge to guard the flock. Paul warns about destructive outsiders, but also about people arising from within the leadership’s own company who distort truth and draw disciples after themselves. He directs the elders to watch themselves as well as the people.

It would therefore be incomplete to use this passage only against outside ministries. It also questions the assumption that a group’s own teachers are necessarily safe. Paul commends the believers to God and the word of His grace. Protection must remain accountable to that word, including when it exposes a local leader’s error.

Acts 17:11 describes the Bereans examining the Scriptures when hearing Paul. Their examination does not imply that every objection was correct. It establishes that attentive reception can include scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

A pastor can respond faithfully to a difficult question by explaining the text, identifying a misunderstanding or acknowledging an unresolved issue. Suspicion should not take the place of an answer. Nor should a member’s confidence in a personal interpretation make that interpretation immune from examination.

Ephesians 4:11–16 describes ministry that equips the body and cultivates maturity under Christ. Freedom from deceptive teaching belongs within this growth. A ministry should help believers develop understanding, discernment and responsible participation. Keeping people permanently unable to assess teaching without the organisation’s permission frustrates that formation.

Welcoming believers and resisting destructive teaching

Second and Third John help us avoid opposite errors.

In 2 John 7–11, the concern is a particular deception: refusing to confess that Yeshua the Messiah has come in the flesh. John warns against receiving and assisting teachers carrying that message. Christians differ over the exact reach of the hospitality prohibition, but the doctrinal concern is explicit. The passage cannot simply be transferred to every teacher outside our denomination without examining what that teacher actually teaches.

Third John 5–10 commends support for faithful travelling brethren and condemns Diotrephes for refusing them, preventing others from receiving them and expelling those who do. John identifies his love of preeminence. We should not assume that every modern pastor who sets restrictive boundaries shares that motive. We can recognise that controlling access to fellow believers can itself become a serious wrong.

Reading the letters together, we learn that both careless reception and wrongful exclusion require correction. Faithfulness involves discerning whom and what we are receiving, rather than making “inside” and “outside” sufficient judgments.

Mark 9:38–41 adds another challenge. The disciples stop someone ministering in Yeshua’s name because he does not follow their company. Yeshua corrects them. This was not a modern denominational dispute, and the account does not certify every ministry using His name. It does challenge rejection based solely upon someone’s absence from our immediate circle.

Romans 14 addresses disagreements over food and days. Paul rejects contempt and wrongful judgment while directing believers toward peace and mutual edification. This is not permission to treat every doctrine as optional. It does require us to show why a particular difference warrants separation rather than assume that all organisational distinctives define the boundaries of the Father’s family.

Marriage, conscience and the limits of denominational rules

Marriage across denominations can raise substantial questions. A couple may need to examine their understanding of the gospel, worship, baptism, sacred time, parenting and the congregation in which they will participate. Responsible pastoral counsel should help them speak honestly about those differences.

In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul addresses a widow’s freedom to remarry and specifies that it be in the Lord. The passage does not name membership in the same denomination as its condition. A denominational label alone does not establish whether a person belongs to the Lord; neither should that belonging be assumed merely because someone uses the word Christian.

Earlier, in verses 12–16, Paul addresses existing marriages involving an unbelieving spouse. He does not command separation simply because of that difference. This concerns existing marriages and must not be turned into encouragement to disregard faith when choosing a spouse.

A pastor may have serious, specific reasons to advise against a proposed marriage. Those reasons should be explained and examined. The instruction to marry in the Lord does not, by itself, establish a ban on every interdenominational marriage.

Conscience also needs formation. Personal freedom does not mean every preference is wise or every belief is true. But a leader must not settle disputed questions by replacing biblical reasoning with threats, humiliation or demands for personal allegiance.

When disagreement is called scattering

A questioning member can behave irresponsibly. Misrepresentation, harassment, contempt and deliberate disruption require attention. There are also teachings and practices that Scripture directs congregations to resist. Churches need not surrender all standards in order to avoid control.

Yet sincere disagreement does not become divisive simply because it challenges an accepted explanation. Leaders should consider the substance of the question, how it is raised and how they themselves respond. A member should receive a fair hearing without pressure to confess a destructive motive that has not been demonstrated.

Galatians 2:11–14 shows Peter being corrected over his withdrawal from fellowship with Gentile believers. Paul identifies conduct inconsistent with the gospel. This situation is not identical to a modern denomination’s policy, but it demonstrates that a recognised leader can require correction concerning exclusion. His standing does not remove that possibility.

The restorative response is neither to presume the pastor malicious nor to declare the member rebellious. It is to bring teaching and conduct into the light, identify the evidence and remain willing to correct what is wrong.

Recognise the development of coercion

Spiritual abuse involves coercion and control in a spiritual or religious context. Christian safeguarding organisation Thirtyone:eight identifies warning signs including isolation, compelled personal confession, demands for secrecy, exploitation and threats of divine consequences.[1]

Not every demanding teaching, disagreement or correction constitutes abuse. The concern is how power is used to restrict another person’s choices and obtain compliance.

A harmful relationship may develop through increasing attention, special access, disclosure, obligations and isolation. This is a possible pattern, not a compulsory sequence. Some harmful behaviour is abrupt.

Consider these illustrative situations:

• A mentor listens patiently but later uses confidential information to threaten exposure if the person leaves.
• A leader says a financial gift is voluntary, then announces that withholding it will bring divine disaster.
• A follower is told that relatives who express concern are enemies of their destiny and must be cut off.
• Sexual contact is presented as a prophetic instruction, healing practice or requirement of spiritual intimacy.
• Any independent examination is declared rebellion, while the leader’s own conduct cannot be investigated.

These are reasons to seek help, not invitations to prove loyalty more intensely. A single serious threat or sexual demand warrants attention; no one needs to collect a complete checklist before responding.

Protect the freedom to examine and choose

Before accepting close spiritual mentorship, take time. Seek information beyond the ministry’s promotional videos. Ask who can investigate complaints against its senior leader and whether that person can act independently.

Keep trusted relationships outside the group. Do not surrender passwords, identity documents or financial access as a condition of spiritual care. Avoid making major financial or life decisions under pressure from a private prophecy.

A helpful question is: “May I take time to examine this passage and consult someone independent?” In a safe relationship, space for reflection should be respected. Someone who already fears retaliation should not deliberately provoke a confrontation to test the leader. They can seek support privately.

Discernment is not suspicion of every pastor. It is the practice of refusing to let charisma, affection or fear replace responsible judgment.

Help people who are already entangled

People can be exploited precisely because they are sincere, hopeful or in need of care. Shame makes it harder to seek help. “How could you believe that?” is unlikely to restore trust.

A concerned friend can listen, remain available and discuss concrete incidents rather than demand agreement with a label. Ask what happens when the person says no. Offer practical help without replacing the leader’s control with your own.

Where safe, keep threatening messages, payment records and a factual account of incidents. Store them somewhere the person causing harm cannot access. Consider whether shared devices or accounts expose communications.

Seek independent safeguarding or professional support. Where there is immediate danger, seek emergency assistance. Violence, sexual coercion, confinement or risk to a child also requires appropriate protective support. Do not rely solely on the accused leader’s inner circle.

A person does not need the leader’s permission to seek safety. Nor must they first confront the leader, obtain an admission or prove every doctrinal claim false. Protective distance can be necessary while questions remain unresolved.

Restoration must not recreate dependence

Leaving an abusive relationship is not the same as abandoning the Father. Recovery may include grief, uncertainty, practical losses and difficulty trusting another congregation. People need time and support, not pressure to attach themselves immediately to a replacement spiritual parent.

Forgiveness must not be used to cancel protection, accountability or appropriate reporting. Restoring trust is not accomplished by demanding renewed access to someone who has caused harm.

RAPM must submit to the same examination it encourages. Its teachers’ interpretations must remain open to scrutiny. Complaints must not be treated as disloyalty, and the founder’s role must not place her beyond correction. These are standards to establish and demonstrate in practice, not claims that every necessary safeguarding arrangement is already operational.

The restoring voice points beyond itself to Yeshua. It equips people to examine, understand, respond and grow. Its fruit should include truthful relationships, responsible freedom, justice and care for those who have been harmed.

The Father’s family must never become a language through which a human messenger claims possession of His children.

Companion checklist: Before I entrust myself to this leader

Use these questions for reflection, not as a diagnostic score. A serious incident warrants help even if other answers seem reassuring.

Can I examine the teaching?

Scripture in context; space for honest questions, including questions about foundational interpretations; willingness to correct errors.

Are restrictions explained?

Actual risks and biblical reasons identified; organisational policies distinguished from divine commands.

Can I say no?

Consent and reasonable boundaries respected without spiritual threats.

Can I keep outside relationships?

Outside relationships respected; specific concerns explained rather than a blanket ban imposed.

Is my privacy protected?

No forced intimate confessions or use of disclosures as leverage.

Can the leader be investigated?

A credible complaints process with independence from the person accused.

Is giving voluntary?

Financial accountability; no purchase of prophecy, protection or belonging.

Are sexual and personal boundaries respected?

No secrecy or spiritual justification for inappropriate access.

Can I leave safely?

No threats, harassment, exposure or retaliation for departure.

If concerned: pause new commitments, seek independent support, and preserve relevant records where safe. If someone may retaliate, plan for safety rather than confronting them alone. Online abuse can still have serious consequences; physical attendance is not required for coercion.

For personal or group reflection: What does 1 Peter 5 require of a shepherd? How does 1 Corinthians 14:29 challenge unreviewable prophecy? Where does affection become obligation? Read 2 John alongside 3 John: what distinguishes faithful caution from wrongful exclusion? What would help a pastor receive correction well? What independent help could a concerned member access?

Source note

[1] Thirtyone:eight, Spiritual Abuse, accessed 31 October 2026. This source informs the practical safeguarding discussion; the biblical interpretations are the article’s own.