Theological Gaslighting: Christian Sectarianism and Special Knowledge

In 2022, the term “gaslighting” was given the honor of being “word of the year” by Merriam-Webster due to a 1,740% increase in searches compared to the previous year.  The idea of “gaslighting” originated from a British play in the late 1930s in which a man incrementally altered the indoor gas-powered lights so that, when his wife made mention of the phenomena, the man suggested that she was losing her senses and she was slowly driven to insanity. In contemporary culture, “gaslighting” has become a colloquial term used for behaviors in which someone maliciously distorts the truth, alters one’s memories of past events, and attempts to control an individual through coercive, methodical and often covert tactics and mind games.

In a similar vein, “theological gaslighting” is when an individual or group constantly distorts or reinvents what they actually believe, the history of their movement and actions, or insists that they are perpetually misunderstood by those investigating, even those with the purest of intentions.[1] One overt example of gaslighting in a spiritual context has been highlighted in the popular podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, in which Christianity Today documents the abusive behavioral patterns of former megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll. Driscoll’s recasting of himself as a victim in the very scenarios in which he promulgated authoritarian rule over his staff and congregation and his seeming inability to recognize his wrongdoings to their fullest extent suggests a form of narcissism whereby gaslighting is essential for him to retain a sense of control after losing most of his social-spiritual connections and reverential clout among his early adherents.[2]

Theological Tribalism  

Theological gaslighting can involve persistent contrariness during doctrinal discourse in which a person is perpetually told they simply “do not understand” the opposing opinion, despite directly quoting or referencing source material on the topic at hand. While such disagreements and conversations can be beneficial, ignoring the very real sectarianism and schismatic impulses of this phenomenon is dangerous. Indeed, Christians often are segregated by denominationalism and tribalism due to tertiary theological perspectives and, in some contexts, these theological households act almost as fraternities or sororities in which outsiders are considered “less enlightened” than those members of the in-group. This “special knowledge” that those in the know are privy to gives a sense of social cohesion and unity while simultaneously involving mental gymnastics and exegetical loopholes to maintain the framework.[3]

As a result, those who disagree with the position held by the in-group are viewed as hostile and dangerous “others”. The theological group-think is then given an elevated status in which those outside are either too “ignorant” or too “arrogant” to understand. The echo chamber of theological discourse becomes so “real” to those in the in-group that the manifestation of all of these features coming together is often a form of theological gaslighting to those on the outside.[4]

Theological gaslighting is something that occurs in classical sectarian forms of Christianity such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. One obvious form of this gaslighting is the apocalyptic fervor of those who predict the return of Jesus in modern times.[5] Despite their predictions not coming true, the mental strain that it would cause to admit that they are wrong is often so strong that they must reframe their prediction so that they either miscalculated (thus pushing the prediction forward) or that Jesus did return in some metaphorical or mystical sense (such as with the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Similarly, we might consider the reframing of the Book of Abraham, an Egyptian text originally posited by Joseph Smith to be about the biblical figure Abraham but after the decoding of hieroglyphics in the later 1800s was discovered to be an ancient funerary text unrelated to any biblical character. As a result, the Mormon Church reinterpreted Joseph Smith’s translation, suggesting that he was given a mystical meaning of the text that was not apparent in the literal wording of the scroll.[6] Such examples seem quite clearly to be attempts to retain the integrity of the movements and its founders while simultaneously gaslighting those within the movement to not lose faith.

Rewriting the Past

Yet, it is not only cultic groups that engage in such activities. One particular example in contemporary Church culture might be the extraordinary claim that Arminians “do not understand” Calvinism and vice-versa or those who are persistently told that any Charismatic experience they have should be reinterpreted by either a mistaken (natural?) cause or the work of demonic activity serves to make the individual question their experience and memory. In order to bolster the argument on either side, selective historical (re)interpretations or outright myths are concocted to perpetuate a mistaken idea or origins of a particular belief. In part because of the emotional investment in these systems, theological dialogue on these topics often breaks down so that the conclusion drawn is simply that the opposing side could not possibly disagree if they truly understood the position in question.

Another example of revisionist historical thinking is the claim made by Cessationists that the early Church believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased sometime after the death of the apostles or the writing of the New Testament. In John MacArthur’s work Strange Fire (2013), for example, an appendix is given in which he suggests that the patristic authors were univocal about the ceasing of the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and healing. MacArthur cherry picks three authors from the 4th -5th century AD (John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Augustine [who later changed his mind]), passing by the first 200+ years of Church history and then jumping to the 15th century with Martin Luther to make his point![7] One wonders why MacArthur thinks a quote from Charles Spurgeon in the 19th century would matter in evaluating whether the gifts ceased in the first century, but the selective quotations speak for themselves and suggest that in order for his point to stand he must engage in some amount of historical culling and selective highlighting.[8]

Why it Works 

Part of why theological gaslighting is so effective is because those in positions of spiritual authority are well aware of the limitations those in their circles might run up against. Access to primary sources, scholarly texts, and an understanding of complex historical, social, and religious concepts and changes requires expertise that many at the lay level do not have in Church culture. As a result, often an appeal to authority is used to obfuscate any questions an opposing voice might have. “If so-and-so believes such, it must be true!”

While biblical studies can be boring and take long hours of research and dedication, sometimes it is necessary to invest the time and energy, while simultaneously suspending judgement, to objectively evaluate a belief system. The emotional labour that this can cost is not always something that every Christian has the maturity to work through and further makes sense of why theological gaslighting is so prevalent among some Christian groups.

May we consider why, at a personal level, we sometimes lash out at those who oppose our views and look to see if our beliefs are rooted in Scripture or in emotionalism and tradition.

Blessings,
Merrill G. Greene

Notes

[1] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church (Zondervan, 2022).

[2] Chuck DeGroat, When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community from Emotional and Spiritual Abuse (IVP, 2022).

[3] Although I refrain from drawing a direct connection between ancient Gnostic movements and mystery cults to modern evangelical Christian groups, it is undeniable that at least at a psycho-social level there seems to be some overlap.

[4] Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition (Bethany House, 2019), Chapter 3.

[5] Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, 2nd edition (Eerdmans, 2018), 14-19.

[6] Terryl Givens and Brian M. Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2019).

[7] John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nelson Books, 2013), 251-261.

[8] MacArthur fails to cite, for example, Justin Martyr (early 2nd century): “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time” (Dialogue with Trypho 39); Irenaeus (2nd century): “In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit” (Against Heresies 5.6.1); Novatian (3rd century): “This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed” (Concerning the Trinity 29).