Understanding Spiritual Abuse in the Modern Church: A Vineyard and Dwelling Place Anaheim Case Study
Should victims seek accountability through the media?
On May 17th, the Roys Report published an article with eleven witnesses claiming to have been spiritually abused by U.K. pastor Alan Scott. Scott has appeared frequently in the public news cycle over the last year, beginning with his controversial decision to remove his congregation from the movement which it once birthed. His church, now called Dwelling Place Anaheim (DPA), had previously been Vineyard Anaheim which was the flagship house of the Vineyard movement pioneered by John Wimber. This enduring drama is marked by some unique qualities which, I believe, are emblematic of larger tensions plaguing the modern Church. Therefore I will be publishing a few newsletters to articulate my viewpoint on various elements of the unfolding controversies. For a better understanding of the Dwelling Place saga, please see the links in the notes section.
A Framework for the Victims
My first priority in addressing the issue is to reinforce the alleged victims in their plight. While the overwhelming majority of the online world seems to be supportive, I am still disappointed at the frequency with which resistance to the victim’s call for accountability is perpetuated. This resistance takes a variety of forms, ranging from mild skepticism of the victims to abject vilification. This resistance is a form of apologetics; apologetics that defend the status quo and contemporary model of operation for churches. Therefore, throughout this article I will refer to the individuals who oppose the victims (indirectly or outright) as “apologists.”
Some of the logic behind these apologetics are touched upon in the following newsletter, although it will not be the primary subject. Instead, I intend to offer an argument that aids the reader in suspending their resistance to the victims so that the victims’ claims can be weighed justly. This first newsletter will begin the work of defusing the arguments which claim that going to the press was inherently wrong.
This framework may not be applicable to every situation. However, the rising number of global church scandals and the increasing rate at which victims of church abuse are coming forward serve as undeniable indications that the modern church-industrial complex has done immense damage to generations of believers. I hope that my thoughts can contribute to the conversation of ending and reversing this trend.
Biblical Precedent
The first argument against public calls for accountability is typically the deployment of certain Scriptures. These Scriptures, such as Matthew 18, will be dealt with later on in this series. Before negating the improper application of those texts, I aim to positively establish that other Biblical texts endorse occasional public action against misbehaving leaders. Let’s begin:
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. - Titus 3:10-11 NKJV
This frequently overlooked verse is demonstrable of at least one Pauline approach towards factionists. This attitude expressed by Paul differs drastically from the attitude of surrender that apologists invariably demand. To be clear, I am not asserting that Scott be excommunicated, but I do wish to illustrate that the much smaller consequence of disqualification for ministry is not unreasonable. In fact, it would not have been an unreasonable consideration even before the allegations of abuse were published.
Scott had willfully created a massive schism within a long-standing and reputable community of churches. His decision to remove the church is not inherently wrong nor was it illegal, but his treatment of all relevant parties was at least unethical. His notion that God had told him to make this decision, and therefore is unwilling to discuss the matter further, is a classic Charismatic misdemeanor. What’s worse, is that it is a recipe for division. It demands that friends, family, and members of the Body of Christ take opposing sides on a contentious matter, based on nothing more than their confidence in the infallibility of a single fallible man. This is not Christ-like behavior, nor is it precedent that the wider Church should be comfortable with allowing. It is the type of divisive behavior that Paul was keen on removing from the early Church. To illuminate this further, I am going to include a couple of commentaries which discuss the Scripture above.
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” - Titus 3:10-11 KJV
English Readers Commentary:
A man that is an heretick.—The Greek word translated “heretick” in the New Testament occurs here only. The term “heresies” occurs twice (1 Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 5:20). In neither, however, of these passages does the word signify there a fundamental or doctrinal error. This sense belongs to a usage of later times. From the meaning of the word “heresy” in these passages of St. Paul, we are able to deduce the signification of the term “heretic” here. The “heretic” of the Church in Crete appears to have been a man who, dissatisfied with the organisation and discipline introduced by Titus into the Christian community—not improbably considering himself in some way slighted—withdrew himself from the common body, and gathering round him other discontented spirits, established what might be termed a rival Church in Crete. Although at first, perhaps, no marked erroneous teaching forms part of the practice of such schismatics, still the tendency in such small rival communities is ever more and more to distinguish between their teaching and that of the larger body from whom they, in the first instance, cut themselves adrift.
Benson’s Commentary:
A man that is a heretic — Greek, αιρετικον, a party or schism-maker, namely, in the church, among the true, genuine people of God; or one that causes divisions among those that are united in Christian fellowship; after the first and second admonition — From thee and the elders of the church, given with proper solemnity; reject — Avoid, and declare him unfit to be any longer looked upon as a member of your community. This is the only place in the whole Scripture where this word heretic occurs…
To see the source for both commentaries click here. All bold was mine.
When mapped onto the events at Dwelling Place Anaheim, these commentaries are chilling. One component of this passage that should be further illuminated is what it means to be self-condemned. This word has significant relevance for justifying the victims in their decision to come forward publicly.
Mercy and forgiveness are esteemed virtues in the Christian tradition, being inseparable from the character and nature of God. The pursuit to embody these traits often produces an aversion to conflict or scenarios that give the appearance of condemnation. When Paul tells Titus that these divisive heretics are self-condemned, one can imagine the relief it provided Titus. Paul was reminding him that removal from the community was an unfortunate outcome, but was the heretics' own doing. It was not a failure on Titus’ part to extend mercy or be long-suffering. That is what it means to be self-condemned. It means an individual has repeatedly chosen a destructive path despite the warnings of the larger community. Identifying these bad actors as injurious individuals does not diminish the identifier’s commitment to being openhearted, but shows that he or she is willing to protect the larger community from the divisive person.
The victim's decision to publicly disclose Alan Scott’s lack of character is not them acting as condemners nor is it a matter of being “unforgiving.” It is the natural consequence of the Scott’s refusal to hear correction or to humbly examine the fruit of his actions. There is condemnation involved in the discussion to remove Scott from ministry, but it is a condemnation which stems from his own deeds. Apologists that are quick to advocate for a more “forgiving” or “grace” oriented response misinterpret the intentions of the victims. The apologists, as well-meaning as they are, look to circumvent the actions being clearly prescribed by Paul for situations just like these. They demand an improper adjustment of the victim’s attitudes, when they should be demanding a change in the heart of the victimizer.
Due to my own experiences with corrupt church governments, I am compelled to note that there are a multiplicity of ways that this concept can become weaponized. No prophetic ability is required to know that at least one person in church authority has used this verse as a means of wrongfully banishing, excommunicating, or black-balling someone from a faith community. There are many pure hearted individuals who have tried to raise the issue of a leader’s inconsistency, whistle-blow, or be different from the dominant culture in a church. There are probably many people who have been wrongly pushed out for being “divisive.” My heart is fully extended to these individuals and am sorry for the way that Scripture was so immorally weaponized against you. I also recognize the irony of how some people will seek to use this verse against the very victims I am looking to justify.
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. -Romans 16:17-18
These verses echo the ones from Titus, with most of their application being similarly self-evident. Scott is undoubtedly at the epicenter of extreme offense, division, and strife.
Paul’s comment that these offenders have an unusual skill for articulation and flattery is an observation which is reminiscent of my own experience. Christians consider themselves people of the Word. Platform and spaces for speaking are embedded into our way of life, which creates incentive for manipulators to become masters of language (or at least reward those who are verbally adroit). Hour upon hour of attentive listening on Sunday mornings has created a culture that is especially receptive to words spoken over a pulpit. A knack for wordsmithing and biblical flourish has often been a golden ticket for promotion within Church ranks. This is problematic because an ability to preach and teach the Word of God, even in a manner that seems revelatory, does not imply good character nor does it imply qualification for ministry.
What Are Simple Hearts?
With this in mind, it’s important to highlight the nuances of Paul’s claim that the deceived community was “simple.” This is not intended to be an insult. In the very next verse, he reiterates that his wish is for the congregation to stay simple in regards to evil; so long as they can avoid the pitfalls of naivety which lead to deception. In other words, Paul is saying that it is often the most innocent, unassuming, and kind people that can be led astray by someone with a silver tongue. This is a consideration that apologists rarely take into account.
A simple community is one that interprets everything in the most generous light. It is a great community to be a part of because humans naturally yearn to have the best version of themselves seen and spoken to. There is something freeing about being part of a group that always believes the best about everyone’s intentions. This is also an ideal hiding spot for someone who wishes to have bad intentions excused or unnoticed. When this type of bad actor is a part of the congregation, there is perhaps a chance that the love of the community will be redemptive. However, when the bad actor is the leader of said community, the transforming power does not flow upward. This community can quickly become a tool to extend the leader’s deceit and be co-opted to defend his deleterious behavior. It takes intentionality and development to become a community that can simultaneously “believe all things” and “be sober and vigilant” at all times.
Sometimes, one of the greatest obstacles to exiting pernicious leadership is the sheer number of truly wonderful people that are a part of their community. Not only is leaving a church extremely difficult because it means having to terminate close friendships - but the quality of the people in the church are a type of social proof that contradict the more direct experiences with the leader.
“How can someone with such bad character group together such good people?”
“If good things are happening in the community, doesn’t that make it okay to overlook this one person’s faults? “
“Everyone else around me seems like they have it together, does that mean that I am the problem?”
These questions plague the victim and cause intense confusion in them when attempting to exit. It also leaves them vulnerable to mind games from the leader or the leader’s spokespeople. For instance, it is curious that the Scott’s refused to comment in the Roy's Report article, but that HR Greg Scherer spoke so freely. The victims in the article suggested that they had spoken to Scherer about their issues prior to leaving, but that Scherer chose to protect Scott rather than the victims. In the article, Scherer admits that complaints were brought forward to him, but brushes them off as “hallway conversations.” This seems to me a shocking admittance of neglect.
Is it any wonder that victims caught in this situation end up in truly harrowing and bewildering states, unsure of who to trust or where safety can be found? Paul’s emphasis on marking and avoiding these individuals was to prevent this type of tragedy. It is wisdom and empathy to call out these bad actors, not wickedness or evil.
Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words. - 2 Timothy 4:14-15
One must always be cautious when making practical prescriptions out of historical descriptions. This being said, it is not unreasonable to lean on this text at least partially for Biblical precedent regarding the public naming of individuals who have harmed others.
It is unknown to the modern reader what Alexander did to Paul, whether Alexander was a believer, or what the outcome of his life was. We do not know for certain any information beyond his occupation. However, this mystery did not exist for Timothy. Paul does not shy away from clearly identifying the perpetrator and articulating his complaint about Alexander clearly. Paul does not shrink back from such boldness even with the knowledge that others would be privy to the contents of the letter. Paul’s expressed intent is to warn Timothy about Alexander. I trust that the reader can easily distinguish between spreading concerned awareness and spreading mischievous gossip. It is natural for one who has firsthand experience with a bad actor to give a concerned “heads up” to other people about possible difficulties coming their way.
Astonishingly enough, some individuals assert that Paul’s right to call out Alexander comes from his apostolic role in the church and that the same course of action would be immoral if undertaken by a believer with lesser authority. This conclusion can only be arrived at via a strange sort of theological gymnastics. There is no restriction on the “average” Christian from calling out people like Alexander, nor is there anything materially different about the Apostle Paul than the other saints.
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. - 1 Timothy 5:19-21
I want to acknowledge the nervousness of many abuse victims in the mentioning of this verse, since it seems to encourage a type of archaic public shaming. It suffers the same vulnerability to misuse as the text from Romans. To this, I willingly tip my hat and ask that we leave that conversation for another time. For the purposes of this paper, I only seek to justify the victims and apply this verse towards those in positions of Church leadership and influence.
If this verse is definitively applicable to anyone, it is applicable to church pastors who have made themselves public figures using the name of Christ. This distinction, although narrower than the term “elder” used by Paul, still fits firmly within its scope. When ordained pastors willfully make themselves the star of stage-standing sermons, conference headlines, high-def live-streams, itinerant speaking engagements, and published books that teach the principles of righteous living, then they have willfully consented to the public examination of their spiritual and moral behavior. They, of their own volition, have requested that the public look to them as an example of Christ-like character and receive from their wealth of knowledge. To rebuke them publicly is not a harsh demonstration of social and moral coercion, but is consistent with the terms of the social contract they agreed to when becoming a high-profile Christian influence. Perhaps this is reminiscent of the encouragement in the book of James to not let many become teachers, since being a teacher invites greater judgment. True godliness is demonstrated through humility and repentance in the face of correction. Therefore, the rejection of correction reveals the minister’s motivation as something much different than the desire to demonstrate godliness.
It is here that I want to remind the reader that eleven witnesses have come forward to allege abuse against Alan Scott. That is close to six times the amount which Paul suggests is the minimum needed (two witnesses). Additionally, the article suggests that more witnesses exist but have not come forward for various reasons. At least two independent investigations are also taking place with presumably more alleged victims. Taking the Timothy Scripture at face value, the astonishing number of witnesses and the severity of their claims should be more than enough grounds for the board to suspend Scott, or at least acknowledge the potential veracity of his victim’s claims. Their refusal to do so is a daily failure to protect the congregation from potential danger.
Accusation-Proof Churches
The first obstacle to enforcement of this Scripture is that there is no serious accountability structure in most independent churches. While Scott’s decision to remove Vineyard Anaheim from the network was perfectly legal, it is only logical that no one leader should have unilateral power over such a large church and immense resources. One of the ex-board members, Pete Greig, states clearly that he was not even informed of the decision before it happened. This is indicative of a concerning level of autonomy for Scott and a lack of oversight which Dwelling Place has not publicly moved to resolve.
But let’s continue with breaking down the Biblical text:
“Do not receive an accusation…”
1 Timothy 5:19 assumes a number of things which every mainstream church needs to consider also. For instance, the Scriptures assume that the following exist in a local context:
A willingness for accusations to be received
A place for accusations to be received
A process for accusations to be evaluated
The victims claim that several efforts were made to raise complaints about the issues they were experiencing. The earliest complaint outlined in the Roys Report article was from 1996. Decades later, Greg Scherer, who is also an active board member, was alerted to the anxiety that Scott was creating in his staff. Scherer responded that he was afraid of the lead pastor also. You see in this occurrence a failure of the church government and ecclesiological structure. The issue in most churches is not that victims do not make themselves clear. The issue is that many churches are impervious to accusations.
When most people think of a leader who is not open to correction, they likely think of someone who is openly prideful, sensitive to rebuke, or touchy in conversation. This can sometimes be the case, but an experienced tyrant’s unaccountability is much more sophisticated. It is first encountered in the structure that he erects around himself. Since his default posture is to be closed off to correction, he arranges his organization in a way that disadvantages any form of dissent. His kingdom is an accusation-proof environment created by layers of intimidation, religious authority, legal processes, organizational bureaucracy, crafty selection of staff, and painstaking intentionality around “culture.”
One must also be reminded that the predominant belief of many in Christendom is how the pastor is the sole authority who is given vision for the church. By definition, this demands a kind of blind allegiance to his guidance. To question this guidance is equated to questioning God. Noah Debolt, an ex-drummer on the Dwelling Place Anaheim worship team, mentioned this exact phenomena in a Youtube video he posted after the article’s release. He mentions blessing the leadership and thanking them upon his exit. This type of behavior is a common regret expressed by many victims who are leaving toxic environments. It is the byproduct of a very dangerous doctrine which well-meaning Christians are taught to believe. Modern churches are saturated in teachings which tell congregants what it means to “leave well,” “stay honoring,” and “not touch God’s anointed.” This doctrine is not only corrupt to the core, but is a hallmark of spiritual manipulation. It weaponizes the word of God against the victim in order to erect false spiritual lines that keep them from asserting their own dignity. Externally imposed policies against whistleblowers are unnecessary if the congregation can be internally convinced that critical views of the leadership are inherently shameful.
Victims who leave damaging churches or escape abusers while blessing them should not be considered inconsistent or fickle, but should be recognized for their attempt at being honoring even in the midst of pain. At minimum, anyone can recognize this as a possible preservation tactic to avoid confrontation. Victims should be commended for their bravery when they publicly seek to correct their mistake. After all, this a bravery that the leaders of these institutions clearly lack.
“ Observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality…”
It is no coincidence that Paul ends the instruction to receive accusations with a charge to be fair and impartial. As it currently stands, there is an unethical burden of proof that whistleblowers have to lift in order to be considered as credible as church elders. This bias towards the abusers and against the victim is unfairly multiplied when the abusers, or “elders,” are famous. It is difficult for the distant observer to believe that someone with a world-wide reputation for being godly would be able to fool so many people in Christendom. However, the high number of recently exposed church leaders has shown that trust in celebrity ministers is largely misplaced.
I personally understand why this bias exists. Pastors teach morality and have a plethora of nice deeds to point at as evidence of being a good person. If these ministers were popular enough or in close enough proximity that we benefited from their ministry, it becomes even more difficult to believe bad press. Before my own experiences with church abuse, I would always give the benefit of the doubt to all leaders. In my mind, the person bringing accusations was probably disgruntled and bitter. Even in the worst case scenario, where the evidence was really stacked against the preacher, I told myself that the media is ultimately unreliable and that the truth was probably just “somewhere in the middle.” Yet this is the exact type of partiality that Paul is commanding to be laid down before hearing multi-verified accusations.
Notice how even the word accusations in Christendom is associated with The Accuser, which creates a bias. Paul realized this dissonance and reminded the reader that all of Heaven sees when they make one party work harder than the other in order to be heard equally. Yet I repeat - there seems to be no one at DPA willing to treat the victims in a fair manner nor submit Scott to this biblically-mandated process. It appears as though his board and the management of his church are committed to following his every decision, even if that means disregarding the standards of Scripture. This should bother the larger Church and I would encourage those with loved ones at DPA to speak candidly with them about this issue.
More on this topic soon. Please let me know your thoughts and if there is anything you think should be addressed in future newsletters.
Your friend,
Ludic Penner
Relevant Links:
Roys Report Article: Former Staff share their experience under Alan Scott. The first article which outlines allegations of abuse. Published May 17, 2023.
Friends of the Vineyard Webpage. Website started by those who are on the plaintiff side of the current lawsuit.
Noah Debolt Video: Former drummer for Jeremy Riddle- his experience. Published May 17, 2023.
Vineyard USA statement regarding Alan Scott. Published May 17, 2023. Included is a hefty trail of statements since early 2022 at this same link.
Christianity Today Article: Disaffiliation of Vineyard Anaheim from Vineyard. Released upon the occasion of Alan Scott’s disaffiliation from the Vineyard Movement. Published March of 2022.
Christianity Today Article: Lawsuit against Alan Scott and Board of DPA. Article detailing the lawsuit which has been filed against Alan Scott and his board.
Causeway Coast Vineyard Statement. This was the church Alan Scott founded and pastored before Vineyard Anaheim. Published June 1st, 2023.