Reports by exit counselors and cult researchers re abuse in YWAM:
Rick Ross Institute (as an aside, Rick Ross has possibly been the most active in reporting spiritual abuse within the "spiritual warfare" and dominionist movements)
Freedom of Mind Institute (Steven Hassan has assisted walkaways from YWAM and other spiritually abusive groups within the "spiritual warfare" movement)
International Cultic Studies Association
FACTnet also has quite a bit of discussion in regards to YWAM.

As a note, these are the four groups that have the best reputation for opposing spiritually abusive tactics regardless of the claimed creed of the abusive group in question, and they base their criteria on the specific level of coercion inherent in the group.  It is also remarkably rare when pretty much all of the Big Four express the same concerns--some of the few groups to get such universal concern re abusiveness include AmWay, the Moonies, and Scientology (all of which are widely known as being cultic and psychologically harmful).

Criticism of YWAM on dual grounds of coercive religious tactics and possible bad apologetics:
Apologetics Index (a site from a Christian viewpoint, but which also notes specifically concerns of coerciveness separately from apologetics concerns)
Site critical of YWAM (Multiple complaints here--notes of coercive religious tactics, notes of apologetics issues, and (of particular relevance to the community) damning evidence that YWAM is explicitly dominionist (dominionism here being termed "Moral Government Theology", being a variant of dominion theology))
Expose of YWAM (critic is a conservative Protestant who is increasingly alarmed re promotion of dominionism, includes very good backgrounder info re links with YWAM and other dominionist and abusive groups)
Deception In The Church (site does criticise from a conservative Protestant viewpoint in regards to its apologetics, but it also notes spiritual abuse and coercive tactics aside from apologetics concerns; as an aside, Deception In The Church is possibly one of the best resources out there re documentation of abuse in "Third Wave" aka "Brownsville-style" neopentecostal churches and the site was largely started due to increasing reports of abuse in that movement)

In addition, several YWAM walkaways are regulars on the Ex-Pentecostals forums; the site is a resource for persons who have escaped coercive and spiritually abusive churches within the pente and neopente movements.  (There are quite a number of reports of abuse not just within YWAM but within the Assemblies of God proper, especially since the "Brownsville" thing caught on; here are some reports from survivors.)

b) In regards to abuse within "cell church" and "shepherding" groups, there is an amazing amount of documentation--enough that most exit counselors and researchers consider the mere presence of cell groups as a major warning sign.

Cell churches were originally designed both as a way of massive church growth (in that they could grow, not unlike a pyramid scheme; the model is almost identical to that of an MLM group such as AmWay) and as a way of maintaining control over members.  Typically a cell of 5 to 10 persons will have a "cell leader" or "shepherd", who will in turn report to a regional director or deacon, and so on all the way to the pastor.

Abuse in these groups is very well documented.  In fact, one of the groups most infamous for the use of "cell churches" and shepherding (the International Churches of Christ) is in fact used as a model for how "bible based" coercive religious groups operate.  Possibly the best book on the subject is The Discipling Dilemma, which (while focusing largely on abuse within the ICOC) also mentions how this is being increasingly abused within the neopente movement as well.

One known dominionist group (besides neopente megachurches) which has used "cell churches" is Promise Keepers and there have been reliable reports of abuse directly related to "cell church" and "shepherding" use in that parachurch organisation.  Maranatha, a particularly abusive group, largely pioneered its use within "charismatic" neopente groups as well, and is another spectacular model for how cell groups very often go frankly abusive.

Cell groups in practice very much go into a "Big Brother" mentality, wherein members of a cell group are encouraged to sniff out "secret sins" in members.  Cell members have occasionally been subjected to involuntary exorcisms as a result.

In some churches--particularly the types of spiritually abusive organisations we're discussing here--or other groups like AmWay or the Dergue, the purpose of the cell IS to maintain strict control.  Sadly, that is its original purpose in large part (as documented in "The Discipling Dilemma").

A particularly telling story from a walkaway from a dominionist neopente church that largely invented cell-church use shows not only how these groups tend to be abusive in practice but also how these groups are used to promote dominionism and dominion theology.

c) Church growth in and of itself is not a negative thing (and I never meant to imply as such).  However, spiritually abusive tactics do unfortunately tend to be more common in large megachurches (as a great deal of emphasis is given on getting new blood in the door no matter what, and the use of deceptive practices to get warm bodies "in the door" is not only tolerated but in some cases--including Rick Warren's--frankly encouraged).

The use of deceptive tactics is a concern because most experts in spiritual abuse consider this a major warning sign of a spiritually abusive church.  ("Bait and switch" evangelism, such as noted in the Ron Luce manual I wrote about earlier, is very common as a way to get people "in the door".  Steve Hassan in his "BITE Model" of "abusiveness" of a group specifically mentions deceptive recruiting as a warning sign, as do Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer (who did much of the early basis for research of coercive groups in general) and Dr. Michael Langone (who now is one of the head researchers at ICSA).)

Also, most large congregations in non-abusive churches do eventually split to "missionary" churches, in part because of the sheer difficulty of managing large congregations without resorting eventually to potentially abusive tactics.  (Most of the big megachurches actually have a surprising level of control over their member's lives--usually enforced through the cell churches.)

My personal definition of dominionist (or at least the definition I've used in my writings) has been "groups which promote the hijacking or replacement of secular institutions of government, education or other facilities with their own institutions based on dominion theology".  (Generally, I've seen the term used for both "premillenialist dominion theology" promoters (more on that in a sec) and Christian Reconstructionism.)

One of the things that is beginning to be recognised (and Fredrick Carlson and Chip Berlet here have specifically noted on this) is that two separate dominionist movements actually exist that have a considerable amount of overlap.  One is Christian Reconstructionism proper; the other, which has been termed "Christian Nationalism", "Moral Government Theology", "Kingdom Now Theology", and "Dominion Theology", is a separate dominionist movement (and possibly the larger and older of the two).

Christian Reconstructionism largely had its birth in independent fundamentalist Baptist groups, and is postmillenialist and pulls most of its base theology from fundamentalist Baptist belief; "Kingdom Now Theology" or "Moral Government Theology" is actually premillenialist in many cases, and promotes the mass conversion of secular institutions to "Christian Nationalist" operated organisations as a tool to get a "critical mass" of people converted to their particular flavour of "Christianity" so that the Rapture can Hurry Up And Happen.  (In the "Third Wave" pentecostal groups, there is an additional emphasis given--all the convertees are supposed to be members of "Joel's Army", an army to "claim dominion" over the earth now and to come down from the heavens at the end of the Tribulation to slay the unconverted seven years post-Rapture.  The "Left Behind" game is a clear reference to "Joel's Army" and "endtime overcomer army" beliefs in those groups.)

The definition of "dominionist" I use in regards to the promoters of pente-style "dominion theology" are probably closest to what Chip Berlet and Frederick Carlson have termed "Christian Nationalists" (rather than "Christian Reconstructionists").  There is a considerable amount of overlap in the goals of Christian Reconstructionists and "dominion theology" Christian Nationalists, but the core reasons are somewhat different.

The vast majority of my writing has been in regards to the latter, not the former.  (Interestingly, there seems to have been more formal research on the former, hence why I've been posting and replying in comparison and contrast--most of my unfortunate experience has been with the latter.)

To give an even narrower definition--the "dominion theology" I'm referring to here is a premillenialist theology that preaches that God (and Adam, as God's regent) lost dominion over the earth at the Fall and Satan claimed the earth at that time; Jesus died and suffered three days in hell and then came back from the dead; only the "saved" with "Signs following" (usually tongues, but increasingly (and especially in the "Brownsville" churches) featuring things like being "drunk in the Holy Spirit", roaring, waving around "swords of the lord", or having "birthing pains" as "manifestations"--this on top of the usual being "slain in the spirit" and dancing in the aisles) can properly "claim dominion" back for Christ; once the world has been "reclaimed" or once a critical mass of persons have been converted, the Rapture will take place; people and things and places must be "claimed for Christ" and "dominion taken from the devil".  Many variations even promote the idea that the "saved" can bring people back from the dead, have miraculous cures, be fabulously wealthy (because "God doesn't want his Chosen to be paupers"), the concept that only they and the Israelis are the Chosen People of God, etc.

Yes, at its base it is a "spiritual warfare" theology.  Variations and evolutions of this have included word-faith theology, the old "name it and claim it" that televangelists are always hawking on TBN; the "Brownsville" or "Third Wave" movement is a general extension of that base theology.

I've done a minor history of dominion theology (as practiced within pente and neopente circles) here, and Sara Diamond's "Spiritual Warfare" is also an excellent intro to the roots of this particular strain of "Christian Nationalism".

Dominionism, I will note, is a subset of Christian belief; even quite a few fundamentalists have very serious issues with dominionism (aka "Christian Nationalism") on its face, and some of the largest critics you will see on this site are in fact Christians.  (One of our regular writers is from Mainstream Baptist, an association of Baptist congregations who were forced out of the Southern Baptist Convention when it was hijacked by dominionists.)  Many of the sources that I have used to document on dominionism are in fact from Christian apologetics sites operating from moderate or even conservative Protestant viewpoints (in the case of the Brownsville stuff, it's a necessary thing at times, because some of the best documentation of the tactics being used by these groups are from Christian groups with grave concerns about this stuff).  Another of our representatives is from the Episcopalian Church and has done excellent reporting--as a pastor--on how dominionist groups associated with the Institute for Religion and Democracy have tried to hijack his church and "convert from within".

It is, in fact, quite possible to be Christian--even a fundamentalist Christian--and still be opposed to the entire concept of Christian Nationalism and dominionism.  

In fact, one powerful argument I have occasionally used with people in regards to fighting spiritual abuse within churches and dominionism is that the spiritual abuse within certain dominionist and "Christian Nationalist" churches is frequently driving people away from Christianity altogether.  I myself am never going to be comfortable in a church--ANY church--not even Unitarian Universalism or a Friends meeting--specifically because I am a survivor of 26 years of physical, mental, emotional and spiritual abuse--all of which was religiously motivated.  It is in fact a major step for me in my healing that I can visit apologetics sites for research without twitching or having flashbacks to abuse.  (I still don't like to listen to certain songs played in the church I left, or view certain things--the "God Warrior" Marguerite Perrin episode of "Trading Spouses" being a big one--because it makes me flashback to some very traumatic experiences.)

My issue is not with people having faith and acting on it.  (In fact, some of the people who have been the most encouraging and who have urged me to write on these matters have been Christians of deep faith indeed.)  My issue is twofold:

1. There are a lot of groups with a history of being spiritually abusive--using tactics that are documented to be harmful to their followers--who also have, as part of their agenda, the taking over of secular government and other secular institutions to essentially force everyone else to follow the same abusive practices wrapped up in the Bible.  (In other words, mainstream Christianity can argue--and has argued--that dominionist movements and "Christian Nationalism" is in fact a spiritual counterfeit.  Speaking as someone who's done research on spiritual abuse as a part of my own healing, I tend to agree--the base tactics of Scientology and the group I left are the same, one just dresses it up in bad space opera and the other in rampant misuse of the Bible.)

2. These tactics, and the promotion of "Christian Nationalism", are spreading to groups that have not previously had a history of abuse of this sort.  (The Southern Baptists are a prime example of this--the denomination was hijacked by "Christian Nationalists" in the 1990s, and now you have Southern Baptists (like Rick Warren) partnering with Assemblies-based preacher David yonggi Cho and trading notes with him (and Cho even admits to cribbing spiritually abusive methods from a highly abusive group linked to actual arson--and which wraps up a spiritually abusive core in misuse of Buddhist scripture).

3. A lot of the groups in which both "Christian nationalism" and abusive tactics are rampant--in particular, the Assemblies of God--have a lot of political power now and have as a primary goal the complete takeover of the US government so they can make the US a "Godly Nation".  (Part of their base theology--borrowed from British Israelism--is that the US and Israel are "Chosen peoples" and both countries must be theocracies if they are to "secure God's blessing" and keep it.)

b) Cho is a well known promoter of dominion theology; in fact, Cho can in fact be said to have explicitly invented much of the theology behind "dominion theology" as it is practiced in the Assemblies of God and the multiple neopentecostal "charismatic" groups that are spawned from this.

c) In light of b) and assuming you are not just doing damage control (and, sadly, it has been my general experience that abusive dominionist groups DO specialise in this), perhaps you can clarify Warren's exact relationship with Cho et al (which is the primary focus of this article).

d) Explanation as to the specific content of the courses required for Saddleback Christian church members would also be appreciated.  (I'll go more into detail on this in one of the other posts.)

Unless and until some clarification is made, especially on point B) (the close relationship between Rick Warren and David Yonggi Cho), I stand by my statements in this thread.  I have thoroughly documented them; Rick Warren has expressed support for one of the primary promoters of "dominion theology" and "name it and claim it" theology (which itself is a form of dominion theology--you are explicitly "claiming dominion over the devil" in the process of "naming and claiming").  

I myself am a walkaway from a highly abusive church where Cho's theology was promoted, so to say I am very familiar with it is an understatement; hence, I have some legitimate concern regarding Warren's relationship with Cho and his support of Cho's theology.

by dogemperor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:03:03 PM EST
Parent