BGBC Lawsuit, Chuck O'Neal, Extra-Biblical Nonsense, JULIE ANNE'S CASE, Shunning, Spiritual Abuse

Outside Family Members: Why Are They Shunned?

After this busy weekend with the court case (no ruling yet), spending wonderful time with my friends and a little birthday celebration, I woke up in a funk.   Two e-mails were pressing on my mind and then I realized, no, there were actually three e-mails that arrived over the weekend that described the destruction of relationships caused by shunning.  They found the story in the media and contacted me.

This is the kind of thing that makes me in a foul mood and then I get upset and so I come to the keyboard and type.  The subject of the e-mails was shunning.

Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or mental rejection. Social rejection is when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group. This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as,  apostateswhistleblowersdissidentsstrikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict. Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture.[1] Mental rejection is a more individual action, where a person subconsciously or willfully ignores an idea, or a set of information related to particular viewpoint. Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas.  (

After receiving the e-mails, I called around to see if anyone could verify the stories.   They were verified.   Ugh!  Later, I spent one hour on the phone listening to one person’s story as she shared the heartache of not being able to see her loved ones for a long while.  The pain in her voice was real.  It was gut-wrenching to hear of relationships torn apart.  She did not choose this.  She was not a member at the church.  She was a relative of someone who attends the church.  

All three of these e-mails were from outside family members who are being shunned by people in the church.  These are family members who don’t even go to the church, have probably never even visited the church, yet they are being shunned.  People, I am not making this stuff up.  Have you heard of such a thing?  

These family members outside the church could be sisters, aunts, grandparents, brothers, daughters, it really doesn’t matter, but what does matter is these relationships are being torn apart because of shunning:  nieces and nephews can’t see aunts/uncles, grandchildren cannot see grandparents, brothers cannot see sisters, etc.  

Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.

1.  To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent. 

2.  To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member. For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership. This is often paired with some form of excommunication.  (

Why are they being shunned?  Perhaps they are viewed as a threat.  Maybe they know too much of the inner-workings of the church or family situations and the pastor doesn’t want them to talk to their family member and risk losing them from the church.  Maybe outside family members are seeing questionable activities and actions and asking too many questions.   

Julie Anne asks the simple question:   WHY?????????????????????????????

These people were crying out to me asking me what is going on in the church?  Do I think the children are safe?   How long will this last?  What can they do?   I don’t know.   I didn’t know this was happening when we were there.  So I blog.    I tell what I know.  I encourage them to pray.  

Recently, I saw a reporter on tv fanning a pile of “hate mail” which was evidently e-mail sent to our former pastor.  This hate mail was a result of media attention to the case.  Would there have been any hate mail without the public lawsuit?  I think not.  A couple samples of hate mail were included in the court documents as exhibits, so I assume he must be upset about it.  I saw them.  There were strong words, but they were from strangers who didn’t like what they were seeing in the news media and quickly typed out a ranting e-mail.  I’ve had a few of those.  I usually send an oozing sweet response and hit “delete” 🙂   

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member’s closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.

Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.

Maybe I should have printed out all of the e-mails I have received since the inception of this blog to show reporters – hundreds of pages.  Some e-mails I have received have been particularly upsetting to me.  No, I’m not talking about the negative ranting.  Who cares.  There will always be those.  I’m talking about the pages and pages of personal accounts from people telling their stories of spiritual abuse, shunning, abandonment, shaming, etc.  The kinds of e-mails I’m dealing with are people crying out to me describing the pain and anguish of loved ones they know are alive, but are not allowed to see, but long to see.  The relationships were ripped from them.  

Try to imagine having a relationship with a close family member and then it is stopped immediately.  No explanation.  No closure.  Holidays that were traditionally spent together are now without that loved one or family.  No more birthday celebrations together.  No more camping trips, impromptu coffees, etc.  Death would be easier because there is something final, you can move on.  This is heart-wrenching because you know they are alive.  It’s always at the back of your mind reminding you of what once was, what should be, and what you cannot have.  You wonder if they think of you, what they are told about you, you remember those precious times together, but you can’t have it.  If this happened to me, I think I would go crazy.  I’d probably drive by the house, hoping to see family.  I’d drop off gifts.  I’d frequent places I knew they would go to just to “happen” to run into them.  I don’t know what else I’d do, but family is so important and I’d probably do anything to break through that wall.  Good grief, I cannot even type this without getting teared up again.  You guys have got to get a sense of what this does to families, relationships and how destructive it is.  And it is a complete FARCE – totally made-up rule only benefitting ONE person.  :::ja, calm down:::

Remember the post on False Teachers Mark and Avoid Church Members?   The key verse  used to justify shunning people was Romans 16:17.   I explained how false teachers twist the meaning of this verse  to encourage the shunning of congregants (and  apparently family members outside the church).  They entirely missed the real meaning of the verse which is to shun false teachers.  

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.  Rom 16:17

I just found what John MacArthur (our former pastor’s favorite pastor) says about that verse and how it applies to false teachers (not congregants or people outside the church).  I know some of this is review, but it is so important because this shunning thing is absolutely huge in spiritually abusive churches.  It was found in an article entitled, Love for the Saints, Part 2:

Now particularly in the church the Apostle Paul says, “Look, here’s what you do when you come across it, you mark it and you avoid it.” Pretty clear. “To mark it,” simply skopeo, identify it, look through the scope, take a good look at it, observe it, scrutinize it, identify it, pick it out, see what it is. And if you know sound doctrine you’ll be able to do that. Identify it as heresy, identify it as false teaching and then avoid it, or really in this case avoid them because false teaching always has a source a propagator. That means to come away from it, to shun it.

See, we’re not talking about marking and avoiding church members, but false teachers.  Here’s more of what we’re to do with false teachers: 

 . . . . No, we’re not to kill and torture the people who don’t believe, just avoid them, move away. Nowhere are we told to stay around and argue with them. That’s fruitless. We’re told to shun them, go away from them. 

And here MacArthur describes the character of false teachers:

And then he gives two reasons why these lying teachers are not worthy of your ears in verse 18. “For they that are such, who bring in divisions and who cause people to stumble and be offended with their lies, they that are such…number one…serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own body.” Now I want you to understand that this is something that’s repeated frequently in the Scripture. They are in it for self-gratification. 


Notice also, will you please, the second reason why we ought not to give them our ears in verse 18, you first of all must know that their motive is wrong, secondly, you must know that their effect is wrong. “They use good words and fair speeches and they will deceive the hearts…they will deceive the hearts of the innocent.”


Good words, phrase means smooth speech. Oh they can talk…glib, clever. Well you know that, right? I mean, let’s face it, the devil wouldn’t put error in the mouth of a klutz if he wanted to get his point across, right? It’s going to be smooth speech and fair speeches. That implies the word praise, eulogia, like eulogy. It’s the idea of false eloquency, flattery, well chosen lies that sound good and appealing and they deceive the hearts of the innocent. So the false prophet comes clever, eloquent, polished, smooth-talking, praising, flattering. He gains the ear and deceives the heart…deceives the heart. And, beloved, that’s why we have to test everything by what? By the book.

Innocent is the word akakosKakosis sort of a basic generic word for evil, aat the front negates that. They deceive the without evil, the as yet uncorrupted. They corrupt the uncorrupted. They’re selfish and sensual and sexual and they deceive with cleverness those who aren’t corrupt. And as Peter said they are in bondage to corruption and they lead their hearers into that corruption. They did it in Corinth. That church became entangled in that. They’ll try it in Rome. And they’re at it today. 


I encourage you to read the whole article.  It is good.

Oh, why does this insanity continue?  It is insanity because it is not about God and love and shepherding the Saints.  The false teacher is self-serving for his own self pleasure.  This type of shunning I’ve described is false teaching.   There is no benefit for the congregant whatsoever.  You don’t shun outside family members.  ACK!!  Once again, I urge those of you who are in a church, following a pastor who is telling you to shun people based on Romans 16:17, leave that church at once.  Read Jude.  You cannot dialogue with someone like this.  You must leave and get out from that corrupt teaching.   

At times like this, my only hope is this:  

Psalm 34

15 The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous 
and his ears are attentive to their cry; 

16 the face of the LORD is against those who do evil, 
to cut off the memory of them from the earth. 

17 The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; 
he delivers them from all their troubles. 

18 The LORD is close to the brokenhearted 
and saves those who are crushed in spirit. 

19 A righteous man may have many troubles, 
but the LORD delivers him from them all; 

20 he protects all his bones, 
not one of them will be broken. 

21 Evil will slay the wicked; 
the foes of the righteous will be condemned. 

22 The LORD redeems his servants; 
no one will be condemned who takes refuge in him.

111 thoughts on “Outside Family Members: Why Are They Shunned?”

  1. Can the public find out how long he was sentenced for? and also he must have had knowledge of right and wrong to gewt sentenced right?


  2. Anon – My source told me he was sentenced for 8 yrs and thinks he's already served 3 years. Yes, he knows right/wrong. The mom's declaration said he acted like an 8-10 year old. I think he was 15 when we were there and I thought he acted like a 13 old. He really was a nice kid. Quiet and sweet disposition.


  3. As I was reading @Old Mom's comments, one word that screamed out at me in her quote was swindler and how it relates to spiritual abuse.swin·dle: v., 1. To cheat or defraud of money or property. 2. To obtain by fraudulent means.confidence trick, confidence game: n., a swindle involving money, goods, etc., in which the victim's trust is won by the swindlersee also con man, tricksterIt reminded me of a series of events my aunt told about her best friend's experience with a swindling priest after her husband's death. The priest told her that he was concerned for her husband's soul (even though the husband was a believer, going to church with her every week, etc.) and that he could be "prayed out of hell"…for a little bit of money. Of course, she was terrified for her husband. That priest swindled her out of the estate her husband left for her as she sold it off bit by bit to give to this priest/church to ensure her husband didn't spend eternity in the fires of hell. When she laid down the last $5 bill she had, he told her "That's a shame. I only had him prayed out to the knees." I've heard story upon story of so-called men of the cloth using the camouflage of vestments in order to fleece the flock. On two separate occasions a person I had a close relationship with told me of another close friend from their youth who was a pastor. One pastor was a buddy from high school days known to be an avowed atheist at the time, so needless to say the mutual friend was surprised to find he had become a pastor. The other pastor was the father of a fiancĂ©. The stories were so strikingly similar you would swear it was the same pastor they were speaking of but these people lived at opposite ends of the country. The so-called pastors told them outright that they did not believe one word of the Bible. Each said in effect that they saw themselves as just playing a role (like an actor) or that it was just a job (like a salesman who doesn't have to believe in the product he's selling); that they were telling the congregates "what they want to hear" and in return they get a salary, food, clothing, shelter, a car, etc. And the better they were at their "job" the more money they received in the offering plate. (Of course, on each of these occasions, the "pastor" confessed to a non-believer, as confessing to a believer would be detrimental to their livelihood.) What is to be done with these false prophets? Are they to be guaranteed a "livelihood" if that livelihood is based on fraud and deceit? Or should they be outed for the frauds that they are?


  4. Ostracon C.E. when you find an answer to the questions you ask, please let me know. I have the same questions. I have to say, BGBC is also part of the lawsuit as co-plaintiff with the pastor and it makes me wonder where the funds are coming from to pay attorney fees. I'm trying to imagine being in a church whose pastor is filing a lawsuit (against God's word) and wonder where my tithe money is going.


  5. AnonymousJuly 18, 2012 8:02 PMWhile truth is a defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the facts of the case: False statements of fact, that the defendant knew were false or had reckless disregard as to whether they were false, and that the plaintiff was damaged in a way that financial compensation will cure (i.e., the damages cannot be speculative, but must be real and proved).The Defendant has the opportunity to present evidence that shows: (1) that the statements were true or (2) that the Defendant had substantial reason to believe they were true, and, if not successful, show that the damages are merely speculative (e.g., alleging future income that was not somehow clearly pending and not obtained).There are two First Amendment defenses. First, if the statements are opinion and can be shown to be opinion (no matter how vile) the plaintiff will lose; the First Amendment protects freedom of conscience. Saying "I don't like you and I think you are a skunk (creep, weirdo, etc.)" or "He seems creepy to me" is not actionable for defamation.Second, there is a First Amendment defense related to matters of religion. This may be critical in this case, because the court will not get into interpretations of scripture, beliefs about proper church organization and authority, etc. So saying that someone did or say something that is "not biblical" or that the matter involved church discipline, will take that allegation out of the case.The allegation of "spiritual abuse" is an interesting case that depends on the meaning of the two words, and that puts the issue under the First Amendment religious matter defense, since one is clearly about religious practice. It is also, I think, under the other First Amendment defense, because what constitutes abuse in this circumstance is a matter of opinion.


Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s