Editorial ethics

A Survivor-Informed Ethic

The well-being of those harmed by spiritual abuse is our primary concern. Our work is guided by a trauma-informed approach that seeks to:

• Prioritise Safety: We aim to prevent re-traumatisation by focusing on systems and methodologies rather than graphic personal details, unless given explicit consent by a survivor.
• Provide Resources: Where appropriate, we will include contact information for independent safeguarding charities and support organisations.
• Centre the Lived Experience: Our analysis is informed by the documented experiences of survivors, whose perspectives are essential for understanding the real-world impact of these systems.

Analytical Rigour and Evidence

Our analysis is built on a foundation of verifiable evidence and a multi-disciplinary approach. Our methodology includes:

• Primary Source Analysis: We prioritise analysing a subject's own published materials (books, articles, interviews) to ensure we critique their system based on their own words. We are committed to representing their positions fairly before offering a critical perspective.
• Established Frameworks: We apply concepts from established fields—such as clinical psychology, communication theory, and theology—to provide a robust analytical lens.
• Corroboration: We cross-reference our analysis with public survivor testimonies, verified accounts, and documented institutional reports where available.

Independence

This work is undertaken independently. It is not funded or directed by any institution, campaign group, or individual with a vested interest in the outcome of our investigations.

Operational Principles

• Right of Reply: We attempt to contact primary subjects of a critical investigation to offer a formal right of reply before publication. Their response, or lack thereof, will be noted in the article.
• Conflict of Interest: I maintain strict boundaries regarding conflicts of interest. I will not lead investigations into individuals where a close personal relationship or a direct professional grievance would compromise objectivity.
• Corrections and Accountability: We are committed to accuracy. An open contact channel is maintained for feedback and corrections. Any substantiated factual errors will be corrected and logged transparently. Integrity must be tested, not assumed.

On Pseudonymity and Verification

The Asymmetry of Risk

Institutional accountability in the UK church landscape remains deeply uneven. In high-control environments, critics are often silenced through "poisoning the well"—where dissent is framed as a spiritual attack. In a landscape where good-faith scrutiny can result in professional blacklisting, pseudonymity is a necessary tool. It resets the balance of power, allowing the truth to be told without the threat of personal retaliation.

Evidence Over Personality

This project critiques systems that rely on "personality cults" and the authority of the leader. We believe the antidote is to decentre the author entirely.

• Verification is Public: Our analysis relies on primary sources—books, sermons, and public documents—which any reader can verify for themselves. The validity of the argument stands on the evidence presented, not on the identity of the writer.

Corrections and contact

If you believe something published here is inaccurate, or you are a subject of an investigation and wish to respond, write to awkwardsaints [at] proton [dot] me. See also the contact page.