Returning and Completing A Further Look pdf

Page 28 Section 5.1 – Employee and Key Management Information
Records staff numbers ranging from 30 to 43, with a median of 34.5, and total staff costs of £11.574m.
Shows employer pension contributions of £1.126m and the increase in the employer pension rate from 12.5% to 23%.
The page signals a major cost pressure from pensions and staffing levels, especially in the school context.

Page 29 Section 5.2 – Key Management Personnel Information Narrative
Lists key management categories and notes the treatment of employer pension contributions as system-wide obligations rather than individual benefits.
Sets out non-director management, director salaries, and the related benefit figures used in the document’s analysis.
The page is important because it frames the later governance critique around who is considered key management and what should have been disclosed.

Page 29 and 30 Section 5.2 / 5.3 – Related Parties and Director Reporting
The document argues that related-party transactions involving directors, senior staff, and close family were not fully disclosed.
It notes that some roles (e.g., ministers, house group leaders, senior teachers, depute headteachers) may fall within key management yet appear under-reported.
The page presents this as a serious transparency issue rather than a minor administrative omission.

Page 30 Section 5.3 – Directors / Board / Headteachers
Provides a timeline of directors, governors, and headteachers, showing frequent changes and overlapping roles.
The page suggests a tightly interconnected governance structure, with multiple named individuals appearing in several capacities.
The implication is that governance was concentrated and potentially susceptible to conflicts of interest or weak independent oversight.

Appendices follow which are Narrative in format. The areas covered by the Appendices are:
[*] Page 31 Appendix 5.1 – Directors and Auditors Responsibilities and Signed Statements
[*] Page 32 Appendix 5.2 - Have SMC fulfilled their True and Fair Responsibilities in relation to the School Funding and Bursary Award Scheme?
[*] Page 34 Appendix 6.1 - Meeting the SORP Standard, Assessing Transparency and Disclosure of Related Parties
[*] Page 35 Appendix 6.2 - Have SMC fulfilled their legal accounting disclosure duties in reporting Related Party, Close Family Transactions?

Linkages of A Further Look and A Deeper Dive PDFs
AI has kindly told me these are potentially weak points in the Latigo PDFs which may contain a reasonable level of logic but there is no definitive proof that can be derived solely from the source documents of Companies House Accounts.

School Employment Costs and School Fees (see Page 39 Section 8.2 within pdf )
This section tells us the Independent School Average Ratio between Staff Employment Costs and School Fees was between 60 and 70% of Fees Raised. Cedars ran at an average of 85% over the 16 years.

The Ratio being illustrated has 2 parts to it:
[*] School Employment Costs and
[*] School Fees.

Starting first with School Employment Costs - Thought 1
Lack of transparency within the source documents from Companies House (that these PDF documents are based on) cannot provide the answer of to what extent both School Employment Costs were Inflated by Related Parties and Close Family Employment Connections.

Page 30 Section 5.3 on A Further Look gives the full list of names available from Companies House that held Headteacher, Companies House Director or Board of Governor roles between 2008 and 2023. SMC past and present members will be able to tell which of these family names had relatives employed or relatives educated at the school during that period, not only direct blood relationships, but relationships by virtue of marriage. The same past and present members will be able to say which Church Ministers and Assistant Ministers, whose names are not recorded within the source documents of Companies House, also had relatives employed or relatives educated at the school during that period.

How much of the loss-making, average staff costs to school fees ratio of 85% is due to over-employment? Finding opportunities to employ using what may have been thought to be a never-ending source of cost-less money (church offerings). As A Basic Edit Summary comments, "From the many, to the few"

Turning to School Fees - Thought 2
Starting from Page 24 section 4.7 - top graph - use of Restricted School Fund within A Further Look.

"Funds are given and used to provide assisted school places, for repairs & maintenance of the school and for other school purposes."
There is a 3-tone graph at the top of page 24. It shows 2 Gold bands in 2010 and 2018 where the Companies House Accounts clearly state that the School paid out Gifts. There are Green coloured bands throughout that 3-tone graph representing School Maintenance Costs paid for by the School Restricted Fund. And the vast majority of the spending of the School Restricted Fund is represented by the palest blue of "other school purposes" and not assisted school places.

So where is the evidence of "Funds are given and used to provide assisted school places"?

Looping back to Page 20 - Charitable Gifts Across Church, Coffee Shops and School.

The same 2 Gold coloured bands are there of the School Gifts Out in 2010 and 2018. There are slivers of Orange coloured bands representing Coffee Shop Gifts Out.
The rest of the pink to purple coloured bands are Charitable Gifts out from the Church Unrestricted General Fund.
The Church Gifts are divided into 3 categories - Deep Purple - Unspecified Gifts Out; Lightest Pink - Gifts to those in Hardship; Strong Pink - Named Gifts out to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre, The Haven, and to the Shetland Group (2015 only).

Page 20 narrative contains the phrase, "the Church's Unrestricted Gifts ... may have covered payments for the Bursary Award Scheme".

The tangle this presents, however, is that Individuals gave Funds into a Restricted School Fund, and every year in the Annual Accounts there was a statement that "Funds are given and used to provide assisted school places, for repairs & maintenance of the school and for other school purposes." Therefore the Church Unrestricted Fund should not be being used for this purpose.

So, if that rule was followed, and the the Church's Unrestricted Gifts (coloured Deep Purple on page 20) do not contain the School Bursary Awards, then where are they?
They are not in the School Restricted Fund Expenditure except for those 2 gold band years.

Another Explanation that Page 20 of The Basic Edit gives is that the School Fees Income has been presented net, cut down, by the value of the School Bursary Awards given. Neither the Fees nor the Awards Out are shown in the source documents.

So what was the Value of School Bursary Awards over the 16 years? We are never told.
But it may explain why that School Employment Costs to School Fees is so different to the UK Independent Schools Average.
The Cedars School Fee Income level may be understated significantly enough to skew that ratio up from 70% of Fees spent on Staff Costs, to Cedars 85% of Fees spent on Staff Costs.

And that would then allow the School Restricted Fund to be spent on the variety of items outlined on Page 26 "b" graphs, the "other school purposes".

Continuing with School Fees - Thought 3
At the bottom of Page 39 the narrative states that it is not known whether or to what extent Key Management and Close Family members had School Fees reduced for relatives and dependents. But presumably there are plenty of people who know from their own first hand experience whether or not a Fees Reduction scheme was in operation.

Was the other factor explaining why the School Employment Costs to School Fees is so different to the UK Independent Schools Average because many discounts were being offered to many people? The PDFs never mention if there is any recording in the Companies House source documents of there being a policy of reduced fees to staff employed at the school.

Pages 34 and 35, Appendices 6.1 and 6.2 within the A Further Look pdf delve into Consideration of how well SMC fulfilled the spirit and not just the letter of the law around disclosing Related Party and Close Family transactions. The preceding 2 pages at Pages 31, 32 Appendices 5.1, 5.2 also ask whether SMC fulfilled their "True and Fair" responsibilities in relation to School Funding and the Bursary Award Scheme.

*** AI Opinion of where the Analysis Appears Weak or Needs Caution ***
Some conclusions in the analysis are plausible but should be tested against source evidence before they are treated as fully established facts.
[*] The bursary argument is plausible but appears to rely partly on absence of disclosure rather than on a complete transactional trail; the board should therefore be asked for primary evidence before any firm conclusion is drawn.
[*] The criticism of the 2013 reclassification may be valid, but it needs board approval papers and accounting notes to confirm whether the treatment was inappropriate or simply poorly explained.
[*] The related-party concerns are serious, but a definitive audit-grade conclusion requires a complete disclosure schedule, not just narrative inference.
[*] Some efficiency comparisons in the analysis are directionally persuasive but should be tested against full operating assumptions, because per-£100-sales framing is an analytical tool rather than a formal accounting measure.
[*] The overall governance critique is strong, but the board should be challenged to provide documentary evidence (minutes, policies, management accounts, approvals, and transaction lists) before any final judgment is made.

Isn't that a great set of questions for the SMC Board?

Last one, with AI assistance
SMC Board Challenge

What the analysis appears to show:
[1] The church’s unrestricted surplus appears to have been repeatedly used to subsidise school and coffee-shop deficits rather than being retained for reserves or clearly member-approved strategic purposes.
[2] Property sales, revaluations, and fund reallocations appear to have played a central role in keeping the wider operation cash-positive
[3] The analysis raises material concerns about the clarity of reporting on bursary awards, restricted school fund usage, related-party transactions, and certain cost reclassifications.
[4] The governance narrative suggests that the board/directors may not have exercised sufficiently robust oversight over fund use, conflict disclosure, and the sustainability of loss-making ventures.

The board’s core question to answer is:
If unrestricted offerings and property assets were used to underwrite recurring losses in school and coffee-shop activities, what explicit board approval, church member understanding, and long-term strategy supported that approach?

With follow on questions being:
[1] Why were the coffee shops and school allowed to remain structurally loss-making for so many years without a formal turnaround plan or exit strategy?
[2] What financial tests justified continuing operations despite structural losses?
[3] Why do the reported school fee income figures appear insufficient to cover the full cost base in most years, and what was the board’s rationale for maintaining fee levels in the face of rising staffing and pension costs?
[4] Why is there such a large gap between narrative references to bursary schemes and the limited visible disclosure of bursary expenditure in the restricted school fund lines?
[5] Why do the accounts and narrative appear to leave ambiguity over whether bursary awards were actually paid, where they were recorded, and whether restricted donations were used in line with donor intent?
[6] How did the board manage independence and conflicts of interest?

(Personal comment:
I think even the new Board that came in in 2023 would say the first statement above is not contested, hence their change to the Directors Signed Statement re School Funding in 2023. And despite literally having "shut up shop", the Core Question posed is still valid unless of course, it has been fully answered to the members in AGMs since 2023. Has it? Was Property Asset Stripping approved by the members? Was transfer of General Fund Offerings "from the Many to the Few" to fund Salaries, Pension Contributions and certain children's School Education what the membership knowingly, and intentionally, signed up to in every year?)

And last but not least .... when did Latigo214 first raise questions of Financial Transparency? Answer: It was in 2011 The Generous Gift

Was it all so unnecessary then?
Page 34 of A Deeper Dive - table of Cash Flows at bottom of page -
at the end of 2011, the Shops and School had only lost £103K. By 2023, the Shops and School had lost £1.2 million!
And per the Graph on Section 4.8b Page 26 of A Further Look,
at the end of 2011, Special Offerings and Individual Donations totalled around £200K. By the end of the 16 years, they totalled £1.3 million.

Thanks for all this Red Road. That’s been really helpful as there’s a lot to get your head around. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the diverse experiences on the forum between the experiences, abuse and trauma of the children who had no choice and those of the adults where the financial situation has had significant impact. It’s important that the forum holds compassionate and safe space for everyone.

The information has been shocking to read. I’ve also been thinking about the amount of people who gave of their time freely to the coffee shop / bookshop and / or the school without pay and possibly even ontop of financial donations.
I recall the expectation of all of us young people when the bookshop/ coffee shop began up in the small hall in the Greenock church and in the new building that we would all be visible in working in them. Not all of us got paid. I was one of the few young people back in the day to have paid employment for a period of time because of how close my parents were to Mr Black. But this was after years of free labour from me, my sister and many of us.

~ Michele Lunan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2026 03:27AM by Wise Piglet.

According to classical mythology, the hero Hercules had to do a bunch of almost-impossible feats, like slaying monsters of various types. His fifth task was cleaning out the Augean Stables. Wikipedia sums it up thus:

"The fifth labour was to clean the stables of King Augeas, without any help from another man. This assignment was intended to be both humiliating and impossible, since these divine livestock were immortal, and had produced an enormous quantity of dung. The Augean stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there. However, Heracles succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to wash out the filth."

I quote this because I want to pay tribute to Redroad's Herculean efforts in cleaning the stables that is Struthers Memorial Church's finances.

The headlines - THREE MILLION POUNDS, 2.2 mn to the loss-making Speirs School and 0.8 mn to the loss-making bookshops - are out there. Now, thanks to Redroad (and Latigo), the details are out in public view.

We have always said that we would be very happy to be corrected. If these figures are not what they appear to be, and our inferences of malfeasance and misappropriation not justified, then in God's name will the relevant people come onto this platform and put the record straight.

Thanks to the Latigo team and to you RedRoad for your amazing work on all of this – a Herculean effort indeed.

I will not repeat the well-made points here, but it is worth noting that, as has been pointed out, this was drawn to the attention of the church in 2011 (and there were a number of reminders throughout the intervening years). Only arrogance stopped it from being addressed at the time and only arrogance stops the current leaders from being honest about it now.

These matters must be addressed.

They must also been seen in the wider context of spiritual abuse. As I said in a post in Nov 2024:

Quote
ThePetitor Nov 2024
Blackwatch, I think you are spot on in your analysis. There is no interest at all caring for others, their only interest is in empire-building (although they seem to have little success at that). I suspect you are right and the complaint posted by FreindyFace (thanks FF for keeping us all informed) will not receive any sort of response that is kind, concerned, empathetic or gracious.

On another, but I think very pertinent note, we learned a couple of days ago that the Archbishop of Canterbury resigned because he did not respond with sufficient urgency and clarity to the abuses perpetrated by John Smyth: abuses that were described by Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “horrific in their scale and their content”.

So what were these abuses we ask? We heard the answer to that in an earlier post by Amazing Grace which quoted from the book, “Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse” by Justin Humphreys and Lisa Oakley

Quote
Amazing Grace quoting from "Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse"

There was … a psychological and emotional component. But what John Smyth did to us first and foremost was spiritual abuse. Without the spiritual dimension to his behaviour, there would have been no abuse at all. He would never have succeeded, over time, in eliciting our cooperation.

In his letter of resignation, Archbishop Welby did NOT take the Struthers line and say, “these complainants are all wicked, bitter people who should not be listened to”. What he said was, “The Makin review has exposed the long-maintained conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses of John Smyth.” We all know that the Struthers leaders will eventually have to say that, whether it is the current batch or a different batch of leaders in ten, twenty or fifty years’ time. The only question is when they will admit it.

This financial scandal is an abuse of trust and an abuse of the funds given to the leaders in trust (they are after all “trustees”).

It is also quite clearly spiritual abuse.

Why? Because, as John Smyth’s victim said, “Without the spiritual dimension to his behaviour, there would have been no abuse at all. He would never have succeeded, over time, in eliciting our cooperation.” That is fully applicable here – without the leaders saying this is a spiritual matter, that God is leading them and people have to obey their leaders in all things, they would never have got away with this.

That makes it spiritual abuse.

The current leaders need to look into this and hold previous leaders to account. After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury resigned because, “he did not respond with sufficient urgency and clarity to the abuses”. He did not abuse anyone, he just failed to respond when informed of abuse.


Woe to you, unrepentant leaders of this abusive movement, woe to you.

Al Duff, I just love your comparison, re the exposure of the SMC accounts carried out by RedRoad and Latigo, with Hercules cleaning out the stables! Absolutely brilliant!
I’d also like to thank RedRoad and Latigo for all their analysis and explanations. Very enlightening indeed but also very shocking.

I have a few comments/questions:-
* Basically as SMC members, we were giving money that we presumed was for the work and upkeep of the churches, to two failing businesses, ie the Coffee Shop and the School.

* I didn’t know the Denholm Street house was part-owned by the Church. Did this date back to the re-mortgaging of members’ houses after the financial mismanagement crisis in 1987?

* We weren’t told at the time that the iPad deployment at the School was paid for via a Hire Purchase agreement. Alison Speirs’s son worked for Apple at the time. She said publicly that she had asked Grace and J Jack if church money could be used to buy iPads, one for each school pupil and they had said, Yes go ahead if it was in the interests of the School.

* SMC members not only contributed to bursaries for families who couldn’t afford school fees, but they could also contribute voluntarily to provide prizes for the end of session Prizegiving.

* Why did SMC purchase two flats in London when there was never really a church branch in London? Was this for investment and to make money through rental or sales? Does anyone know? The SMC group in the south east of England is now called the Haddenham Group: Haddenham is five miles from Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. I’m guessing they meet in someone’s house.

* Most Coffee shop staff were volunteers of all ages and it was hard work especially on Saturdays. I didn’t know if any staff were paid except the Catering Manager. It seems that a few young folk were paid, as Michele Lunan has told us. They also recruited ladies who were good at baking to provide home-baking for the Coffee shop because that’s what sold best. I think they got the cost of ingredients reimbursed. The gifts and items on sale in the New Dawn book-shop were overpriced in an attempt to bring in money. No wonder the sales weren’t good: the items were very expensive. And was the Shop manager paid? She lived at the Cedars house.

Michele, Thankyou for your contributions on here too. The information about Elisa Heerde, the religious trauma counsellor, is very helpful and I have been reading her blogs and posts. She is spot on, it could be SMC that she’s referring to.

The financial abuse is just mind blowing and was able to be achieved by leaders by taking advantage of others by abusing their positions of authority.

The Religious Trauma Collective event sessions are live this weekend. Definitely worth a watch. Access only lasts a couple of days after each session.

There are wonderfully helpful discussions that will resonate in their own way with everyone on the forum. We’re all in a variety of places in ourselves with what we have collectively and individually experienced. We don’t need to push past, over or under anything we feel to be somewhere else in those feelings or to just move on from it all. There’s so much impact still and to come as we keep making sure the invisible harm of SMC continues to be made visible for the safety and wellbeing of ourselves and others.

I’m going to try follow Red Roads example (likely not as skilled right enough) to do some kind of summary of each topic and will post once I’ve done that.

~ Michele Lunan

This is just a little headline taster of the topics covered by The Religious Trauma Collective events over the weekend. They covered so many themes and topics from validating our experience, to recovery, deconstruction, navigating the journey of trying to achieve justice and so many helpful ideas, tools and resources. I will begin to share a summary of these over the coming weeks (there’s so much amazing material and resources) and if anyone wants to reach out to me for any more info or questions then please do.

1. Religious trauma 102
2. Armageddon, end times and hell
3. Breaking the silence in closed religious communities: a survivor’s story of silence, systems and recovery
4. Shunning: the cost of conditional belonging
5. Stay blasphemous! Neurodivergence and religious trauma
6. Holy hurt: understanding spiritual and religious trauma and the process of healing
7. From Trad wife to herself: on fundamentalism, religious trauma and self belonging
8. Indoctrinated: how conditioning really works
9. Your body isn’t wrong: sex and pleasure after purity culture
10. The churches gender problem
11. Cults, coercion and change: inside the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry
12. Conspiracies and fundamentalist religion
13. Leadership, Ministry and religious trauma
14. Faith, Love and boundaries- when beliefs shift at different speeds
15. Navigating estrangement and boundaries after leaving
16. Letting go of scripts: parenting LGBTQIA+ children after religious control
17. Meeting your parts: compassionate approaches to religious trauma
18. Humour, pop culture and meaning making after high control religion

What came across in all of them was the importance of supporting one another as survivors when we’ve all been kept at a distance from one another and those on the edges of / almost leaving, lifting the fear that continues for us all by collective support and inclusivity, navigating the legal journey for justice, raising awareness more broadly in society and professions about coercive and high control abusive cults / religious environments, ensuring recovery and trauma services are available and have experience and understanding of this area of abuse, and seeking legislative change that protects people experiencing this form of abuse in the future.

Was very refreshing, affirming and validating to have have attended the online events. So just bear with me as I try share as much as possible.

~ Michele Lunan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2026 06:35AM by Wise Piglet.

So here we go................first upload.......I've shared a few AI generated summaries within this same post as each captures and reflects different aspects, so apologies for repetition. For me listening to this event it reinforced the life long impact of what we have experienced on a personal level but also as a professional I work with vulnerability, trauma and abuse daily and the conviction and responsibility to not keep silent but make visible the invisible, seek justice and ensure awareness raising of SMC and this form of abuse publicly and within helping / therapeutic professional and public services is pivotal.

CONTENT ADVISORY - THE DETAILS OF THIS INFORMATION MAY CAUSE UPSET AND RAISE DIFFICULT MEMORIES AND EXPERIENCES. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP READING OR NOT READ (THIS IS NOT SMC, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH). IF YOU DO READ, PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU INVITE DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE AFTERWARDS LIKE GO FOR A WALK, CHAT WITH A FRIEND / FAMILY MEMBER YOU FEEL SAFE WITH AND TRUST IF YOU NEED SUPPORT. IF YOU ARE NOT IN SMC ANYMORE, REMIND YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE NOT THERE. IF YOU ARE STILL WITHIN SMC AND THE DETAILS BELOW RESONATE WITH ANYTHING YOU ARE EXPERIENCING KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT ALONE. AND REMEMBER THAT WE ARE HERE AND YOU CAN REACH OUT TO US VIA THIS FORUM ANYTIME IN SAFETY AND CONFIDENTIALLY.

~ Michele Lunan



RELIGIOUS TRAUMA 102

WITH SAM SELLERS, ELISE HEERDE
& JANE KENNEDY

Introduction

The session opens with the presenters welcoming participants back and acknowledging the emotional weight of the previous session, Religious Trauma 101 last year. They explain that this session shifts from simply naming harmful experiences to understanding how those experiences shape the nervous system, behaviour, and sense of self. Many people leaving high control religious environments struggle with anxiety, shutdown, overwhelm, or disconnection without understanding why. The presenters reassure participants that these reactions are not personal failings but predictable outcomes of long term exposure to coercive or fear based systems. The tone is warm, grounding, and validating, creating a space for learning, unlearning, and reconnecting with one’s internal signals.

2. What Trauma Means in This Context

The presenters explain that trauma is not defined by the event itself but by the impact it has on the body and nervous system. Two people can experience the same situation and have completely different internal responses. Trauma occurs when the body perceives something as overwhelming, inescapable, or threatening to safety. In religious contexts, trauma often develops gradually through repeated exposure to fear based teachings, emotional suppression, conditional love, and shame driven moral frameworks. Because these experiences are often framed as spiritual discipline or devotion, many survivors struggle to recognise them as harmful. The presenters emphasise that trauma is not a sign of weakness but an intelligent protective response.

3. Stress, Harm, and Trauma

The presenters distinguish between stress, harm, and trauma. Stress is a normal part of life and can be motivating or challenging without being damaging. Harm occurs when a person’s boundaries, autonomy, or emotional safety are violated. Trauma arises when the nervous system becomes overwhelmed and cannot return to a sense of safety. In many religious environments, harmful behaviours are reframed as virtues—obedience is demanded as spiritual maturity, emotional suppression is praised as self control, and punishment is framed as love. This reframing creates confusion and self doubt, making it harder for individuals to recognise the long term impact. Trauma is often cumulative, developing through repeated small harms rather than a single dramatic event.

4. Adaptive Responses and Self Blame

A major theme of the session is the tendency for survivors to blame themselves for their reactions. Many people ask why they shut down, panic easily, or struggle to trust others. The presenters reframe these reactions as adaptive responses—survival strategies developed in environments where safety was uncertain. Examples include people pleasing to avoid punishment, hypervigilance to anticipate emotional volatility, emotional numbness to cope with fear, and perfectionism to avoid shame. These behaviours were not flaws but intelligent solutions. The presenters encourage participants to shift from self blame to self understanding by asking, “What did I need to do to survive?” This shift opens the door to compassion, healing, and the possibility of change.

5. The Nervous System’s Role

The presenters explain that the nervous system constantly scans the environment for cues of safety or danger—a process called neuroception. This scanning happens automatically, without conscious thought. In high control or fear based religious environments, the nervous system often becomes conditioned to stay on alert, leading to chronic anxiety, difficulty relaxing, emotional shutdown, and challenges with trust. The speakers describe the sympathetic system, which mobilises the body for action, and the parasympathetic system, which supports rest, digestion, and connection. Trauma can cause a person to swing between hyperactivation (panic, agitation, fear) and shutdown (numbness, exhaustion, disconnection). These states are not choices but automatic survival responses.

6. What Regulation Really Means

The presenters challenge the misconception that regulation means being calm all the time. Instead, regulation means being able to move through emotions and return to steadiness without becoming overwhelmed. Signs of increasing regulation include feeling less stuck in shutdown, noticing emotions without being consumed by them, breathing more freely, recovering from stress more quickly, and feeling more grounded. The presenters emphasise that regulation is not a destination but a dynamic process. The goal is not constant calm but flexibility.

7. Healing and Integration

The session concludes with a focus on healing. The presenters emphasise that healing begins with understanding—recognising that adaptive responses were protective, not shameful. From there, survivors can begin to build new patterns supported by safe relationships and environments. Key elements of healing include compassion for one’s younger self, rebuilding trust in one’s perceptions, learning to recognise safety cues, developing supportive relationships, and allowing emotions to move through the body. The presenters remind participants that healing is not linear. There will be moments of progress and moments of struggle, but both are part of the process. Recovery is deeply possible, and survivors are not alone.

8. Key Takeaways

• Trauma is the body’s response, not the event itself.
• Harm in religious settings is often disguised as virtue.
• Adaptive responses are survival strategies, not personal failures.
• Regulation is dynamic and flexible, not constant calm.
• Healing grows through awareness, compassion, and supportive connection.



The Freeze Response: When the Body Becomes Still

The speaker moves into the first trauma response: freeze. They describe it as a moment when the body instinctively shuts down to protect itself. Instead of reacting outwardly, the person becomes still, quiet, or internally disconnected. This might look like zoning out, feeling numb, or suddenly losing the ability to speak.
The narrative expands on how this response often develops in childhood. In homes or religious settings where expressing fear, anger, or disagreement was punished or shamed, freezing became a way to stay safe. The speaker emphasises that freeze is not a failure to act—it is the body’s intelligent attempt to minimise harm.
They explain that many adults who frequently freeze don’t realise they’re doing it. They may interpret it as being “spaced out,” “shy,” or “bad at confrontation,” when in reality, their nervous system is stepping in to protect them.

The Fawn Response: Appeasing to Survive

Next, the speaker explores fawn, a response rooted in appeasement. They describe it as a survival strategy where the individual tries to keep others calm, happy, or unthreatened in order to avoid conflict or punishment.
This can manifest as excessive politeness, over explaining, apologising for things that aren’t their fault, or immediately taking responsibility for problems to prevent escalation. The speaker notes that in many strict religious environments, compliance was equated with virtue, and questioning authority was discouraged or condemned.
The expanded narrative highlights how fawning can become a default mode in adulthood. People may find themselves smoothing over tension, minimising their needs, or prioritising others’ comfort even when it harms them. The speaker reassures listeners that this behaviour once kept them safe and deserves compassion, not shame.

The Fight Response: Defending Against Threat

The speaker then turns to fight, a response often misunderstood. They clarify that fight is not about aggression for its own sake—it is a defensive reaction that emerges when someone feels cornered, overwhelmed, or powerless.
This response can show up as irritability, defensiveness, or a strong need to assert control. The narrative expands on how individuals raised in environments where they had little autonomy may develop a heightened fight response as a way to reclaim a sense of agency.
The speaker explains that fight is not inherently negative. It is the body’s attempt to create safety by pushing back against perceived threats. However, when it becomes automatic, it can lead to conflict or emotional exhaustion.

The Flight Response: Escaping to Feel Safe

The final trauma response discussed is flight. The speaker describes it as the urge to escape—physically, mentally, or emotionally. This might involve withdrawing from conversations, avoiding difficult topics, or distracting oneself with work, hobbies, or tasks.
The expanded narrative explores how flight often develops when a person cannot leave a harmful environment physically, such as a strict religious household. Instead, they learn to flee internally—through daydreaming, dissociation, or hyper productivity.
The speaker emphasises that flight is not avoidance out of laziness; it is a deeply rooted survival instinct.

How These Patterns Form

The speaker then weaves these responses together, explaining that trauma patterns form early in life when a person repeatedly encounters situations where their needs, emotions, or boundaries are ignored, dismissed, or punished.
Over time, the nervous system learns to react automatically. These responses become deeply embedded, often continuing into adulthood even when the original threat is no longer present.
The expanded narrative highlights how these patterns are not conscious choices. They are the body’s way of protecting itself in environments where safety was unpredictable.

Recognising Your Own Patterns

Listeners are encouraged to reflect on which responses they use most often. The speaker reassures them that none of these patterns are signs of weakness. Instead, they are evidence of resilience—proof that the individual found ways to survive difficult circumstances.
The narrative expands on the idea that recognising these patterns is the first step toward healing. Awareness creates space for choice.

Reclaiming Autonomy and Choice

The speaker explains that healing involves gradually reclaiming autonomy. Instead of reacting automatically, individuals can learn to pause, notice what they’re feeling, and choose a different response.
The expanded narrative emphasises that this process takes time, patience, and self compassion. For many people raised in high control religious settings, trusting their own instincts can feel unfamiliar or even frightening. The speaker gently reminds them that learning to trust themselves is an act of reclamation.

Tools for Emotional Regulation

The speaker introduces grounding techniques such as deep breathing, sensory awareness, and naming emotions. These practices help bring the nervous system back into balance.
The expanded version elaborates on how these tools work physiologically, explaining that they help shift the body out of survival mode and into a state where connection and clarity are possible.
The speaker emphasises that emotional regulation is a skill that can be learned, even if it wasn’t modelled in childhood.

Rebuilding Identity After Religious Trauma

The narrative deepens as the speaker discusses identity. Many people leaving high control religions struggle with a sense of self because they were never allowed to develop one independently.
Healing involves exploring personal values, preferences, boundaries, and desires. This exploration can feel disorienting at first, but it is a vital part of reclaiming one’s life.
The speaker reassures listeners that identity is not something they must rush to define. It unfolds naturally as they reconnect with their inner world.

The Importance of Supportive Community

The speaker highlights the role of community in healing. Supportive relationships—ones that honour autonomy and validate experience—can make the recovery process less isolating.
The expanded narrative emphasises that healing from religious trauma is often easier when done in connection with others who understand the journey.

Closing Reflections

The session concludes with a compassionate reminder that healing is not linear. There will be moments of clarity and moments of confusion, but each step forward is meaningful.
The speaker affirms that listeners deserve safety, autonomy, and self trust. Their trauma responses were intelligent adaptations to difficult environments, and now they have the opportunity to build new patterns rooted in freedom rather than fear.



1. Purpose of the Session

The presenters shift from naming harm to understanding the impact of religious trauma.
They explore:
• Trauma responses
• The nervous system
• How high control religious environments shape long term patterns in survivors
---
2. What Trauma Actually Is

Trauma is defined as an experience that overwhelms a person’s capacity to process and integrate it, leaving lasting effects on thinking, feeling, relating, and functioning.
In religious contexts, trauma is often cumulative, built through years of fear, shame, coercion, and spiritual manipulation.
“Trauma occurs when there’s an experience that overwhelms a person’s capacity to process and integrate it.”

A key clarification: trauma is not the event, but the internal impact.
---
3. Stress vs Harm vs Trauma

The presenters distinguish three concepts:
Stress
• Normal, temporary, resolves when the demand passes.
Harm
• Something done to you that damages dignity, identity, or safety.
• Often renamed in religious spaces as “discipline,” “love,” or “necessary suffering.”
Trauma
• What happens when harm overwhelms the nervous system.
• “Too much, too fast, too soon, too prolonged.”
Harm is when something is actually taken from you or done to you that wasn’t okay.”

4. Why Survivors Blame Themselves

High control systems frame all problems as the individual’s fault.
Survivors internalize:
• “Something is wrong with me”
• “I should have been stronger”
• “I failed spiritually”
The presenters reframe this:
Your responses were adaptive, not failures.
Your nervous system did exactly what it was designed to do… it tried to protect you.”

5. The Nervous System & Neuroception

The nervous system constantly scans for cues of safety or danger (neuroception).
Threat triggers:
• Increased heart rate
• Muscle tension
• Loss of rational thinking
• Shutdown of digestion and social engagement
Safety allows:
• Connection
• Curiosity
• Slower breathing
• Presence
A regulated nervous system is not chronically calm — it is movable, able to shift and return to steadiness.
---
6. The Four Trauma Responses in Religious Contexts
Fight
• Arguing with leadership or doctrine
• Anger when unheard
• Internal self criticism
• Activism after leaving
Flight
• Avoidance of services, people, or anything religious
• Restlessness
• Difficulty being seen or known
• Clean breaks from community
Freeze
• Feeling stuck, unable to act
• Dissociation, numbness, fog
• “Functional freeze”: doing everything expected while internally shut down
• Autopilot living
Fawn
• People pleasing
• Compliance framed as “humility,” “submission,” “servant heart”
• Suppressing needs
• Difficulty setting boundaries
• Chronic over accommodation
Fawn and freeze are the most common among religious trauma survivors.
---
7. Why High Control Religion Creates Chronic Threat

• Stakes are “eternal” (heaven/hell)
• Questioning is dangerous
• Belonging is conditional
• Leaders claim divine authority
• The system causing harm also claims to be the cure
This keeps the nervous system in permanent vigilance.
---
8. How Religious Trauma Shows Up in Survivors

A. Relational Patterns
• Authority feels dangerous
• Conflict feels threatening
• Trust becomes difficult
• People pleasing or avoidance
• Fear of disappointing others

B. Emotional Patterns
• Shame as a baseline
• Persistent fear and anxiety
• Guilt about normal human experiences
• Delayed or overwhelming anger
• Deep grief (community, identity, lost years, lost God)

C. Identity Disruption
• Identity was assigned, not discovered
• Loss of internal architecture after leaving
• Confusion about values, preferences, desires
• For LGBTQIA+ survivors:
o Core self framed as sinful
o Conditional belonging
o Performed identities for safety
o Deep fractures in self concept

D. Cognitive & Belief Patterns
• Black and white thinking
• Difficulty with uncertainty
• Distorted moral reasoning
• Intrusive thoughts
• Thought monitoring (“God sees your thoughts”)
• Decision paralysis
• Internalized critical voices

E. Physical & Nervous System Responses
• Panic, shaking, racing heart
• Breathlessness
• Dissociation
• Chronic pain, gut issues, autoimmune conditions
• Hypervigilance
• Triggers from worship music, sermons, tones of voice, scripture
---
9. Why Leaving Doesn’t Make It Stop

Leaving the environment does not update the nervous system.
Conditioning persists because:
• Patterns were learned over years
• The body still responds to old cues
• Leaving creates new losses (community, identity, family)
• Beliefs may change faster than the body can
“Our nervous system does not do an automatic update when our situation changes.”

10. What Helps Survivors

• Reframing responses as information, not failure
• Repeated experiences of safety
• Community with others who understand
• Self compassion
• Recognizing that recovery is slow and non linear
---
11. What Practitioners Should Know

• Notice religious history even when unspoken
• Avoid therapeutic language that echoes spiritual abuse (“surrender,” “trust,” “submit”)
• Understand trauma responses as adaptations, not pathology
• Upskill in LGBTQIA+ and religious trauma intersections
• Be aware of your own reactions to clients’ religious backgrounds
---
12. Final Messages from the Presenters

For survivors:
• You deserve self understanding and compassion
• Your responses made sense
• You can rediscover who you’ve always been
For practitioners:
• Be curious, not corrective
• Recognize religious trauma is common
• Create safety, not spiritual reenactments
---

KEY THEMES FROM “RELIGIOUS TRAUMA 102”

1. Trauma as Overwhelm, Not the Event

Trauma is defined by internal overwhelm, not by the external event.
Religious trauma is often cumulative, built through years of fear, shame, coercion, and spiritual manipulation.
---
2. Harm Is Often Spiritualised or Minimized

High control religious systems frequently rename harm as:
• “Discipline”
• “Love”
• “Necessary suffering”
• “Church hurt”
This reframing obscures the reality of abuse and prevents survivors from recognising trauma.
---
3. Self Blame Is Systemically Conditioned

Survivors internalize:
• “I am the problem”
• “I failed spiritually”
• “I should have been stronger”
The system is never at fault; the individual always is.
This creates deep shame and confusion.
---
4. Trauma Responses Are Adaptive, Not Failures

Fight, flight, freeze, and fawn are intelligent survival strategies shaped by the environment.
They develop because:
• Questioning is punished
• Autonomy is restricted
• Belonging is conditional
• Safety depends on compliance
---
5. The Nervous System Is Reprogrammed by High Control Environments

The nervous system becomes trained to detect threat everywhere.
Key mechanisms:
• Neuroception (automatic scanning for danger)
• Chronic hypervigilance
• Loss of internal safety baseline
A “regulated” system is not calm — it is flexible.
---
6. High Control Religion Creates Chronic Threat

Because the stakes are framed as eternal (heaven/hell), the body learns:
• Constant vigilance
• Fear of mistakes
• Fear of authority
• Fear of moral failure
The system causing harm also claims to be the cure, trapping the nervous system in a loop.
---
7. The Four Trauma Responses in Religious Contexts

Fight

Anger, arguing, internal self criticism, activism.

Flight

Avoidance, restlessness, difficulty being seen, clean breaks.

Freeze

Stuckness, dissociation, numbness, functional autopilot.

Fawn

People pleasing, compliance, self suppression, boundary collapse.
Freeze and fawn are especially common in religious survivors.
---
8. Identity Disruption

High control religion assigns identity rather than allowing it to form.
After leaving, survivors often face:
• Loss of internal structure
• Confusion about values and desires
• Deep fractures in self concept
• For LGBTQIA+ survivors: identity framed as sinful, conditional belonging, chronic self monitoring
---
9. Emotional and Cognitive Aftereffects

Common patterns include:
• Shame as a baseline
• Anxiety and fear
• Difficulty with uncertainty
• Black and white thinking
• Intrusive thoughts
• Decision paralysis
• Internalized critical voices
---
10. Physical and Somatic Impact

Religious trauma manifests in the body through:
• Panic
• Dissociation
• Gut issues
• Chronic pain
• Autoimmune conditions
• Triggers from religious cues (music, scripture, tones of voice)
---
11. Leaving Does Not Reset the Nervous System

The body does not automatically update when beliefs change.
Conditioning persists because:
• Patterns were learned over years
• Safety was conditional
• Losses (community, identity, family) add new layers of pain
---
12. Recovery Requires Safety, Not Shame

Healing involves:
• Reframing responses as adaptive
• Repeated experiences of safety
• Community with others who understand
• Self compassion
• Slow, non linear integration
• Shame is not a pathway to recovery.
---
13. Practitioner Considerations

Practitioners must:
• Recognize religious trauma even when unspoken
• Avoid spiritualized therapeutic language
• Understand trauma responses as adaptations
• Be aware of their own biases
• Upskill in LGBTQIA+ and religious trauma intersections



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2026 05:10PM by Wise Piglet.