Shunning

“M. de Charlus made no reply and looked as if he had not heard, which was one of his favourite forms of rudeness.”
― Marcel Proust, Sodom and Gomorrah  

 M. de Charlus and KatieLyn the Runaway Bride have something in common: a favorite rudeness.

Chronic rudeness by intentionally ignoring someone, as opposed to an occasional distracted oversight, is a form of emotion abuse. It is premeditated. It is almost always associated with rebellion.

Certainly at the beginning, abusers tend to be able to turn their abusive behavior on and off when convenient. This is how they can hide as "good church people." But it is a  façade, an outward misrepresentation intended to conceal something unpleasant.

Such an emotionally abusive person seeks power and control. KatieLyn was power-tripping by calling off the wedding. She got a rush out of it. She'd lived her entire life craving her mother's approval; and wow—this was the way she could get it!  She knew her mom didn't want her to leave. Everyone knew Gwen, mother of the runaway, did not want her daughter to leave!  The very day that I met KatieLyn's mom, within the first hour she was lamenting that Joe was "going to take KatieLyn away" from her!   So by calling off the wedding, KatieLyn could FINALLY win her mother's approval. ...or did she?

Treating persons as if they don't exist is rude. Treating persons as if they don't exist is demeaning. Treating persons as if they do not exist is not at all godlike.

At a workshop on the Neurobiology of Psychological Torture, Professor Almerindo Ojeda, UC Davis, said that social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture.  Jonathan Haidt, University of Edinburgh, has written a paper that categorizes the rejection as punishment. Either way, whether KatieLyn was trying to torture Joe or punish him, her behavior is cruel and was a form of aggression, even though no physical abuse was involved.

Basically, KatieLyn's ongoing refusal to even acknowledge Joe's existence, let alone any attempt to normalize a mature, Christian relationship has become both a concern and an indication that she is not dealing with her decision in a healthful manner.

It might be appropriate to ask the classic question here: WWJD?

As I look for Bible clues on this, it becomes clear that Jesus did not ignore or shun people. The primary examples of shunning have to do with shunning evil. “The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding, Job 28:28”

The closest thing to this topic that Jesus taught is found in Matthew 18 

15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

But this is exactly backwards from what happened. If KatieLyn thinks that she was sinned against, then she is supposed to make three ever-widening attempts to fix it. Instead, by being the one who won't do the courtesy of listening, she has become the stubborn sinner.

The Lesson
The only biblical justification for giving the cold-shoulder treatment is "preceded by admonition and counsel; it is only employed in cases of bona fide heresy, obdurate divisiveness, or blatant, unrepentant sin; and it is a last resort."¹  KatieLyn is wrong on this one, and anybody who tells her that she is "doing the right thing" has lied to her. 



¹ What does the Bible say about shunning?