DOI: 10.7910/dvn/dm8y4m
title: The Marcus Rogers Effect: Unmasking Spiritual Abuse in Leadership

description: This study proposes “The Marcus Rogers Effect” as a conceptual lens for describing a recognizable configuration of leadership behavior within contemporary charismatic Christianity. The label functions as a heuristic, not an accusation: it names a pattern, not a person. By “effect” we mean a repeatable set of dynamics in which a leader’s identity becomes tethered to applause, public validation, and platform visibility, while private insecurity drives a widening circle of control. In such environments, the language of covenant is conscripted to secure compliance, and the language of holiness is invoked to justify harm. The outward presentation can be polished—moving worship, persuasive preaching, a reputation for boldness—yet the fruit, over time, trends toward anxiety, secrecy, and displaced loyalties. Biblically, this discrepancy invites the Church to test spirits (1 John 4:1) and discern fruit (Matt 7:16) rather than equate charisma with character.

Definitional clarity is essential at the outset. By “The Marcus Rogers Effect” we refer to a leadership pattern characterized by three interlocking elements. First, insecurity masked by dominance: fear of exposure produces secrecy, image management, and escalating demands for loyalty. Second, spiritualized coercion: ordinary questions are reframed as rebellion, “covering” is reduced to unilateral control, and prophetic language is used transactionally, as leverage rather than as service. Third, mixture: biblical terms are blended with extra-biblical mythologies that sensationalize spiritual warfare, creating dependence on the leader’s alleged special knowledge while displacing Christ’s sufficiency. None of these elements is uniquely modern, but digital platforms amplify their reach and speed, enabling personality-based ministries to scale faster than the spiritual and governance capacities needed to keep communities healthy.

The scope of the phenomenon is not confined to one denomination, demographic, or ministry size. The same pattern can appear in a living-room prayer circle and on a global livestream, in a traveling crusade and an inner-city church plant. Because the pattern is portable, it can migrate when leaders move, replicate when protégés imitate form without substance, and even outlive a scandal if the underlying incentives and structures remain unchanged. The portability of the effect explains why communities sometimes experience the same harms under different leaders: in the absence of accountability, the system recruits new personalities to play an old script.

A central concern of this article is the gendered expression of harm. Women are frequently targeted through a double movement of flattery and silencing: elevated when their gifts and audiences serve the brand, diminished when their boundaries challenge control. The stigmatizing invocation of a “Jezebel spirit” becomes a catch-all moral indictment that collapses disagreement into demonization. More troubling still are reports, in pastoral counseling literature and survivor testimony, of leaders invoking occult frames—such as “spiritual monitoring” or even astral intrusion—to cultivate a sense of omnipresence and to terrorize conscientious objectors. Whatever one’s view of such claims, the theology routinely attached to them is extra-biblical, and the pastoral use of such narratives functions as coercion. In contrast, historic Christian teaching binds leaders to protect the vulnerable, honor conscience, and submit their own lives to communal accountability.

The article also interrogates the teaching ecosystems that enable the effect. Elaborate demonologies—e.g., a “marine kingdom” taxonomy of spirits—are presented by some as indispensable to deliverance, yet they lack scriptural warrant and vary wildly between teachers. Such frameworks, while gripping, often reframe interpersonal or ethical failures as cosmic warfare, relocating responsibility away from leadership decisions and toward unverifiable spiritual enemies. The result is a protection racket: fear is manufactured, expertise is monetized, and followers are taught to outsource discernment to the very personality whose power should be bounded.

Methodologically, this paper synthesizes theological analysis, biblical criteria for leadership, qualitative accounts from pastoral care and survivor advocacy, and organizational insights on power and accountability. It does not adjudicate individual cases or name alleged offenders. Rather, it maps recurring behaviors and their effects on communities, then offers constructive practices that interrupt the cycle: plurality in leadership, transparent financial and pastoral processes, independent avenues for reporting, trauma-aware shepherding, and rhythms of Sabbath that de-normalize crisis-driven ministry. The telos is not merely the exposure of harm but the restoration of holy love—what Scripture names as both the motive and measure of authentic ministry.

In what follows, we develop the definition and boundaries of the concept, trace the mechanisms of intimidation and control, examine gendered harms and extra-biblical mythologies, and propose safeguards and reparative practices. Throughout, the guiding conviction is simple: Christlikeness—not charisma—is the measure of authority in the Church. Where fear replaces freedom, secrecy replaces light, and image replaces repentance, the Church must recover its courage to say no to mixture and yes to the Shepherd who leads by love. Like the biblical King Saul, it may look powerful and prophetic, yet it is inwardly tormented by insecurity and a fear of exposure. Its fruit is control, not freedom; noise, not love; spectacle, not true holiness. The term “The Marcus Rogers Effect” thus describes a counterfeit form of spiritual leadership that betrays the trust God invested in shepherds to care for His flock. It names a phenomenon increasingly recognized in contemporary Christianity: a leader who appears anointed but whose ministry is marked by manipulation, intimidation, and moral compromise (Montgomery, 2025a). Recent analyses have labeled similar patterns as “The EJ Newton Effect” and “The Abednego Lufile Effect,” describing counterfeit anointing that is “hollow at the core, driven more by fear of exposure than reverence for God” and the profaning of what is holy under a guise of discernment. The Marcus Rogers Effect is a call to discern the difference between true spiritual authority and abusive charisma masquerading as divine mandate.