|
Post by nikita on Jun 20, 2010 19:17:58 GMT -5
What was so fascinating/horrifying about the entire thing was that he did exactly as I asked (describe a romantic moment to him since my ideas of romance were not being heard at all): so he described, in great detail, as an example of something he found really romantic, my entire death scene. Where it would be, who would be there, what he would be thinking, how the baby would be a boy (of course), the crying, the dying declarations of sorrow, apology, and love... I remember I told him that this seemed a little specific to me, like he'd been thinking about this for awhile. He looked startled by my statement and laughed uncomfortably and we didn't do that exercise again. Sigh. He still has no idea what romance is, but he is actually not a bad guy and was quite the trooper during childbirth. He spent eight straight hours pushing on the small of my back with his fist to help me get through back labor with no drugs, even eating his entire lunch (fed to him bite by bite over my back by my mother) without letting up. His entire shoulder and arm were very sore for an entire week afterward and he never complained at all, during or after. I appreciated that much more than the flowers he finally remembered to give me from time to time. Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 20, 2010 19:51:52 GMT -5
Regarding Wilson: See, I had never heard of him, and the only thing I ever read of his was his 'Courtship Horror Stories' article which, although I reject the underlying premise involved, seemed moderate and humorous and reasonable as those things go. So I thought he was a moderate thinker in that whole movement. Then I read some of his other articles and found myself in a full on rage at his presumption and attitude like nothing I've felt about reading anyone else. I mean, my reaction to his other articles was so visceral. The idea that a woman must have a man stand between her and the community and between her and God, that a husband's job is to make his wife perfect like Christ washes the Church -- it makes my blood boil. So I can understand how some of his writings might seem okay and others make you want to hurl things. I can also understand how someone leaving a severe church might find his teachings, if they are more moderate than what they are used to hearing, more comforting than alarming. Leaving is a process, and working out what to believe and what to value out of all you are leaving behind is not easy. So if listening to his sermons gives someone else comfort during a difficult time I am not going to judge that. I lived under a very strict preaching but I have absolutely nothing but love and fond memories of the two top leaders of my cult. One committed suicide and the other is in ministry (a quite different attitude toward ministry now, btw) far away from me. And I love them still. And I love to see videos folks have posted of them preaching, it warms my heart and makes me think of home. So much badness, but there was so much love and goodness too. It's all mixed up in there together, you can't just throw it all out as though those years and those people weren't important to you or had no good things to teach or say about anything at all. Doug Wilson will never be such a person for me. But if I was someone else perhaps he would be. My old leader would probably make most folks here want to go grab pitchforks and torches, but he will always be someone I dearly loved and sorely missed when he was gone. The human psyche is a messy thing.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 20, 2010 19:54:43 GMT -5
What was so fascinating/horrifying about the entire thing was that he did exactly as I asked (describe a romantic moment to him since my ideas of romance were not being heard at all): so he described, in great detail, as an example of something he found really romantic, my entire death scene. Where it would be, who would be there, what he would be thinking, how the baby would be a boy (of course), the crying, the dying declarations of sorrow, apology, and love... I remember I told him that this seemed a little specific to me, like he'd been thinking about this for awhile. He looked startled by my statement and laughed uncomfortably and we didn't do that exercise again. Sigh. ...snip ::)There is such a wealth of "graceful dying scenes" in our cultural background. I love the parody in the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in which Paul Reubens goes on dying throughout the credits. I confess to having a more selfish "romantic dying" scene: when my ex and I were in the last throes of hating each other (we've been better since we've become exes), I used to fantasize about fatal car accidents whenever he went out, unless the kids were with him.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 20, 2010 20:08:00 GMT -5
Yeah, that scene from the Buffy movie was funny. The mind of Joss Whedon is a wonderful thing. The Romantic Age was filled with pale ethereal young women (and young men) dying of consumption...it was an artistic ideal. Makes me wonder if those drawings aren't in the back of Doug Wilson's mind when he considers 'gaining weight' (somewhere between pregnancy twelve and thirteen, no doubt) as an affront to the wifely ideal of perfection the husband is called upon by God Himself to insure that his bride attain to. Because making sure his wife is becoming perfect is the husband's direct mandate from God, and gaining fifteen pounds does not a perfect person make. Bad wife.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 20, 2010 20:47:27 GMT -5
That whole double standard of "your purpose is to be breeding stock" and "you must always meet some arbitrary standard of attractiveness" makes me livid. Some women are genetically capable of returning to nearly pre-pregnancy shape, others are not. So what? I would venture to guess that even the genetically-favoured in this instance would fail after 6+ pregnancies, especially if there was no provision for time to recover between. Words fail me in condemning this attitude. Polite words anyway.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 20, 2010 21:36:26 GMT -5
Thank you for finding those stats for me Cindy.
Now I have a firmer grip on the odds in a worst case scenario and a clear understanding of just how out of the loop these VF people actually are, not to mention how bone deep misogynist they really are.
I have no words!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 21, 2010 7:02:56 GMT -5
He put it in terms of responsibility rather than power, but what he's really saying is that the husband should have all the power in the marriage, and the wife should have none; that it's not only the husband's right, but his JOB, to make sure his wife serves him according to his standards-- and if she doesn't, he should call in the church to discipline her. I'm not going to take the time right now to find it, but he also has another article in which he says that the home is the wife's realm and the term "keeper at home" is really the idea of being the house despot and that a husband had better listen and obey his wife's dictates on taking his shoes off at the door, etc. Let's use another example and strip off the bit about calling in the elders (which I found pretty funny actually) would his method be a good approach to take with a husband who persistently threw his dirty underwear on the floor in front of the clothes hamper instead of putting it in the basket? And what would be the best approach to take with a husband who decided to gamble his pay cheque instead of putting it in the bank for groceries? it doesn't have to come down to "sphere of power" issues that we often make it to be but rather just dealing with one another as human beings who have something we need to sort out.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 21, 2010 7:15:16 GMT -5
I think of this in terms of my own experience watching the funeral service for my former cult elder. In its own way, it was quite healing, and I felt very connected to the Lord, to Christendom, and from a very safe distance, to those at that church who are believers -- even if they are following a wacko system. I also don't have a paternalistic attitude. I think that truth is transcendent and that the Bible and God do provide what they say they offer -- help, guidance, and healing. But I believe that people can figure that out when they really want to do so, with God's help. I'm glad to see that I am not as weird as I thought. I had a tremendous sense of betrayal over how my elders, whom I loved and respected, could treat me and others in my church they way that they did. I cried more over my excommunication than I did over my marriage ending. And when I think of those elders now, it is a combination of rage mixed with sorrow because I still do love them and even miss them. And here I was thnking it was just a manifestation of the "Stockholm syndrome". One of the things that was a revelation to me was the whole point of Romans 14-15. Paul is dealing with two separate groups of believers in the Roman church: the Jewish believers, and the Gentile believers. He gives practical application on how to get along though they have differing theological perspectives on things they feel quite passionate about and could build a case for from Scripture even though the positions are diametrically opposed in some ways. He basically tells them to have their own convictions and live by them but to leave each other alone as regards trying to change the other group's convictions -- to their own master they stand or fall. If we take that approach, then it becomes easier to accept other believers from differing worship traditions and focus on the big stuff without getting hung up on the minutae. That's why I can worship God in just about any church now.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 21, 2010 7:19:53 GMT -5
Gosh, Cindy, I hope you don't whomp me if I confess that Douglas Wilson is one of the few Reformed people I can tolerate. <grin> I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say, but in the past I have found much of his stuff to be a good mix of practicality mixed with wisdom. For instance his stance on birth control (Christians should generally be fruitful but just because you have a high regard for apples doesn't mean you have to plant your apple tress a foot and a half apart), is far more reasonable than those who are both Reformed and QF. I do not understand the analogy. Why can't people like Doug Wilson just talk in frakking human terms. So, is one and a half feet apart unreasonably close together for apple trees? Or does one and a half feet apart constitute family planning in Wilson's analogy? Wilson is actually NOT QF and he was using the apple analogy to say that you don't have to have a baby every year to prove fruitfulness in childbearing any more than you need to plant apple trees very closely together to prove you like apples.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 10:49:47 GMT -5
And when I think of those elders now, it is a combination of rage mixed with sorrow because I still do love them and even miss them. And here I was thnking it was just a manifestation of the "Stockholm syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is actually a very antiquated term and does not do the whole spectrum of thought reform/undue influence justice. Thought reform is the fully orbed process that not only encompasses the love one develops for an abusive leader, it also captures the significance of the many other things that take place when in a manipulative group. Robert Lifton's criteria actually give a more comprehensive description of all that goes on. Milieu control: tight control of information coming into the group Mystical manipulation: tactics seem spontaneous and divine Loading the Language: cult jargon giving special meanings to ambiguous terms understood only in the group Doctrine over Person: Your worth, internal thougths and personal history are forfeit to fit the needs of the group Sacred Science: The group ideology and leadership always have to be right Cult of Confession: Focus on personal faults, confessing those thoughts and striving toward an ideal Demand for Purity: Constant striving for perfection; everything seen in terms of black and white Dispensing of Existence: To be considered a person, you have to accept group dogma, if you fail to model the group standard, you lose personhood Stockholm Syndrome does not capture all of these dynamics and only addresses personal relationship between leader and follower. But the devotion to the group and the leader is also dependent upon the ideology which is really the hook in the relationship. Ideas tend to be "bigger" than people, and they are harder to abandon.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 10:58:39 GMT -5
I do not understand the analogy. Why can't people like Doug Wilson just talk in frakking human terms. So, is one and a half feet apart unreasonably close together for apple trees? Or does one and a half feet apart constitute family planning in Wilson's analogy? Wilson is actually NOT QF and he was using the apple analogy to say that you don't have to have a baby every year to prove fruitfulness in childbearing any more than you need to plant apple trees very closely together to prove you like apples. Actually, I just exit counseled a person who got out of Wilson's system and did so a year ago with another. They were both in the Classical School system and trained in Moscow, ID. QF was definitely a message that was conveyed. Perhaps is it one of the more indirect messages that Wilson conveys without directly stating it in those terms, but if I only knew Wilson through these two people, I would definitely say that he was QF. One woman especially picked up on this during the training sessions at the "kirk."
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 21, 2010 11:13:16 GMT -5
I realize you mean well, but please don't reduce our lives and feelings to psychological terms and conditions that can easily be explained away as a form of 'thought control'. Whatever else may have been happening, we formed real relationships with real people whom we loved and were loved by in return. Not everything about our experiences is subject to dismissal as 'thought reform techniques'. These are our lives, our friends, our families, our relationships. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 11:22:35 GMT -5
I realize you mean well, but please don't reduce our lives and feelings to psychological terms and conditions that can easily be explained away as a form of 'thought control'. Whatever else may have been happening, we formed real relationships with real people whom we loved and were loved by in return. Not everything about our experiences is subject to dismissal as 'thought reform techniques'. These are our lives, our friends, our families, our relationships. Just sayin'. In the context of the statement, the original comment referred to a pastor of a spiritually abusive church. I didn't intend to reduce anyone to anything in black and white terms, only to point out the powerful effect of the dynamics that account for the universe of mixed feelings one develops for the leader of an idealistic group that uses authoritarianism, perfectionism, and squelches criticism. I'm sorry if I failed to qualify that statement better. It's actually our good relationships and the good aspects of living that help us get out of the manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 21, 2010 11:36:03 GMT -5
Milieu control: tight control of information coming into the group Mystical manipulation: tactics seem spontaneous and divine Loading the Language: cult jargon giving special meanings to ambiguous terms understood only in the group Doctrine over Person: Your worth, internal thougths and personal history are forfeit to fit the needs of the group Sacred Science: The group ideology and leadership always have to be right Cult of Confession: Focus on personal faults, confessing those thoughts and striving toward an ideal Demand for Purity: Constant striving for perfection; everything seen in terms of black and white Dispensing of Existence: To be considered a person, you have to accept group dogma, if you fail to model the group standard, you lose personhood Ok, you have just captured the MO of my former church group exactly with this description. The wreckage that has been left behind is something to behold and not a few of the women in particular were very hurt by it. And yet, I am confident that these men didn't sit down and plot that this was how it was going to be. And even now, there are many good things that I learned while there. When my friend, Jill Barrett, was getting out of her marriage, I wanted to understand what she was going through and I got ahold of Lundy Bancroft's book, _Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men_ never dreaming I would need it for myself only a few years later. And now, in retrospect, I can see that some of the marks of an abusive relationship that can exist between a man and woman are also the marks that exist in *any* abusive relationship, regardless of gender, and that it can be done in a corporate way. One of the things I haven't done, and which I probably should do, is look at the spectrum of spiritual abuse in the church. Do you have any resources or books that you would recommend?
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 21, 2010 11:42:56 GMT -5
I'm also just wanting to ask that while a feeling of sorrow and anger towards an abuser can be a response to the spiritual abuse and mind games that were played, isn't it also possible that this is a mark of grace when you still want to see them stop and go in a different direction? I would never sit under these elders again or anyone similar to them, but it doesn't stop me from praying for their deliverance from the judicial blindness that has engulfed them and ruined so many of their relationships.
I am glad that restoration comes eventually, even if it isn't in this life. And in the meantime, it has served to make me more humble in not being so doctrinally tight assed and more accepting of others and where they are in their walk with God, or even if they don't believe in Him at all.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 21, 2010 11:59:56 GMT -5
I realize you mean well, but please don't reduce our lives and feelings to psychological terms and conditions that can easily be explained away as a form of 'thought control'. Whatever else may have been happening, we formed real relationships with real people whom we loved and were loved by in return. Not everything about our experiences is subject to dismissal as 'thought reform techniques'. These are our lives, our friends, our families, our relationships. Just sayin'. In the context of the statement, the original comment referred to a pastor of a spiritually abusive church. I didn't intend to reduce anyone to anything in black and white terms, only to point out the powerful effect of the dynamics that account for the universe of mixed feelings one develops for the leader of an idealistic group that uses authoritarianism, perfectionism, and squelches criticism. I'm sorry if I failed to qualify that statement better. It's actually our good relationships and the good aspects of living that help us get out of the manipulation. I understand, and I know you need to make generalizations in order to cover a wide variety of situations, but not all abusive situations fit the model. Not all leaders are malicious or purposely manipulative, and sometimes those leaders are also our dear friends. It's really messy, is what I'm saying. It's not all some plot to control and abuse us, at least not for everyone. I think Doug Phillips and Phil Lancaster have control issues that have found validation in their extreme Reformed/QF/P doctrines and churches. Does that mean every pastor/leader of such a congregation has the same issues? Or is he perhaps a good man deceived by an insidious doctrine and following it in the sincere belief that he is doing the right thing for his congregation and family? To the person wandering in who gets sucked in perhaps it doesn't make a difference, and that is true for them. But some of us were closer to these people in relationships and friendships and it's just not that simple. One of my old leaders (second in command, actually) is one of the few people from those days that I still love without reservation. He is one of the most genuinely loving and kind men I have ever met. I knew him before the abusive system took root and I've sat under his teachings when things got their worst. So what I'm saying is that people have to figure out for themselves what was valid and useful to take away with them from their old churches/groups and also which relationships were real and to be mourned for and missed rather than dismissed as part of some 'thought reform' process of manipulation. Someone on the outside cannot determine that for them no matter how it might look from where they are sitting. I was responding to that part of Cheryannhannah's post about her being concerned about her feelings for the people who wound up hurting her, that somehow she wasn't supposed to miss them. That it's okay to feel that way, it's a valid feeling, and not just being 'brainwashed' into caring about them and now you have to be 'cured' from feeling that way somehow.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 12:01:27 GMT -5
Milieu control: tight control of information coming into the group Mystical manipulation: tactics seem spontaneous and divine Loading the Language: cult jargon giving special meanings to ambiguous terms understood only in the group Doctrine over Person: Your worth, internal thougths and personal history are forfeit to fit the needs of the group Sacred Science: The group ideology and leadership always have to be right Cult of Confession: Focus on personal faults, confessing those thoughts and striving toward an ideal Demand for Purity: Constant striving for perfection; everything seen in terms of black and white Dispensing of Existence: To be considered a person, you have to accept group dogma, if you fail to model the group standard, you lose personhood Ok, you have just captured the MO of my former church group exactly with this description. The wreckage that has been left behind is something to behold and not a few of the women in particular were very hurt by it. And yet, I am confident that these men didn't sit down and plot that this was how it was going to be. And even now, there are many good things that I learned while there. When my friend, Jill Barrett, was getting out of her marriage, I wanted to understand what she was going through and I got ahold of Lundy Bancroft's book, _Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men_ never dreaming I would need it for myself only a few years later. And now, in retrospect, I can see that some of the marks of an abusive relationship that can exist between a man and woman are also the marks that exist in *any* abusive relationship, regardless of gender, and that it can be done in a corporate way. One of the things I haven't done, and which I probably should do, is look at the spectrum of spiritual abuse in the church. Do you have any resources or books that you would recommend? I have recommendations galore and a suggested way to read them (which is just a suggestion). undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/helpful-books-where-to-start-and-why.htmlMost Christians prefer to stick only with the "spiritual abuse" literature rather than the secular books written to all people in all types of cults because the idea that their church did the same things to them that, say, the Moonies do, is too disturbing. Spiritual abuse essentially captures the same concepts that Lifton does, just stated a bit differently. Some people find this more applicable: Authoritarian: Over-emphasis on authority Image Conscious: Focus on appearances which makes the group seem special to God Suppresses Criticism: Questioning the system or authority is forbidden and sometimes punished Perfectionistic: Perfection and perfect compliance demanded by the group Unbalanced: They focus on peripheral doctrines (like childbearing and gender) as opposed to a balanced view with a balanced focus on essential doctrine, putting peripheral or "non-essential" doctrine into perspective. I actually found a great deal of comfort in the secular literature, because it called the horrible blackness exactly what it was, without softening all the edges, but many people are very troubled by that concept. I think one of the very best books and the one that was most helpful with the functional stuff was "Take Back Your Life" by Janja Lalich. There are also lots of lists of characteristics in her book that can be used for personal journaling which is almost essential for healing. It gives you the clear message that you are not nuts and that there is hope. It also deals with the practical issues that people face when they leave a group. If you (or whoever) can't process the secular stuff and it is too much for you, start with either "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Johnson and Van Vonderan and/or Blue's book called "Healing Spiritual Abuse." Then, I would recommend reading Wendy Duncan's book (www.dallascult.com). She is a social worker who was rejected by the Southern Baptists because of her gender and her divorce, and this seemingly cerebral group of Believers wanted and welcomed her. Then, something that should be essential reading for just about everyone on the planet, read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." Primarily, it talks about sales techniques that any manipulator uses, capitializing on human nature to manipulate. Zimbardo offers a quick overview of the main points in "Influence" on their website, and you can link to that from my blog where it appears in the sidebar at www.UnderMuchGrace.com
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 12:23:40 GMT -5
In the context of the statement, the original comment referred to a pastor of a spiritually abusive church. I didn't intend to reduce anyone to anything in black and white terms, only to point out the powerful effect of the dynamics that account for the universe of mixed feelings one develops for the leader of an idealistic group that uses authoritarianism, perfectionism, and squelches criticism. I'm sorry if I failed to qualify that statement better. It's actually our good relationships and the good aspects of living that help us get out of the manipulation. I understand, and I know you need to make generalizations in order to cover a wide variety of situations, but not all abusive situations fit the model. Not all leaders are malicious or purposely manipulative, and sometimes those leaders are also our dear friends. It's really messy, is what I'm saying. It's not all some plot to control and abuse us, at least not for everyone. I think Doug Phillips and Phil Lancaster have control issues that have found validation in their extreme Reformed/QF/P doctrines and churches. Does that mean every pastor/leader of such a congregation has the same issues? Or is he perhaps a good man deceived by an insidious doctrine and following it in the sincere belief that he is doing the right thing for his congregation and family? To the person wandering in who gets sucked in perhaps it doesn't make a difference, and that is true for them. But some of us were closer to these people in relationships and friendships and it's just not that simple. One of my old leaders (second in command, actually) is one of the few people from those days that I still love without reservation. He is one of the most genuinely loving and kind men I have ever met. I knew him before the abusive system took root and I've sat under his teachings when things got their worst. So what I'm saying is that people have to figure out for themselves what was valid and useful to take away with them from their old churches/groups and also which relationships were real and to be mourned for and missed rather than dismissed as part of some 'thought reform' process of manipulation. Someone on the outside cannot determine that for them no matter how it might look from where they are sitting. I was responding to that part of Cheryannhannah's post about her being concerned about her feelings for the people who wound up hurting her, that somehow she wasn't supposed to miss them. That it's okay to feel that way, it's a valid feeling, and not just being 'brainwashed' into caring about them and now you have to be 'cured' from feeling that way somehow. I guess I still don't understand why I'm being understood as though I am saying that all people in all churches that are manipulative are cultic. I've also apologized if I've stated things in such a way that Lifton or Henke (spiritual abuse) applies to every church. I've put those dynamics out there for the benefit of people who were under those kinds of systems (and each system will use each dynamic/criterion in a different way and to different degrees). If, in fact, these dynamics were in play at their church, then I believe that it is valid to consider from the wealth of knowledge and healing help offered by the community of survivors. For people who do come out of such settings, per the literature, if people don't learn about tactics of manipulation, they are primed and highly likely to just transfer into a new drug of choice by getting into a new ideology with the same dynamics. But it all goes by the "duck test." If a person's group did not walk, talk, and look like a duck, then they can just gloss right over it. The fact that the dynamics might apply to someone else should not diminish them in any way. If the dynamics don't apply, that does not mean I sought to belittle anyone or reduce them to something less than what they are. I offered a description of the dynamics in an effort to be helpful, and it appears from continued comments that they were well-received. Sometimes the limitations of email deprive us of the benefits of syntax, tone, and other non-verbal cues that help us understand what is being said. I apologize if the way I have responded here today indicates that I'm demanding an all inclusive application of these concepts. That isn't what I intended and is not why I offered them here.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 21, 2010 12:53:44 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying. It is the juxtaposition that concerned me. When the original poster stated she was relieved that it was okay to still have good feelings and miss some of the people who wound up hurting her your response was immediately to offer thought reform resources. I was just saying that it's okay to still love those people, that it's messy, and it's not always because you were in a cult that you loved/liked/have positive feelings for those left behind even if those were in positions of power and they hurt you within the cultic system. That's all that I'm saying. The thought reform literature and the exit counseling and the books etc are all good stuff for what they do and where they apply. But there's sometimes real love, real friendships mixed in with the harmful stuff and figuring out how you feel about it is not so cut and dried as I've heard some counselors try to make it out to be. I was just saying that one doesn't have to deny their love for the real people - even leaders - involved in order to successfully leave an abusive group. I hope that is clear. I'm trying to be clear but I don't know if I'm getting this across properly.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 20:49:13 GMT -5
When I was churchless and huddling at home with my kids, I would often listen to Wilson's sermons with them. I still download the podcasts and listen to them when I am driving long distances to work. I am currently attending a fellowship baptist church here that functionally is more like a non-denominational church and it has been a very healing place for me and my kids. But I still miss the liturgy of the reformed tradition which is one of the reasons why I listen to Wilson's sermons. I never fail to tear up after the prayerful confession of personal and national sins when I hear the declaration of forgiveness through Christ. It breaks me afresh in a good way. Cherylannahanna, I can relate to this from the opposite direction! I've been attending liturgical churches for the past few years, still not sure where I want to plant roots or if I do want to do so. I feel very safe in the liturgy, but I miss aspects of the non-denominational church. A few years ago, an important elder at my cult died -- actually the elder that cursed us and said we would get cancer and die for leaving the church against their will. They have a video of the whole big histrionic service online, and it naturally includes the elder lineup, talking about how wonderful this guy was. And what they said of him was true stuff. I loved him as a friend and I did respect him. The pastor then delivered a beautiful sermon, as he so often did. I knew how much I'd really healed when I was able to watch that online and really see the things that I'd so loved about his preaching and some of the people there. It makes sense that we became involved with some of these groups because, despite all the abuse that comes later, there are often really good things also going on in many such patriarchal churches. It is reckoning the difficult stuff with the good stuff in their mix of extremes which becomes difficult. I think that it is very important that people find healing, and there is no set way to do that. First, even on a physical level, you have to feel at peace with feeling good, in and of yourself. If you came out of a war zone, this can be a difficult thing. That doesn't mean that you should go out and sin! But do things that make you feel good and whole and human. Then you have to get connected with God, and this can be really difficult when you feel alienated from Him. If the liturgy does that, or if former Catholics feel like they want to go back to the Catholic church, if that helps you get through that sense of alienation, then do that. (I would say that for the person who accepts more protestant ideas, this is probably not where you'd want to STAY, so for all my critics out there, I am not saying that people should convert to Catholicism.) I think of this in terms of my own experience watching the funeral service for my former cult elder. In its own way, it was quite healing, and I felt very connected to the Lord, to Christendom, and from a very safe distance, to those at that church who are believers -- even if they are following a wacko system. I also don't have a paternalistic attitude. I think that truth is transcendent and that the Bible and God do provide what they say they offer -- help, guidance, and healing. But I believe that people can figure that out when they really want to do so, with God's help. Cherylannahanna, My husband and I ended up having an interesting conversation about Wilson and Sproul, Jr. this evening. We didn't have much exposure to Wilson but my husband loved RC 2.0 before he stepped up his bizarre behavior. Many people have said that when Y2K came and went and no catastrophe took place, the whole group of patriarchy folks became much more aggressive in their more troubling views. We recalled reading some of Wilson's work about government, and we have him on some video (with lots of others) talking about how people run to Caesar and just replace God with civil government in their minds and hearts. On points like that, he is quite right. But I had little exposure to him until I started investigating some of his more controversial teachings. And neither my husband nor I liked his style of writing, something neither right nor wrong. But I didn't have occasion to independently read his other stuff. The same is true of R.C. Jr., and we were much more familiar with his writings. He, too, became weirder after Y2K and went off to his utopia haven in TN/VA. Not having kids and thus not homeschooling, we didn't really read any of the stuff that he wrote on these subjects because they didn't apply to us. And about the time everyone stepped up the "out in the open weirdness," we were going through personal crises which didn't leave us much time for reading outside of the basics. Even American Vision shifted their focus during this period of time, and some of it was not so notable all at once. We didn't read all of the stuff that did not apply to us, and I didn't because this topic was still pretty painful for me. I was in my thirties, still with no baby, and health issues that make us high risk for adoption, not that we really could have managed it when in the thick of some catastrophic illnesses. It all brings up the discussion of why we get hooked into some of these groups. I mentioned to my husband tonight about how very good our old pastor was at preaching messages of kind compassion. He was a very likable man personally, and he liked to find the good in people. He always found something good in everyone. But unlike what I said about him being really horrible when on a well-hidden abusive streak, my husband disagreed with "when he was bad he was horrid." My husband said that "when he was bad, he was even better at looking good." He kept his deceitful behavior well-hidden and even had henchmen that would help him keep his own hands clean. The same thing, in a way, is true about this discussion of ectopic pregnancy. I think that on one level, the leadership at Samaritan Ministries really wants to do the right thing and wants to take the most hard pro-life stand that they can. That's an admirable virtue in and of itself. The end is very good, but they get the means of achieving that end all fouled up in the process. The means to the end involves putting the lives of women at risk.' It is hard to take issue with someone when they intend goodness, but the means by which they achieve it gets derailed. And that is very messy. It's terribly sad, too.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 21, 2010 21:02:37 GMT -5
Forgot to say that it took us some time to realize that RC 2.0 had practically lost his mind. It is hard when you trust someone in one area (he did have good things to contribute in some areas as I think Wilson does), but then you learn about the negative aspects of things.
I didn't find out about the QF stuff until after the news broke about the Tax ID # fraud and his getting tossed out of the RPCGA, and we didn't even look into that right away. (We relocated out of state, it took about 6 months to sell our house, new job, etc... Who cares about a guy's newsletter?) Until then, we just gave RC 2.0 a free pass. It was after we started looking into that matter that we learned about the deeper problems related to this religion of homeschooling and family stuff (though I thought the utopian compound sounded highly suspicious from the beginning).
My point is that it does take time to work through all of this stuff and to get a glimpse of the whole of what some of these folks are pushing. And it isn't easy. It took us a lot of work to figure some of this stuff out.
If everything these guys put out there was bad stuff, we never would get hooked in to start with. And it is quite Christian to believe the good about someone and to hope all good things about others.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 21, 2010 23:12:49 GMT -5
The escalation of the pro-life position into more and more hardline stances reminds me of something I read in an essay by the late Michael Spencer, the "Internet Monk." www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classicHere's an encapsulation: The “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game is the tendency to escalate theological claims and language, and to claim that the escalation of claims and language indicates an accompanying increase in truth, faith, commitment or other valuable commodities among Christians…. And the person willing to say the most, to make the highest claim- like a KJV Only-er for example- feels justifiably proud that he’s climbed further out on the limb of faith than anyone else. …“More…higher…more…highest.” “You can’t say more than I’m willing to say. You can’t pay more compliments, make more claims, use stronger language, be more public, make more noise…..than me.”
Is all of this really necessary? Or is this a manifestation of the need of theological types to find some way to create a stadium full of people who just don’t believe enough, or believe right or believe enough right?I've been thinking about this ever since I read this Internet Monk essay a few months ago. I think it's a very common and easy trap for people to fall into, particularly when they are involved in a cause. Just how committed are you? How far are you willing to take that commitment? Are you committed enough if you just believe tenet A? Or do you have to believe A + B? But I can be more committed than you! I believe tenets A + B + C + D! Are you committed enough to join me? There's a one-upmanship that goes on, to where it gets competitive: who can be the most committed, as shown by the most radical stance? It used to be that no-one who considered themselves pro-life would even think about telling a woman she must not end an ectopic pregnancy. But now allowing that "out" is just not committed enough to the pro-life position. It's an expression of ever higher rhetoric. I think QF in general represents this kind of "more, higher, most, highest" mindset. It seems like the pattern is to progress into more and more radicalism in every area of life.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 22, 2010 0:56:49 GMT -5
The “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game is the tendency to escalate theological claims and language, and to claim that the escalation of claims and language indicates an accompanying increase in truth, faith, commitment or other valuable commodities among Christians…. And the person willing to say the most, to make the highest claim- like a KJV Only-er for example- feels justifiably proud that he’s climbed further out on the limb of faith than anyone else. …“More…higher…more…highest.” “You can’t say more than I’m willing to say. You can’t pay more compliments, make more claims, use stronger language, be more public, make more noise…..than me.” My former church/cult had leaders who claimed that we were the "most faithful" church in the earth. They graciously (in their eyes) said that other churches were true churches, just not as faithful, and for anyone to go from a more faithful to a less faithful church was to backslide and betray the testimony against error that the most faithful church had made. Seems embarassingly and utterly ridiculous and self-righteous now to say it out loud. The other thing that these elders did was to say that because we are not God and therefore not omniscient, who are we puny humans to decide that *any* doctrine was secondary? Therefore, every position our cult took became a "hill to die on." When the elders unilaterally decided that head coverings should *not* be worn by women, they actually excommunicated one of the women for continuing to wear one because her conscience stumbled at not doing so. What is ironic is that they actually had an official position stating that headcoverings were mandatory for women in public worship prior to this. One week it was ok. The next week it was forbidden. Talk about being yanked around... Personally, I'll be happy just to make it past the goal post...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 22, 2010 8:26:03 GMT -5
The escalation of the pro-life position into more and more hardline stances reminds me of something I read in an essay by the late Michael Spencer, the "Internet Monk." www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classicHere's an encapsulation: The “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game is the tendency to escalate theological claims and language, and to claim that the escalation of claims and language indicates an accompanying increase in truth, faith, commitment or other valuable commodities among Christians…. And the person willing to say the most, to make the highest claim- like a KJV Only-er for example- feels justifiably proud that he’s climbed further out on the limb of faith than anyone else. …“More…higher…more…highest.” “You can’t say more than I’m willing to say. You can’t pay more compliments, make more claims, use stronger language, be more public, make more noise…..than me.”
Is all of this really necessary? Or is this a manifestation of the need of theological types to find some way to create a stadium full of people who just don’t believe enough, or believe right or believe enough right?I've been thinking about this ever since I read this Internet Monk essay a few months ago. I think it's a very common and easy trap for people to fall into, particularly when they are involved in a cause. Just how committed are you? How far are you willing to take that commitment? Are you committed enough if you just believe tenet A? Or do you have to believe A + B? But I can be more committed than you! I believe tenets A + B + C + D! Are you committed enough to join me? There's a one-upmanship that goes on, to where it gets competitive: who can be the most committed, as shown by the most radical stance? It used to be that no-one who considered themselves pro-life would even think about telling a woman she must not end an ectopic pregnancy. But now allowing that "out" is just not committed enough to the pro-life position. It's an expression of ever higher rhetoric. I think QF in general represents this kind of "more, higher, most, highest" mindset. It seems like the pattern is to progress into more and more radicalism in every area of life. This reminds me of something that I was thinking while reading the book 1984. When the protagonists realize that the bombs and terrorist attacks are backed by their own government to control the population, and decide to fight it. They go to the guy they think is leading the resistance movement and go through a list of things they would be willing to do for the resistance, as they get progressively morally wrong-- destroying buildings, killing people, torturing children, etc. It turns out the guy they are talking to is a mole for the government and they get picked up. But this part so disappointed me. It would have been so much more realistic and believable if THEY were used then by the government mole to conduct the terrorism they had originally planned to fight. If we saw that the government set it up that the people who tried to fight them ended up serving a purpose they wanted. And it would have been a better lesson too. Because if you are not committed to moderation in the support of your cause, you end up at that point. You end up as the "pro-life" faction that supports watching women die-- heck, even taking positive actions of lying and coercion which end up in death. You end up SUPPORTING the very thing you started out to FIGHT. All because you aren't willing to stop when your zealousness starts contradicting your original goals.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Jun 22, 2010 12:54:44 GMT -5
Great post, KR. I think that's a very good point.
|
|