|
Post by arietty on Nov 12, 2009 18:24:32 GMT -5
LOL.. I have had people question me about my ex-husband's salvation when they hear about some trouble he is in or some terrible thing he has done.. "do you think he could really be a Christian?" I always feel like saying what the heck does that have to do with anything??
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 12, 2009 19:42:50 GMT -5
Jeb, I read the article by Shakespeare's Sister, and it really hit home with me. I will definitely be more careful about ways in which I might be communicating marginalization or dismissiveness to those who have been hurt in the name of Christ. I'm reminded of Christian writer Don Miller, and how he set up a "confession booth" in the middle of a college campus-- but the purpose of the booth was for the Christians inside the booth to confess the sins of Christianity, and of themselves as Christians in particular, to those who came in. Here's an article I found online about it-- not written by Miller, but it gives the gist of it. michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/10/02/donald-miller%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cblue-like-jazz%e2%80%9d-5-confession-is-a-two-way-street/I do think it's a little different, however, when it's not me distancing myself from what Christians have done to others-- but having others attribute certain beliefs and attitudes to "Christians" as a general group, and thus by implication to me. . . Shakespeare's Sister spoke of the KKK, and how she as a white person couldn't say, "they aren't real white people." Absolutely true-- but that doesn't mean she wouldn't say something to the contrary if someone attributed the beliefs and actions of the KKK to "white people" as a general group. I think she'd be quick to say, "but I'm white and I have nothing to do with the KKK!" Which is pretty much what I've been saying. . .
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Nov 12, 2009 20:36:42 GMT -5
kr ~ I do think it's a little different, however, when it's not me distancing myself from what Christians have done to others-- but having others attribute certain beliefs and attitudes to "Christians" as a general group, and thus by implication to me. . . Shakespeare's Sister spoke of the KKK, and how she as a white person couldn't say, "they aren't real white people." Absolutely true-- but that doesn't mean she wouldn't say something to the contrary if someone attributed the beliefs and actions of the KKK to "white people" as a general group. I think she'd be quick to say, "but I'm white and I have nothing to do with the KKK!" Which is pretty much what I've been saying. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Point taken, kr, and appreciated. I'm embarrassed at times for not only being white but also male. Oh well, eh? Can't change either of those things although I do claim to be pink, not white. ;D Howsomever . . . in my original post I don't suppose I stated I was talking to fundagelicals and I guess I should have. I think I thought it was obvious I was talking about literalists and not those who have a more mature understanding of the scriptures. My bad, eh? I've achieved a new record today . . . I've never been this old before (that I know of) so y'all give yourselves a pat on the back for being record setters too. John
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 12, 2009 21:55:17 GMT -5
KR one thing I always have in the back of my head when reading posts by Christians that sound very tolerant or somesuch.. (not just here, on forums in general) is "but what do they REALLY believe". Because I know that there is an imperative to communicate well and to represent Christ well. Just like Rachel Scott put on a shiny face and sidestepped submission when talking to Behar I know that behind a lot of inclusion talk that Christians use there can be some beliefs that are pretty harsh when not air brushed for public consumption/evangelism.
I know many liberal christians love to be inclusive of gays but the truth is they do believe that this is not god's best choice for people. They rationalize it by believing that gay people have often been abused or had hard childhoods (or are in rebellion against their oppressive parents as we just read on this forum). When I hear liberal christians being all tolerant and talking about dialog and Jesus accepting the unloved of society it really icks me out. It is so patronizing, "we accept you because we are all sinners" geez.
There are so many ways to fail in Christian's eyes, ways to fail that are failures because stuff in the bible. Being married a few times, this is failure but the more liberal christian will remind themselves of the woman at the well and make sure they are inclusive and welcoming. But you know that they still see it as failure and not god's way.. I have had a few friends in this situation for whom it gradually dawned on them that this is how they were loved by fellow church members.. as sinners who allowed the church to show it's wonderful tolerance.
(Personally I think people who have been married a lot of times show strength--strength to get out of bad situations, strength to hope and believe in the next relationship.)
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 13, 2009 13:39:54 GMT -5
Vyckie- i missed the conversation in the chat room about what happened in the bar with Rachel and her friend. I'd really like to hear about what happened if you care to share. Erika ~ here's a quick summary for you: After the Joy Behar Show taping, Kathryn went back to the hotel with me to have a beer at the bar and visit. We've talked for hours on the phone together, but this was our first face-to-face meeting, so we were having a really good conversation ~ when Rachel and her friend came to witness to Kathryn and me ~ which I have to say is an extremely awkward position to be in. Rachel jumped right in telling Kathryn that she totally missed the mark in her research into Quiverfull. Before Kathryn could respond, Rachel started in on me ~ in the most condescending tone, she insisted that I had never really known Jesus personally and that I had misunderstood "submission" as it is taught in the bible. Kathryn seemed a little dazzed ~ but she tried to make a point that it is not fair to say that if it didn't have a positive outcome that it must not have been the real thing. While Kathryn and Rachel were talking, Rachel's friend took her turn with me ~ she was feigning sympathy and telling me how sad she was that I had been so brainwashed and misguided and she also said that I obviously was following a twisted version of Christianity and Quiverfull ~ and the whole time she's.emphasizing.her.point.by.tapping.her.finger.repeatedly.and.forcefully.on.my.knee. Since finger-tapping insistence is something that Warren used to do (http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/11/03/learning-my-directions/) it was sort of triggering for me ~ actually it was very triggering and I got really pissed off. So, I went back to the beginning and started "sharing my testimony" with this woman ~ and I really went into detail and as I was talking, my mind flipped totally back into that old headspace where I actually believed all that stuff ~ so I was telling it pretty much with the same conviction and enthusiasm that I used to. As I was talking, Rachel started listening too ~ and both of them were leaning in, smiling, ... nodding their heads. I was so convincing because of the state of mind I was in ~ it felt almost like a revival meeting. And just when I knew that I had hooked them ~ they believed me that I really did have a genuine encounter with God and truly was "born again" ~ I looked right at the woman and said, "But now I don't believe any of it ~ and I no longer consider Jesus Christ to be my lord and savior." Her mouth dropped open like I had slapped it ~ and she just stared at me for a very long minute. There was horror in her eyes ~ and terror ~ as though she was watching me burning in the flames of Hell ... I have been feeling really mean ever since ~ and this morning I think I've finally figured out why it bothers me so much that I did that to her. During all my years with Warren, I always knew that he was seriously lacking in reasoning and conversational skills. I knew that verbally, I could dance circles around him ~ could easily smack him down before he could figure out what hit him. BUT ~ in almost 20 years, I NEVER DID THAT TO HIM ~ not even once ~ no matter how provoked I felt, I always restrained myself from "hitting below the belt." The reason is because, I've had a picture of an over-sized body-builder type man being harrassed and annoyed by his tiny, irritating wife ~ standing on her tip toes to smack him on the head, or brusing her own knuckles to punch his six-pack abs. And no matter how much I might think the woman would deserve for this guy to haul off and clobber her ~ I would expect him to control himself and use non-violent means of protecting himself from her annoying, but essentially harmless, attacks. I always had it in my head that for me to give Warren a verbal clobbering would be just as wrong as it would be for a man to use his physical strength against a woman ~ even in self-defense, it would just be unfair and unneccesary. So I held back ~ I used simple words and slowed down to make sure Warren could keep up with me ~ and I was careful not to play verbal tricks to make his head spin. When I got so pissed off at Rachel's friend, and I did not hesitate to set her up so methodically, so cunningly ... all the while, knowing where I was leading her and with full intention of giving her a verbal wallop alongside the head ~ I just have really felt like I've lost an important character quality and no longer possess that integrity to fight fair and to try to respect my "adversary" as a fellow human being. So ~ there's the story. I still feel mean for having done that to the woman ~ even though she and Rachel were totally asking for it. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 13, 2009 14:23:14 GMT -5
FWIW, I think you did an outstanding job dealing with these extremely rude individuals. They were way out of line. If your comments make them think, then you've done something positive. Maybe you've spared someone else an inappropriate and condescending lecture.
BTW, forcefully tapping your finger on someone's knee is an extremely aggressive and invasive gesture. That woman knew exactly what she was doing. She's probably gotten away with it a hundred times before with people who felt they couldn't fight back (like her kids). If she'd done it to me, I would have been extremely pissed, but I probably would not have handled it in the same classy manner that you did. Don't worry for one second about being "mean".
Edited to add quotation marks around the word mean, because I do not think you were mean at all. Your reaction was 100% appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Nov 13, 2009 14:39:48 GMT -5
Yeah, you really held back. I've dumped drinks on people for touching me inappropriately. Plus, you were using their own rhetorical style back at them. i don't expect that "testimony" style would work on someone from outside that kind of subculture.
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Nov 13, 2009 15:43:54 GMT -5
Thanks for retelling that story Vyckie. I think they both deserved it and you showed more grace than I would have. Some people need a good verbal clobbering in my opinion.
I should hang out in the chat room!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 16:03:59 GMT -5
Vyckie, I don't think your assessment of yourself as not respecting them as human beings, just because you set them up to break their own expectations, is a correct self-assessment. You say you didn't verbally beat up on Warren because you knew he was a lightweight compared to you. But Rachel had just shown herself to be an extremely devious, and therefore quite intelligent, person. And her friend was just a bully. You weren't being a bully-- she was. To stand up to a bully, it's sometimes necessary to bully them back a bit. To deal with a deceptive person who won't come out and say what she really believes in public, but then tackles you in private, a taste of her own bait-and-switch tactics is more than appropriate.
Don't guilt yourself about it, ok? They weren't Warren, and didn't deserve to be treated as you would treat Warren. You weren't verbally or physically abusive. You merely fought back in the best way you knew how against difficult people who had set themselves up as your enemies. You didn't start that fight; you just finished it. I say, "You Da Woman!"
*cheers and throws confetti*
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Nov 13, 2009 16:10:03 GMT -5
Vyckie- I see what you did as self-defense.
I understand why you would not have wanted to treat Warren that way, you were married to him and no matter how much he may have deserved it, escalating your relationship problems wouldn't have helped.
But those two women accosted you. They interrupted your private conversation. One of them invaded your physical space. They told you, uninvited, that you were brainwashed and mistaken about your own life story.
Using verbal means to defend yourself against an ATTACK isn't mean. You shouldn't feel badly about protecting yourself emotionally from people who would love to cut you down. And I don't think there's any doubt that those two would have loved to see your humiliation.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 16:22:27 GMT -5
KR one thing I always have in the back of my head when reading posts by Christians that sound very tolerant or somesuch.. (not just here, on forums in general) is "but what do they REALLY believe". Because I know that there is an imperative to communicate well and to represent Christ well. Just like Rachel Scott put on a shiny face and sidestepped submission when talking to Behar I know that behind a lot of inclusion talk that Christians use there can be some beliefs that are pretty harsh when not air brushed for public consumption/evangelism. I know many liberal christians love to be inclusive of gays but the truth is they do believe that this is not god's best choice for people. They rationalize it by believing that gay people have often been abused or had hard childhoods (or are in rebellion against their oppressive parents as we just read on this forum). When I hear liberal christians being all tolerant and talking about dialog and Jesus accepting the unloved of society it really icks me out. It is so patronizing, "we accept you because we are all sinners" geez. There are so many ways to fail in Christian's eyes, ways to fail that are failures because stuff in the bible. Being married a few times, this is failure but the more liberal christian will remind themselves of the woman at the well and make sure they are inclusive and welcoming. But you know that they still see it as failure and not god's way.. I have had a few friends in this situation for whom it gradually dawned on them that this is how they were loved by fellow church members.. as sinners who allowed the church to show it's wonderful tolerance. (Personally I think people who have been married a lot of times show strength--strength to get out of bad situations, strength to hope and believe in the next relationship.) Arietty, all I can really say to this is that people do have differences of opinion about how best to live one's life -- but this need not be the same thing as judging those who live differently. Several people on this forum have expressed the opinion that waiting till marriage to have sex is not a choice they really approve. It is the choice I felt was best for me. I don't think they're judging me, even though they disagree. My own feeling about a woman who has been married multiple times has nothing to do with judging her for failed marriages, but if she were a friend of mine, I'd probably try to help her discern if there are any negative emotional patterns that she could resolve, which might help her find a more stable, loving marriage next time-- if she wanted to remarry. No one really wants their marriage to fail, so I don't think there's any judgmentalism in wanting to help a friend find happiness in marriage. As far as gay people are concerned, I don't think that two same-sex people who choose a committed, monogamous relationship are doing something wrong. I might disagree more with a choice by a person of any sexual orientation, to have a different one-night stand every night. But I really do try not to turn my opinions into judgments of others. And perhaps sometimes, with other moderate Christians, you might be seeing judgment when it isn't really there. I guess the difference, with Christians, is that God gets figured into the equation-- that their opinions about how it is best to live are in some way based on what they think God wants. But as long as they're neither judging you nor trying to force their opinions on you, does it really matter if you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 13, 2009 16:59:59 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying Vyckie. It really has nothing to do with whether Rachel and her friend could hold her own. It is about knowing within yourself that you used manipulation to get a point across, to come out on top in the exchange. I am NOT trying to make you feel bad, just saying that it is familiar to me. I know there are ways I can make my views more palatable with Christians and I have at times used their terminology and weak points to get my views across and trump someone in a conversation. It actually passes in front of me, the way to trump this person I'm in disagreement with and I think it is more honest of me just to flat out state my belief and not repackage it to pull their strings.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 13, 2009 17:02:50 GMT -5
KR I wasn't asking you what you believe.. I addressed you because it seemed to tie in with the discussion with Jeb. I'm just saying I find Christians can be very invested in keeping the actual truths of what they believe about "sins" etc.. hidden in order to bear witness to Christ in a more palatable way. Everyone's choices and mistakes are weighed down by the God factor which adds a huge dollop of judgment to the way Christians view other people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Nov 13, 2009 18:50:16 GMT -5
Vyckie, I don't think your assessment of yourself as not respecting them as human beings, just because you set them up to break their own expectations, is a correct self-assessment. You say you didn't verbally beat up on Warren because you knew he was a lightweight compared to you. But Rachel had just shown herself to be an extremely devious, and therefore quite intelligent, person. And her friend was just a bully. You weren't being a bully-- she was. To stand up to a bully, it's sometimes necessary to bully them back a bit. To deal with a deceptive person who won't come out and say what she really believes in public, but then tackles you in private, a taste of her own bait-and-switch tactics is more than appropriate. Don't guilt yourself about it, ok? They weren't Warren, and didn't deserve to be treated as you would treat Warren. You weren't verbally or physically abusive. You merely fought back in the best way you knew how against difficult people who had set themselves up as your enemies. You didn't start that fight; you just finished it. I say, "You Da Woman!" *cheers and throws confetti* I'm going to stop posting and start typing "What KR said" instead. (but seriously... what KR said!!!)
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 13, 2009 22:58:48 GMT -5
Vyckie, if the way you responded to Rachel continues to bug you, maybe it would help to find a way to get a letter to her...explain how you felt at that moment, and apologize for the way you responded to her...if she has any genuine caring for you as a human being somewhere in there, she ought to be able to accept a simple apology...? Regardless of how she might take it, it might at least stop the whole thing from eating at you.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 23:53:52 GMT -5
I'm going to stop posting and start typing "What KR said" instead. (but seriously... what KR said!!!) Awww. *blushing* Thanks, Amanda.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Nov 14, 2009 0:01:17 GMT -5
Arietty, that's really sad to have to worry about, with the people you meet. I think you have to judge people by their actions, not their words - but sometimes their words are where they want to be, not where they are. I know LOTS of liberal christians who aren't worried about if gay people are sinning or not. I know quite a few gay christians. I know lots of christians who aren't actually worried about other people's sex lives (though they are pretty judgemental of CEOs who make millions and contract with sweat shops.) I know Dorothy Day Center Catholics, and christians who do outreach work (not missionary work, actual social work) with homeless, exploited teenagers. I trust what those people say. The rest of us, who maybe don't take as much action around our beliefs, it's harder to get a handle on whether we mean it, or are faking it, or just can't quite live it even if we mean it. It's disappointing. I don't go seeking out Christians, but i've been burned by more than one pagan group that has good talk and no action. I don't know what to do about it, except keep an eye out with new people.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 14, 2009 9:45:20 GMT -5
Vyckie, if the way you responded to Rachel continues to bug you, maybe it would help to find a way to get a letter to her...explain how you felt at that moment, and apologize for the way you responded to her...if she has any genuine caring for you as a human being somewhere in there, she ought to be able to accept a simple apology...? Regardless of how she might take it, it might at least stop the whole thing from eating at you. No offense, but I strongly disagree with this. Rachel is the type who would use a letter of apology as ammo for the cause. It sounds to me like Vyckie handled the encounter really smoothly. She didn't give Rachel and friend any material to work with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they hoped to provoke an angry reaction, only to use that to paint Vyckie as "bitter" or "unstable" or "troubled". They can't attack her message but they can try to discredit her as the messenger. That's what I think they were trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Nov 14, 2009 11:18:32 GMT -5
Rosa's correct. Arietty, it sounds like most of the "liberal" Christians you've encountered have been at the liberal end of the evangelical range, not truly liberal/progressive ones. There are Christians (myself included) who do not believe that gay and lesbian sex are sinful, and who aren't as patronizing as you describe. However, I know that a lot of moderate Christians do tend to go stealth about their more controversial beliefs in order to "witness" to people, and it's deceptive and not OK.
Vyckie, I agree with margybargy about the apology letter idea. It would show (apparent) weakness, and you can't show weakness to someone like Rachel Scott or they'll pounce on it.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Nov 14, 2009 12:11:17 GMT -5
Hi Everylady at NLQ! I have been very preoccupied lately and a blanket apology to Vyckie, Erika, Tapati, Kristen and, well, everylady for not having taken the time to respond to all of your wonderful input lately (I have been reading though!) That said : I think Vyckie is thoroughly heroic in admitting that she feels badly about her behavior with this woman who was so obviously 'triggering' her. I would have wanted to punch her in the face - of course, I've never punched anyone in my entire life and I don't plan to start anytime soon. I applaud The Fabulous Vyckie Garrison for making her 'apology' here - letting the world know that she is aware of her behavior and how it may effect other people - if not directly to this friend of Rachel's. Sometimes, I think, this kind of acknowledgment of 'messing up' is far more valuable than a direct apology to the other party.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Nov 14, 2009 12:40:04 GMT -5
There's something else about the hotel bar encounter which has been bugging me:
The reason my "testimony" was so convincing that I had Rachel and her friend nodding their heads in agreement and getting excited about my conversion is because, as I was telling it, it's like my mind completely reverted back into fully-convinced-Christian mode ~ I was thinking and feeling about God just the way I used to ~ and the truly weird thing is that this past Thursday, it happened to me again ...
I was having coffee with Heather ~ she's the pastor at the Salvation Army ~ we usually get together to visit at least once a week. Thursday morning she was wanting to talk about the doctrine of eternal security because one of the church members is giving her hell for teaching that a Christian can lose their salvation. Heather is not really the studious type ~ so she asked me to explain what the controversy was all about. Okay ~ I can do that, I thought ~ and so I went into the whole free-will of man vs. the sovereignty of God thing and as I was talking, again, my mind went right back into bible-brain mode ~ like I actually believed it again. I pulled bible verses right off the top of my head without hesitation ~ hardly had to think about the arguments of pro and con. And for a little while, I forgot that I don't even believe any of it anymore and that the whole disagreement is essentially irrelevant. It's kind of freaky to know that I can do that ~ just turn the old Christian in me off and on at will. Yikes ~ makes me think I must have some sort of weird mental disorder.
Actually, I'm a little worried to find that some part of my mind is still occupied by my old fundamentalist Christian self. I've been thinking that it actually has been advantageous that I had such a quick and dramatic turn around in my way of thinking because it means I can still totally remember the mindset ~ and I can explain it to those who've never experienced that level of commitment to an ideal. I don't know how many commenters on the blog and forum have thanked me for giving them an understanding of how their fundamentalist loved one thinks. It also means that I can really relate to those who are still into it ~ and I can speak their language enough to carry on a meaningful conversation ~ sometimes even make a few good points. (Though I'm not holding out much hope that I actually got through to Rachel and her friend.) Up until these two recent incidents ~ it has been me remembering my old way of thinking ~ which I thought was easy because it hasn't been that long ago that I totally was immersed in fundamentalism. But then I had this "brain flip" thing happen twice ~ and it made me think that maybe it's so easy because it's still very much a part of me. I don't know ~ does that make sense? Hopefully, it's not a split personality thing! LOL
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Nov 14, 2009 12:41:53 GMT -5
Without putting words in Vyckie's mouth, I think I can understand what she means: she doesn't want to do anything that could be perceived as stooping to their level.
There is a book that helped me so much. I think its by Melody Beattie (could be Pia Mellody~ I get both names mixed up and both are great) about recovering from codependency. Abusive, dysfunctional relationships breed codependency. The path to healing often feels like complete rebellion or craziness. For example, if you have "submissive" and "rebellious" (or something else) at two opposite ends of the spectrum ~ extremes ~ finding balance FEELS like you are doing something wrong because you are heading towards the opposite of what you are as you move to the middle and find homeostasis.
For a submissive woman to move towards balance feels like she is rebellious because she is moving towards very unfamiliar territory. I hope I am making sense.
Be patient with yourself, Vyckie. The way I've understood it best is to have the grace on yourself that you would have on friends in similar situations. Be the friend you need. You are healing, recovering, and it takes time. As you seek balance, the only way you will know what is healthy for you is to experience that road between extremes. It WILL mellow out and become stable. Don't worry about what others will think of you ~ at the end of the day it's between you and your choices, what you want, between you and God.
If none of this is helpful, please ignore. But I know how you are feeling. Hugs to you!
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 14, 2009 18:06:09 GMT -5
What Hillary says is very good!
I"ve never had a brain flip like that Vyckie but I have experienced a sudden pull into QF thinking while reading QF blogs etc.. where it actually passes through my mind that god wants to bless me with another baby and that having one is a mighty work for the lord. For that moment in time I am really back in that head space. It doesn't last very long but it is freaky because I am totally not there in reality.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 14, 2009 19:20:17 GMT -5
Rosa's correct. Arietty, it sounds like most of the "liberal" Christians you've encountered have been at the liberal end of the evangelical range, not truly liberal/progressive ones. There are Christians (myself included) who do not believe that gay and lesbian sex are sinful, and who aren't as patronizing as you describe. However, I know that a lot of moderate Christians do tend to go stealth about their more controversial beliefs in order to "witness" to people, and it's deceptive and not OK. Kiskileia you are correct.. I have only encountered christians "at the liberal end of the evangelical range". I have never met a christian like you describe. The stealth thing pisses me off far more than the plain old fundies I still know (some of whom are friends). With the fundies they just say what they believe and you can take or leave it, they don't turn themselves inside out to be all things to all people while hiding their harsher truths. ::looks out the window:: I wonder where these super liberal christians you speak of are? LOL
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Nov 14, 2009 22:12:32 GMT -5
They're mostly in the major cities. Visit Toronto and you'll find three churches with rainbow stripes on their signs within a mile of each other.
|
|