|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 10, 2010 14:52:00 GMT -5
Shelley, I felt like I lost my identity in the cult I was in too. I remember my Mom saying, "What happened! You've gotten so rigid!" And how deep down I felt bad inside at how judgmental and narrow I had become, but also feeling I was just doing what was right, and why couldn't she understand that?
I realized recently that part of me was still afraid I was going to lose myself all over again-- that I still felt shame for having lost hold of "me" in the first place. For me, the passage about Christ having our secret names written on a white stone helped. I feel this metaphorical passage is saying that our true selves cannot ever really be lost, no matter how obscured we might allow them to become.
I do understand so very deeply what it is to want desperately to measure up, to please someone else who has set an impossible standard. I'm so glad we're both finally free of that.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 27, 2010 19:09:32 GMT -5
I think patriarchalist men a lot of times have hero complexes. They have to accomplish something big. It's not enough to have a home-- they have to have a big, grand, beautiful home. So, with great ideological enthusiasm, they start remodeling projects that they are completely unqualified to complete. When they realize that they really don't know how to properly rebuild what they've torn down, they can't ask for help or hire someone. This would shame them. It is they, as the husband, who are supposed to be the great leader, the family hero.
So they just let it sit-- and they compartmentalize the mess away so they don't think about it. After all, as patriarchalists, they aren't the ones who have to cook in the torn-up kitchen or bathe the kids in the torn-up bathroom!
Sometimes it probably is as Andromeda says-- it's a control issue. Other times it's simply that they've bitten off more than they can chew, and their pride as patriarchal men won't let them admit it or be helped.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 23, 2010 19:54:48 GMT -5
This makes me very angry, too. Here's a woman who has been hurt by Christians in the past and is angry-- and who dares to think maybe this new group will be different. And then after she's had a year to develop real relationships with them, they hurt her all over again. How dare they? And yet I know so many Christians who believe this way-- I even used to believe this way. *blushes* The atheist is to be befriended only for the purpose of converting her. She's not a person, she's a project. But that's not following Christ. That's using people, not loving them. I'm ashamed that I ever thought this way, but I can say one thing for certain. I never put a timeline on a friendship with an atheist, or gave them an ultimatum that they had to convert in order to continue the friendship.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 23, 2010 0:29:31 GMT -5
Arietty said: Yes, I definitely think Jesus' words on divorce were mostly about protecting women, not about restraining them (they were already restrained plenty!) But I'm looking into this a little deeper and will probably post more later. In any event, I'm very happy to hear that even Warren is happier. This divorce was a win-win for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 19, 2010 19:19:22 GMT -5
Jemand is quite right, in my opinion. You don't deliberately risk your own life or someone else's, in order to force a miracle. I believe that's what "you shall not test the Lord your God" means.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 16, 2010 0:24:43 GMT -5
I'm glad you were able to do that, Cherylannhannah. As for me, I'm more like Vyckie-- stuff that reminds me of that bad time in my own life, is stuff I have a disgust reaction to whether I want to or not. It's kind of like when you get food poisoning and then for the next year or two you can't eat the food item that made you sick.
I am slowly re-conditioning myself, but there are still things I can't do. Like going to large church conferences. When someone invites me to one, all I can do is shudder and make polite excuses. . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 15, 2010 22:00:24 GMT -5
Wow, what a story so far! My heart goes out to you, Cherylannhannah.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 15, 2010 1:24:48 GMT -5
JWR, I'm so sorry about your friend. And I understand what you're saying in your response to my response.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 14, 2010 0:49:23 GMT -5
Journey! Good to see you! *glomp-hugs Journey* ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 13, 2010 0:55:27 GMT -5
I understand the pain of miscarriage; I have had two. But I was lucky to also have two healthy children. I grieve with those of you who have also suffered, and especially those who wanted children and didn't have them. I know the feeling that you failed; that you did something wrong. I have felt that too. But we didn't. It's just one of those things. Doug Phillips and his icy cold "comfort" is no help. I hope someday the pain he causes is made absolutely clear to him. I agree that a God who would send a miscarried baby to hell is no god at all, but a monster. What I just don't get is how anyone could worship such an evil caricature.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 11, 2010 20:48:04 GMT -5
My understanding of what complementarians usually mean by "the feminization of the church" is that it has little or nothing to do with erotic mysticism. What I hear are complaints that 60% of church attendees are women; that sermons from the pulpit focus on the supposedly "feminine" traits of humility, love and gentleness; and that Christ is portrayed as meek and mild rather than as forceful and commanding.
Men are supposedly being discouraged from church attendance because their "manly" inclinations are not being adequately addressed; churches should go back singing songs about "spiritual warfare" and the church as "the army of Christ," and so on. If this is done then men will start coming back to church and taking up the reins of lay ministry that are currently being sustained by women. And so on.
In short, it's all women's fault, and the fault of preachers who pander to their female congregants rather than preaching "manly" sermons. This even though men are still almost completely in charge of the upper leadership of almost all Christian churches except the liberal Protestants. This even though women are taking up the lay-ministries because someone needs to do them, and because the focus on patriarchy often leads men to feel privileged to do exactly as they like-- and that means watching ballgames on TV on Sunday afternoons, not staying at the church for lay-ministry.
I'm a Christian mystic myself. (Nods to Nikita) What I mean by that is that I have spiritual experiences of the presence of God. I have never belonged to a church that put an overemphasis on "the Bride of Christ" imagery like JWR is describing. I can see how this might be difficult for heterosexual men to relate to-- but frankly, as a heterosexual woman I find it hard to relate to myself. God is metaphorically depicted with both male and female images in the Bible; but sexual metaphors-- God having sexual intercourse of any kind-- are simply not there. The Song of Solomon is first of all a celebration of human sexual love. If it is going to be allegorized, it should be done with care, since that is not the original authorial intent.
Anyway, I agree with Jemand. The "Bride of Christ" imagery appears in the midst of biblical imagery that is weighted towards the masculine in most other cases. As such, this feminine imagery provides a check-and-balance to the male-centric cultures in which the texts were written down. For men to begrudge women the female-centered images that do appear, is pretty unfair. If "Bride of Christ" imagery isn't helpful in one's own personal Christian mystical life, by all means choose other imagery. And if your church is placing too much emphasis on sexuality in mysticism, then steer clear or go to another church. But (and I'm not saying JWR is doing this, I'm just trying to make a point) please don't claim that the use of "the Bride of Christ" as an image unfairly "feminizes" the church. It just isn't so.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 9, 2010 20:59:56 GMT -5
Right now my palm is itching to slap John and tell him to go away and leave your happy family in peace. You write extremely well, ex-Adriel.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jul 8, 2010 14:59:39 GMT -5
There's a new sense of order and calm about the website. It looks very professional. ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 30, 2010 11:48:40 GMT -5
That makes sense, KM-- but I am hearing in the quotes from Vyckie from this book, a message that the rank-and-file fundamentalist joined fundamentalism because he/she couldn't "cope" with "messy" real life. There is an us-them mentality here that I can foresee leading to even more polarization. I think the author could have added some information (and maybe he did-- I don't know) about the tactics of spiritually abusive cultic movements, and how easy it is to get enmeshed. Then the reader, trying to understand the Dominionist movement, would have more than a simplistic "they're just weak" explanation for why Joe and Mary next door are involved in this. . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 30, 2010 1:16:43 GMT -5
I like what the book has to say, but the way it portrays people who get involved in this kind of thinking, I find to be less than compassionate. The world is too "messy." They can't "cope." There is an unspoken assumption that people go into fundamentalism because they themselves are fundamentally weak, defective in some way-- they are "losers" who want safety and security so they don't have to be so scared of life.
What seems to be missing is the truth that for most of us who go this direction, the reason we want certainty is that we have LEARNED to be frightened of the real world because of things that happened to us or the way we were taught as children. Philosophia says she liked bounded choice because she was terrified of making a mistake about what path to take. To me this says, not that she was weak or defective, but that someone presented life to her as a win-or-lose proposition, rather than as an open field where it's ok to start one career path and then change your mind and take a different road-- you may have lost a little time, a little money, but it's still ok!
For me, being raised with alcoholics made me long for consistency, order, for rules that were understandible, with consequences for breaking them that could be avoided. For Vickie, there were abusive step-fathers and a feeling of being responsible, way too young, for her sister's well-being.
I think that those beginning to question fundamentalism themselves, might be more open to the ideas presented in this book if it didn't portray them as losers for getting sucked in in the first place.
(I recognize that I haven't read the whole book. This is simply how the synopsis is reading to me.)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 14:04:52 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't get it either, Jemand. But it's the way things are.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 13:40:40 GMT -5
I get your point about causing a stir in the pro-choice community but my fear would be that that ruckus would overwhelm and drown out the stir Cindy is trying to cause in the pro-life community. I know that when I hear anything that starts out 'NARAL states...' or 'Planned Parenthood says...' my head just immediately checks out of there. I just innately distrust them (long conditioning). I realize that some of our purposes are at cross ends here as our beliefs are polar opposite on most pro-life/pro-choice issues that arise. The ectopic pregnancy issue is one of the few that we can embrace jointly and has made it easy to discuss. I'm not sure how to reconcile the rest of it, because once you get the folks whose entire life is about promoting pro-choice causes involved I don't think the issue is going to be treated like that, it's going to be 'look at all the stupid pro-life people we've been warning you about over there!' And the VF position just gets lumped in with the position of all pro-life people and no distinction will be made. And that makes it easier for pro-life people to simply dismiss the entire hoopla as propaganda and a hostile world view regarding pro-life issues in general. The voice that the people who need to hear this the most won't be loud and clear enough to penetrate all of that. And it will feed into the persecution complex folks in extreme religious movements inherently feel. VF and their ilk will use it to point out that the world hates truth, that they are being persecuted, etc. But if the traditional pro-life supporters come out against VF's ridiculous position that will have much more weight. I guess what I'm saying is although what you wish to see happen is important for your purposes it goes against our purpose, so we're gonna have a different attitude about it. Right. The Christian pro-life position is, "Whatever NARAL loves, we hate. Whatever NARAL hates, we love." So if NARAL comes out with a public statement decrying the VF stance, VF will be in a position to say to the more sane pro-life groups, "You're compromising your pro-life position by allying yourself with NARAL on this matter." For the sake of the women involved, the best thing NARAL could do is continue to ignore Vision Forum.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 13:20:16 GMT -5
KM I'm not sure where to go with what you said. The issue is two fold, the target community doesn't really WANT to hear what the pro-choice movement has to say anyhow. Confounding though it would seem, these folks oppose the kind of comprehensive and factual sex ed that reduces accidental pregnancy and frequently encourages teen to delay sex much longer than so called "purity rings" They also oppose most passive means of BC from hormonal to IUD, calling them "abortion" Somehow there also seems to be this opposition to social programs that would help women carry to term and raise children from accidental pregnancies. That's why I say that the debate is truly on the pro-life side, because they need to hash out how far they are willing to sacrifice women's lives for a principal and any pushback has to come from within that community. I always wind up asking myself if the mission is to save babies or control women. I think I know the answer! Right-wing Christian fundamentalists want an ideal world, and they appear to think they can legislate it. By opposing abortion, birth control, sex education and social programs, they appear to want to make a world where young people are deterred from sexual activity through ignorance AND through fear of the horrible situation the unwed mother will find herself in. They want to make a world where sex only occurs (or is only acknowledged to occur) inside marriage– and by giving those who deviate, no viable options.* The result of which (which they don’t appear to think through) would be a return to the Victorian conditions in which unwed mothers froze to death with their babies on doorsteps, while the babies’ fathers drank in their gentlemen’s clubs or went shooting with their friends. *Fundamentalists do support unwed mothers giving their babies up for adoption, and they will take care of women– to a point– if they are willing to go that route. Childless married couples being able to adopt is part of their ideal, romanticized view of the world.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 22, 2010 1:23:29 GMT -5
Ok, so for our spiritual abuse checklist, here is the next point I'd like to present: Elitism. Does your group claim they have found a path to holiness or God’s will, that other Christians have missed? Do you find yourself looking down on Christians who don’t practice the same lifestyle you do? Are you warned against associating with anyone who once embraced your lifestyle but has now left it? I think this dovetails in with some of the things we were talking about in the "heirarchy & control" topic-- that fear of disapproval keeps QFers in line. Along with that goes the "perk," if you will, of getting to disapprove of others. So, for those who were in Quiverfull: How did this play out, specifically, in your family, or in your religious meetings or the books you read? What specific words, phrases or teachings promoted this mindset? Thanks in advance for your help! ;D
|
|
|
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 krwordgazer on Jun 20, 2010 1:13:43 GMT -5
This is the first time I've posted; my sister is Wordgazer, someone who provides a scriptural Egalitarian Christian approach to her posts. She told me about the Quiverfull movement, which to someone from a small family of two kids seemed pretty weird. I have no other connection or first hand knowledge with this movement other than suspecting that a number of families I serve as a Youth Services librarian in conservative rural Idaho are involved with it. I'm looking forward to reading the end of this story, finding out when you realized that you were in an abusive/controlling relationship, and how you came to understand that you were a good/intelligent/competent person who could make up her own mind, and be in control of her own life, not Cecilia, not your husband, and certainly not anyone in this abusive patriarchal movement. Excellent post and compelling story. Since you are on this forum, I know you got out. I'm so glad you did. Congratulations!! Good for you!!! Well, hi, KC! What a pleasant surprise! I know you've been reading the blog for a while. Welcome to the forum! Cecilia, a lot of this sounds so familiar, with regards to a certain family that KC and I encountered when we were still living at home. They presented themselves as so perfect, we wished our own family were just like them. It turned out quite toxic in the end. They weren't ATI, but they certainly had a big role in moving both of us towards the extreme side of charismatic/fundamentalist Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 20, 2010 1:07:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't care how wonderful other things Doug Wilson may say are-- to me his stance on the position and value of women renders the rest of it unpalatable. This is what he says: www.reformedsingles.com/not-where-she-should-be-douglas-wilsonHe 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. If a white supremacist had good things to say in non race-related matters, I still would find that his white supremacism poisoned everything else he might say. A male supremacist is in the same situation, in my book.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 18, 2010 23:02:48 GMT -5
I've been following this discussion but have been too upset to say much.
The very real fact that there are Christian leaders who feel that as a woman, my life is of far less value than a man's (I can come to no other conclusion), has been brought home to me in force.
I was aware of it before, of course-- but the knowledge that to Doug Phillips and his ilk, I am actually less than fully human, has had a deep emotional impact on me as a result of this discussion.
These people are manipulating statistics to get women to reject clearly necessary medical treatment. They have to be aware on some level, that they are doing this. They can't possibly completely ignore the fact that without treatment, a woman's chance of survival is very slim. And yet they persist. Why?
If we were talking about some surgery that might cost a man's life-- might cost Doug Phillips' own life-- I feel certain he would be singing an entirely different tune. But in the very core of his thinking, a woman's life is simply not worth saving. He'd rather take the miniscule chance that one baby (it might be a boy!) might in one obscure instance make it through, than face the looming FACT that the woman is facing nearly certain death.
To Doug Phillips, I might as well be a cow or a sheep. That's all the value he places on my life. And he claims to follow the same Christ I do.
It makes me sick and sad.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 14, 2010 0:03:50 GMT -5
Hi, Cherylannhannah! We are discussing this very concept right now over at Women in Ministry: strivetoenter.com/wim/The long and the short of it is that submission as envisioned by Paul is supposed to be a mutual yielding and deferring to one another, not putting ourselves under authority. The authority structures of the ancient world are acknowledged, not endorsed, by Paul. But wives are never actually told to "obey" their husbands at all. The place in the KJV that is translated "be obedient" is actually that same word "submit" in the Greek-- and it means to yield or defer; all Christians are to "submit" to one another per Eph. 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5. Anyway, yes, I will be doing a FAQ on this issue when I can.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 12, 2010 18:10:05 GMT -5
And still in many corners of the world, infant girls are killed or left to die. And those that survive are taught they have no value in and of themselves, but only as they relate to men. Sierra, I can only say what others have said. My heart hurts for you, reading that segment.
|
|