94 comments:
aimai said...
Vyckie, great post. Have your read this book?
www.amazon.com/Native-Tongue-Suzette-Haden-Elgin/dp/1558612467/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239298354&sr=1-2If my linking abilities don't work its called " Native Tongue" and its about a dystopic future world where women are imprisoned by their families and made to work as translators for their husbands and father's businesses with alien races. One of the things the women lose, along with autonomy, is any way to talk about their experiences or to find a language with which to rebel. The book is (partially) about their struggle to construct a dictionary of their own language. The word that I always remember--especially as I'm run off my feet with Passover Prep--is something like "Hildern" which means a "Holiday." A "Holiday" in which all work is done by one or more women until they are completely exhausted. Other people enjoy themselves and rest during this time.
Cracks me up. Its a fantastic book and I think it will really resonate with your experiences.
I'm a pretty happy atheist but it also seems to me that there could be room in your life for another god, or another inner voice. One that was your best friend and supporter instead of your jailer.
aimai
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Becky said...
Vyckie,
I suppose I'm not the only one who's curious--What kind of job do you have now? Do you get some income from Warren as in child support?
It's kind of scary sending that first one on a plane by himself/herself, isn't it? (or is it the first time for you?) I know it was for me. I'm sure she'll have a blast. Hopefully Seattle won't be too rainy the whole time. (I lived in the Tacoma area for 8 years of my childhood.)
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Jadehawk said...
I'm just trusting, I guess, that there IS meaning and purpose to it all
ah yes... the purpose/meaning thing is probably the trickiest part of being a non-believer. when you have a religion, you have your goals spelled out for you: to go to heaven, to reincarnate into a better live, to reach nirvana, to serve your god/goddess, etc.
when you're a non-believer, you kind of have to make your own meaning/purpose. most atheists I know (some completely disillusioned nihilists aside) go with the motto: "this is your only life, make it count". now, what WILL make it count is up to the individual. here's another (humanist) motto: "live your life in such a way that the world will be a better place for having had you in it".
Again, this can mean many things, but it's basically about legacy. Use your experience and skills in such a way that others, now and in the future, will have better lives because of it. Most people do this for their families, but many volunteer, or work for certain social causes... or write blogs and books that could help women avoid a destructive lifestyle/get themselves out of a destructive lifestyle ;-)
or, as my favorite punk band said: "It's not your fault the world is the way it is. It's only your fault if it stays that way."
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vyckie,
For years I overextended myself for others believing I was following scripture. But it was destroying me mentally and emotionally. It took Codependents Anonymous to help me begin to break out of the co-dependent Christian lifestyle. I'm currently going to counseling and that helps also. If I had not dealt with my Christian co-dependency I would have lost my faith.
I think some scripture feeds into women's codependency. It doesn't have to, but our culture encourages women to be submissive and nice all the time. And that, combined with the way scriptures with culturally defined subordinate positions for women are SELECTIVELY MAGNIFIED in the Christian community - causes women to overextend themselves for others.
I'm still a Christian but I am re-evaluating the way I understand scripture. So often in the past I selectively put more emphasis on certain parts of scripture than others. Had I not had this selective emphasis I would have seen other scriptures that balanced the ones that caused me to be so co-dependent.
I think that quite often the Christian community SELECTIVELY MAGNIFIES those scriptures which some Christian leaders decide should be magnified. In doing so the Christian community gets lopsided in their beliefs, which hurts people.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
a.b.e. said...
Hey everyone,
Selective Magnification of scripture is called Selective Literalism. It's what patriarchalists and some complementarians do on the verses on women. They ignore all verses in which women play an equal role with men or in which they teach or have leadership roles over men or alongside men, and over emphasize the verses that put women in "culturally defined subordinate positions" (as said above). They minimize or change the meaning of any scripture which disagrees with their selective literalism. It a cesspool from which it is hard for a woman to escape because she feels scripturally bound to obey the selective literalism she has been taught.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
a.b.e. said...
Here’s an example of selective literalism. This is a made up story about a man who believes in putting women under the authority of men.
The man reads the following verse.
Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Just then a person comes up to the man and asks him for money, but he turns the person down.
The man next reads:
Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
He ignores the verse.
He next reads the following verse:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
He takes his Bible over to his wife and tells her she has to submit to him.
This is what the comp/patriachal camp do.
Of course, this exact same sort of thing is done with several other doctrines. The doctrine determines what verses will be paid attention to rather than all verses being paid attention. This is a big problem all over the Christian community.
I hope I'm not irritating you Vyckie.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Annie C said...
I think Jadehawk nailed it on the head. "live your life in such a way that the world will be a better place for having had you in it".
Or think of it this way. For 2000 years, give or take, those in power have used scripture and the promise of heaven or the threat of hell to keep people from trying to me *this* world and *this* life better for everyone. Think about it, scripture was used to prove that God supported slavery, or the Holocaust, or even now the cruel treatment of women. All in a supposed effort to please God. But if you take God out of the picture, if there is no God, then these people were just using scripture as an excuse for doing what it took to stay in power, or to elevate themselves by destroying others. And people let them do it, they endured their suffering because of the promise of heaven or the threat of hell. Just give your suffering up to god and he will reward you in heaven. But if there is no heaven, and no God to be pleased by your suffering, then fight back. Try to change things. If nothing else, at least you'll be able to say you tried.
If there is no heaven, and no hell, and all that matters is *this* life, how would that change the way you looked at the world? What would you do to help?
It could be as simple as keeping this blog going, and trying to reach other women to help them see that they don't need to be enslaved to this belief system. In doing so, you might help save their children and grandchildren from suffering, and who know what one of them might do. It might be raising your own children to be the best they can be, and sending them out in to the world to make it better. It might be as simple as saving some antique skill or craft, so that bit of wisdom doesn't get lost to history. How that takes shape is totally up to you, what matters to you, what brings you joy. You'll know when you're on the right path.
Just something to think about.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vyckie and Laura,
Last April, I wrote a little article on my blog, dealing with 'conviction' vs. preferences. Based on what I read, you did not have a conviction, but a preference. A conviction is unshakable. A convictions stands the test of time. I think you need to rethink your words and realize what you had was a preference, thinking it was a convictions. You thought you were convicted, but in the end, you were not.
If you can stomach a read, from a Christian perspective, this is what I wrote:
Conviction vs. Preference
The definition of conviction, from the dictionary is: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. A strong persuasion or belief.
Preference: the act of preferring: the state of being preferred.
Prefer: to promote or advance to a rank or position, to choose or esteem above another, to give priority, to put or set forward or before someone, to bring forward or lay before one for consideration.
A few verses in scripture using the word ‘conviction’. ESV 1 Thess. 1:5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
Heb. 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
So how can a conviction be changed to a preference? Does that mean it was never a conviction? When we have a conviction about something, when we mature in our walks with the Lord, that conviction should grow stronger, developing stronger roots. However, I have been witnessing people who *appeared* to have convictions, said they had convictions but in the end, they changed their minds on many things. From what I am witnessing, there appears to be a growing number of Christians who have had preferences, but labeled them as convictions. I think we need to stop and re-evaluate our words and actions, to make sure we are not misleading people in what our stands are on issues. Yes, we can change our mind on stands, but then that’s a preference, not a conviction. I see greater confusion that takes place, when young (in their walk, not in age) Christians witness the flip flop of older, mature Christians.
One area I have witnessed a conviction changed to preference, is when parents have children who are sinning, or at the very least, going against the teachings their parents have raised them to understand. What’s a parent to do when a child has chosen to live in a manner not pleasing or in agreement to the parents and especially the Lord? I guess we come up with new definitions and new *convictions* that really aren’t convictions, but preferences. What was once a conviction for the family, has now been changed to make it appear that the grown child is not really sinning, as the parents have now changed their position on certain subjects. How about parents keeping their convictions and simply stating, “my child has chosen to live a different way then what we taught them, we don’t agree with it, but it’s their choices”. Rather than changing the conviction into a preference, how about sticking to our convictions and stating the facts as they are, as ugly and painful as they may be. We are being watched in our walks, and when we flip flop in our so called convictions, which now appear to be preferences, we are confusing the younger Christians, as well as older Christians. Before we take on a conviction, we should make sure we are searching it out in Scripture, so we know it to be based on Biblical principles, rather than on the teachings of an organization, a man or a church. Convictions should grow deeper; the roots should get stronger, not changed into a new tree.
Sometimes we think we have a conviction, until it has been tested, especially by those we love dearly. Who or what will we allow to rob our convictions?
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
arietty said...
I experienced the same thing Vyckie, as soon as the fundamentalism vanished I lost all that martyrdom drive and my energetic and endless productivity just vanished. LOL.
Reading your post I wondered if some christians were reading and nodding along thinking "that's what happens when you no longer have the holy spirit". I want to say that this experience of conviction driven energy to the point of martyrdom is not limited to christians. Just ask an ex-hari krishna why they no longer can imagine getting up at 4am and chanting for 2 hours and then working like a dog 'till late into the night. Many people experience this and don't call it the holy spirit. I think there is something of an adrenaline high to be had from this conviction drive that keeps feeding into itself. People often describe feeling "flat" when they are out of touch with this drive but often I think they just feel normal and not driven. But the high you get from being driven and convicted lures you back to seek that zone again.
I think it is telling that many people come to the end of this in their 40's. Your body is shifting into a new phase of wearing down, peri-menopause etc.. and a lot of things get re-examined. If not re-examined then a natural burning out occurs and some form of breakdown often happens because you just can't live like that anymore.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Vyckie said...
Now that I am making no claims to be a Christian ~ and therefore, am under no obligation to love my enemies ~ nevertheless, I'm going to show restraint and not post my immediate reaction to Kelly's comment above.
Instead, I'm going to get away from this computer, go have a beer and chill out. ‹(ô¿ô)›
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Annie C said...
Kelly -
The definition of conviction, from the dictionary is: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. A strong persuasion or belief.
Actually that's not quite what I found in the dictionary.
--------
From http://www.m-w.com:
conviction
One entry found.
Main Entry:
con·vic·tion
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈvik-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1: the act or process of convicting of a crime especially in a court of law
2 a: the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth b: the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth
3 a: a strong persuasion or belief b: the state of being convinced
synonyms see certainty, opinion
--------
There is nothing in there about the lack of a need for proof or evidence.
That said, what happened when you encounter proof and evidence that your conviction is false? That you have been believing a lie? Would holding on to your convictions then not be a sign of obstinacy? Of willful ignorance? Would you not then be teaching your children that there is no value in learning, in growth, because that would require encountering truths that you must not accept?
I find more value being able to change beliefs when presented with undeniable facts, with truth, then in stubborn obstinacy. And in teaching children to embrace all learning, rather than in shutting out what might make you change your mind.
Just out of curiosity, are you the same Kelly that was in "Return of the Daughters?"
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vyckie,
I hope that does not mean you consider me an enemy. As I stated, I wrote that back in April of '08. I wrote that because as a Christian, I have been watching many Christians dumping their 'convictions', in large part, due to the fact their grown children are walking away from some of the family 'preferences'. While it's sad to watch, it pains me more to see that parents are changing their own convictions, so that their older children no longer have the *appearance* of rebelling, sinning or whatever you want to call it. I would prefer to see parents say, that's my child's choice. We don't agree with it, but we love them anyway. I raise my children with the hope that they will understand the Bible. That they can read for themselves and apply God's Word and truth to their lives. It would pain me, deeply, to see them reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. In our family we have preferences, standards and convictions. A conviction is unmovable, period! A preference or standard can be changed.
I shared what I did with you as your story made my point, to some extent. When Angel attempted to take her life, for whatever those reasons were, it forced you to re-evaluate what you thought were your convictions, which in the end have turned out to be preference that changed.
Having read all your writing on this blog, so far, I can *guess* where your story twisted in the bends of the road of life, for your family, and how you got to where you are today. I have never read your writings, prior to this blog.
Abuse is never acceptable. My husband and I have walked the road, side by side, with a woman and her 4 children who were abused by her husband, to the point she was able to turn him in and he served time. She and her children went into hiding and changed their names. While I have never suffered abuse, I am, unfortunately, acquainted with it.
Not all men who walk out a quiverfull family style are abusive. Not all hockey coaches molest their players. Some men will abuse, many will not.
I think it was Molly who suggested women who have a quiverfull life style, need to reject the books that are coming out. Let me tell you, there are many of us out there rejecting books like were mentioned in that thread, and doing so, whole heartily.
I try to let people know, I do not have a perfectly clean home. I have children who are sinners, just like their parents. We are flawed. We are real people and it would be my desire that the notion of perfect house, perfect family, perfect home business, etc. are not promoted. They serve only to be put up on a pedestal, waiting to be knocked down. And, just as important, just because we are *real* in our family, I do not want to go to the extreme to show people we *fit in* with everyone else in the world, because we don't, really.
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
arietty said...
Kelly it seems to me you are saying that if a person decides their conviction was in error that it wasn't a conviction in the first place. This is a bit of a set up because you can discredit any one changing their minds by saying they weren't the real thing to begin with.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Linnea said...
Kelly, by your definition, "conviction" and "preference" can only be distinguished in hindsight. If it never changes, it's a conviction. If it changes, it's a preference. So really, unless you can see into the future, the only way to tell whether someone really had a conviction is to wait and see if they die with it, right?
You write:
I have been watching many Christians dumping their 'convictions', in large part, due to the fact their grown children are walking away from some of the family 'preferences'. While it's sad to watch, it pains me more to see that parents are changing their own convictions, so that their older children no longer have the *appearance* of rebelling, sinning or whatever you want to call it.
I don't think it's as simple as saying "I don't want to call my chid a sinner, so I'm going to redefine sin." I think, rather, what's happening is that parents are re-examining their beliefs in the light of the effect those beliefs have on the children: "If this causes my child so much pain, maybe it's not something I want to keep doing."
Thursday, April 09, 2009
adventuresinmercy said...
Kelly,
Thanks for your strong stance against abuse.
Here is where I admit that I am confused. You say that you are rejecting the books I mentioned in the earlier thread...yet you yourself seem to promote (regularly) Doug Phillips Vision Forum, where some of those very books are sold...?
(I am assuming you are Kelly of generationceder.blogspot.com ...? Please correct me if I have that wrong, because then you are obviously not the Kelly who lauds materials like Return of the Daughters, etc).
I would also encourage you to consider that maybe some of these parents, now older and wiser and having had the experience of actually walking with teens, are REVISING their convictions, not dumping them.
Sometimes younger parents, full of idealism, adopt convictions that aren't reflective of truly mature thinking, but more a youthful zeal to "do it right" without the circumspect wisdom that accompanies much experience. As their idealism meets reality, perhaps their experience with their teenagers and young adults has helped them correct the parts of their zealous convictions that experience proved to be misguided.
Priorities, you know. When our "convictions" cause us to lose the hearts of our children, a righteous response is to re-evaluate the conviction, not assume that the problem lies only in the heart of the child.
Warmly,
Molly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Annie C stated:
I find more value being able to change beliefs when presented with undeniable facts, with truth, then in stubborn obstinacy. And in teaching children to embrace all learning, rather than in shutting out what might make you change your mind.
I would agree with this statement. Being able to change is important. I was merely trying to show the difference between conviction and preference. We often mistake conviction with preference.
Just out of curiosity, are you the same Kelly that was in "Return of the Daughters?"
I have seen that movie and no, I am not that Kelly. I am an older mum with 6 children. I am speaking from age and observation of all I have been witnessing over the years, and in particular, the last few years. As a parent, I understand these changes, and as a Christian I understand conviction.
Vykie and Laura,
I am very concerned for your words you are sharing right now. Why? Because not much time has gone by before you have started sharing your stories, publicly. Not enough time has gone by to get perspective on all that has taken place, that takes a great amount of time. I have been reading and cringing as I read your words. I am glad to see that Laura altered her one story and took out some information. When you have innocent children who are reaping the consequences of the actions of their parents, these children need time to heal. I am embarrassed for the children to have to read this and to have others read it and share it with your children. Because not much time has gone by, you may again, change your mind on your beliefs. Time is your friend, not your enemy.
I think it would be more constructive to help the readers to understand, honestly, how the abuse came about and why. I do want to hear about how we can avoid abusive situations. How we can help those whom we think might be in those situations. I worry for my own children and who they may marry, as we are at that stage in life. Since you are planning on a book, please keep in mind the children. Can your stories be told in such a way as to show dignity to the parties involved, so that your children can actually read without being humiliated? How you get your story out will, in time, reflect greatly on your relationship with your children.
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
ISMist said...
I've been reading for several days, and finally feel comfortable interjecting myself into the conversation.
The starting point for my spiritual blossoming (and in my opinion, true adulthood and true growth as a person) was the realization that in most matters of belief there is no possibility of establishing objective truth. You might be able to prove or disprove some specific claim (the Earth is 4000 years old) but even then, 'truth' can be undermined by additional claims that cannot be disproved (God created the Earth so that it looks old, even though it isn't).
Rather than be overwhelmed by the vast unknowability of it all, I felt deeply free but also aware of a great responsibility. *I could believe anything I wanted.* So out of all those possibilities, I set about constructing a set of beliefs that I thought would result in me being the best person I could be, with the most opportunity for growth and happiness.
I could talk about this more, but I want to be brief, and just leave you with the idea that you can replace the old, borrowed, ill-fitting vision that QF gave you, with *anything you want*. What do you wish the meaning of life is? If it could mean anything, what would you want it to mean? What would give you joy to wake up to every day, but at the same time give you strength on those days that you don't wake up joyful? Pick that.
And if you find that the vision you choose for your life isn't leading you to your goals for who you are and want to be, pick something different. There is no right or wrong except as *you define it for yourself*.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
arietty said...
Kelly:"Because not much time has gone by, you may again, change your mind on your beliefs. Time is your friend, not your enemy."
And if that happens they may well post about it. Blogging can be a chronicle of one's life journey. Changing your mind is not a bad or scary thing, it's just growth.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Molly stated:
Here is where I admit that I am confused. You say that you are rejecting the books I mentioned in the earlier thread...yet you yourself seem to promote (regularly) Doug Phillips Vision Forum, where some of those very books are sold...?
Sorry, Molly, that's not me, I don't know who that is. I do not promote Dough Philips. I do not know the man, and take caution at some of his stands.
By the way, Molly. After I read a few of your comments here, I went looking at your blog. My heart aches for you. AK is a beautiful place, by the way.
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Linnea stated: I don't think it's as simple as saying "I don't want to call my chid a sinner, so I'm going to redefine sin." I think, rather, what's happening is that parents are re-examining their beliefs in the light of the effect those beliefs have on the children: "If this causes my child so much pain, maybe it's not something I want to keep doing."
In the families we have observed, it is more likely what I stated, as I have openly asked and question the moms. That's not to say your comments aren't true, just that in the families we have witnessed, it's mostly what I have shared, thus why I wrote what I did, last year. And I will take this one step further to state, I think it's because these families built those 'convictions' on an organization or a man, rather than on their own study of Scripture. It's too easy and takes less time to believe in what someone has already studied, than to do your own study, which is why there are so many problems.
I am sure there is a combination of things going on there. Standards should change, if they are being held for the wrong reasons or are being walked out inappropriately. For myself, I believe this is a life long journey. You keep evaluating your convictions and preferences, as you mature in your walk in life.
As for Above Rubies, I dumped reading that magazine years ago. I could, unfortunately, see the hypocrisy that was oozing from the pages, which was very sad. Vykie, I too would be interested in hearing your comments on Angel's stay at the Campbell's, unless Angel wants to share herself.
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Vyckie said...
No, Kelly ~ I don't actually consider you my enemy. To tell the truth, you remind me of myself not so long ago ~ so I can maybe understand where you are coming from.
When I first read your comment, my reaction was to be absolutely pissed off that you would come (seemingly from nowhere) and start right in telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding conviction. I will admit to using some pretty strong language out loud in response to your telling me that I was not really convicted ~ that I merely had "preferences."
I was thinking that you obviously haven't read my story here ~ because I absolutely DID NOT repeatedly risk my life for a "preference."
I did not "think" I had a conviction until it was tested ~ my conviction WAS tested over and over ~ I nearly died giving birth to my 4th child but that did not stop me from having 3 more because of my STRONG conviction that I would follow God "though He slay me."
No ~ it wasn't the testing of my convictions which led me to ditch Christianity and all the QF/P baggage which I had picked up along the way. As I have explained here, and I keep repeating ~ it was due to a year-long correspondence with my uncle, during which time I was willing to look honestly and critically at the core assumptions and teachings of Christianity and found that "sure foundation" to be not so solid after all.
If the Bible and the Christian faith had held up to my serious and diligent examination ~ and I still believed it, I would have found a way to make it all work. I would have continued on with my marriage ~ I would probably have had more children ~ I would have worked things out with Angel according to biblical principles. I would have stuck to my convictions ~ because if nothing else, I do have never been one to back down from what I believe just because the going got tough.
My daughter Angel did not have the "appearance" of rebellion ~ what she experienced was absolute and utter despair because the one whom she should have been able to count on to protect and affirm her humanity was too committed to an ideology to acknowledge that her pain was REAL.
Sorry, Kelly ~ but my story DOES NOT make your point.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vicky,
I have read all of your story that you have written on this blog and I read the Salon article and I listened to your interviews. I did comment in one other post, on immunization.
As it was positioned in the Salon article, it was your crisis with Angel that brought you to where you started questioning your faith. According to the article and your writings, it was that crisis and the writing to your uncle that brought you to where you are today. If I have misunderstood that, I am sorry.
Again, as I stated above, I believe you think they were convictions that you stood on. However, I would argue that they were not convictions as convictions will stand the test of time. You had an ideal that you were holding on to. When that ideal was challenged, it caved. Please also know, Vykie, I was not trying to insinuate that Angel was rebellious, that was not my point at all.
Sorry to have provoked you to anger, as that was not my intention, either. Thank you for being willing to take the risk to post my comments and to engage me in dialogue.
Kelly
Thursday, April 09, 2009
madame said...
Convictions, however strongly held, are subject to re-examination too!
Convictions can be based on a misinterpretation of Scripture, on passages taken out of context, or on overemphasizing one part of the text above another, ignoring other texts that would clearly temper or even eliminate the conviction, making it a very secondary issue.
I think it's perfectly possible to hold some very strong convictions at one point in life and later repent from them.
The pharisees held some very strong convictions that Jesus very strongly opposed...
Friday, April 10, 2009
jemand said...
Kelly, do YOU have convictions? What if you get Alzheimers and forget them someday? Does that mean you never had them? How could you possibly know that you have convictions? It seems like you don't want to allow anyone (except maybe yourself) to have convictions *now* and only measure them after the fact. How the heck is that useful?
Friday, April 10, 2009
a.b.e. said...
Vyckie,
I know what its like to hang onto some of the many Biblical idealogies out there in Christianland even when they were hurting me. I did this for many many years. I don't know why I did this. And they were convictions, not preferences. (I know you mean well Kelly, but they were convictions.)
I'm still a Christian, but I haven't figured out why I hung on to those hurtful matrydom beliefs. I wish I had had a more well balanced set of Christian convictions.
This is an area of my life that I don't understand. I lost a lot hanging onto those silly beliefs. Why did I do that in spite of evidence that they were impractical? I don't know.
Perhaps in time I will understand. If you gain any understanding in this area Vyckie I would appreciate hearing about it. Perhaps it will help me understand myself better.
Even though you no longer consider yourself a Christian, you still had have experiences that are partially similar to mine. And what you learn can help me to learn.
I think this blog site serves many purposes. Two of those are to help women reconsider male supremacy, and the second is to help Christians and former Christians understand why they believed what they believed. This is good and positive.
Like Vyckie and Laura, I had many experiences with the Lord during the time I had my matrydom complex. I don't know why God didn't point out the error of my complex as he was giving me other knowledge. Or perhaps Codependents Anonymous was meant to serve that purpose. I'm not sure. But I would have like to have never had the matrydom complex in the first place. I wish God had saved me from that as he/she saved me from many other things.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Vyckie said...
a.b.e. ~ I think I understand how you feel about this. A big question in my mind has been ~ Why didn't the Lord come through for me when I was SO devoted, SO sincere? That's something I'm still sorting out ~ and yes, writing about these things really does help me to think them through. I'm glad to know that what we're writing here is prompting others to think about their own beliefs and convictions too.
This morning I am working on another installment of my story. For everyone who's been anxious to hear from Laura ~ she will be posting her next installment hopefully later this morning.
As soon as I get a chance, I want to write about "Balance" ~ and my thoughts on that as a Christian.
Friday, April 10, 2009
aimai said...
I tend to always look at things from a social point of view, and not from an eternal one, so that makes Kelly's perspective on "convictions" both very obvious and very hard to argue with logically. Christianity is full of doubt and struggle, and Christians are often called upon to examine everything--what they want to do, what they desire, etc... so its not like Kelly, in her life as a Christian, can't imagine being wrong and changing her mind. Vyckie's story about her very high level of self criticism and a brief glance at any QF blog--and Cedar Generation is a good example although I realize that the Kelly posting here is not the Kelly from CG--shows that doubting the self with regard to god is a huge part of that branch of the religion.
But at the same time some things are not thought to be susceptible to doubt, or not for long, or not publicly. And the existence of the one god, and the believer's relationship to that god, and what the believer has come to believe about what that god wants, are not to be doubted--or not publicly--or not finally.
So there's no point arguing with someone like Kelly because its terribly important to their sense of themselves as christians and as saved that they never, ever, doubt themselves or their conclusions in re their religion. They can doubt other people's status, they can criticize other people. And they can doubt and criticize themselves. But they can't admit that the same radical doubt can reside in the hands and minds of other people *just like themselves* who were christians but who have changed their minds.
We just finished passover--a passover haggadah based on the notion that the original words of god in the Torah are both precious and opaque in meaning. You have to query everything--ask why this and not that?--over and over and over again. You have to play with the meanings to arrive at a meaning that makes sense for you, for this time, for the new things that have happened in the world.
Of course Vyckie had to rethink her "convictions" after they nearly got her killed in childbirth. She either had to rethink her conviction, or rethink god, or both. That's totally within the monotheistic tradition and is called the problem of theodicy or god's relation to suffering. If he is all powerful and permits suffering he can't be considered all loving. If he is all loving and would prevent suffering if he could then he can't be all powerful. Vyckie came to the point in her life when she couldn't justify for herself the conviction that god both loved her and wanted her to suffer and wanted Angel to suffer.
Anyone who contradicts that with a story about how god's love is really going to be shown some other way, some other time, to some other vyckie is really pushing the limits of logic and of courtesy. And essentially that is what Kelly, and KR (in a sense) and the others who keep insisting that if only vyckie had had "real" convictions that couldn't be changed by real circumstances; or "true" appreciation of the right kind of Christian lovingkindness, etc... are insisting. That if Vyckie (and angel) could just have waited they would have found out that all would be revealed? Or if they'd just loved the right christian god in the right way they wouldn't have had those problems?
If any of the posters here who are sincerely convinced of what god wants, when, and from who were actually as true believers as they pretend to be they would admit that god's plan for vyckie is probably beyond their ken and let her get on with living her life as she sees fit. Its all part of god's plan, after all!
aimai
Friday, April 10, 2009
aimai said...
On convictions vs. preferences.
Kelly's brief point about convictions vs. preferences strikes me as important. She says that convictions are "real" because they are immutable while preferences are mutable. Her example, that people whose chilren start to "sin" suddenly realize that their relationship to the "sinner" is not what they thought it was and they stop preaching or lecturing or abusing the sinner and try to live with the sinner is a really interesting one. Kelly's analysis is that they are, in a sense, "insincere" in their previous "convictions" because they change their "convictions" becuase they "prefer" a new, easier, state of affairs.
I have two things to say about that. First, of course, "convictions" can be "preferences" in the sense that, as someone pointed out upthread in the post on "magnifying" some parts of the bible over others, *every* can be and probably is a "preference." No christian holds each part of the (often contradictory) christian scriptures in equal regard. Kelly over at Cedar Generation is totally focused on judging--she despises "judge not lest ye be judged." Her conviction is that the duty of christians is to judge each other harshly is her personal preference too.
So what are we to make of people who change their mind about the meaning of a particular scripture? Well, Kelly would say that changing your mind only happens because you weakly "prefer" a new state of affairs to the old. It was easy for you to be convicted that gayness or abortion were "wrong" when they didn't impact you through your children. But once you find out your son is gay you prefer a new state of affairs where you don't have to shun him. So, ergo, you were never sincere and did not correctly "know" what god wanted before.
But the only way to prove a conviction in Kelly's sense is either to die with the same beliefs or to live in agony, with pain, because your belief is emphatically not your preference. That'll show them! You love your child and discover that his homosexuality doesn't, actually, make him a worse person. Further you discover that he is *never* going to agree with your interpretation of the bible so that continually witnessing to him and chastising him turns out to have zero effect. You then have a choice to reject and shun him or to decide that god doesn't want you to shun your child but to continue loving him and hoping that someday he will change his sexual orientation or change his mind about the role of your christianity in his life, or that you can be there for him in this life to the very end. Under Kelly's view if you decide to focus on one part of your relatinship with your son (his sonship) and stop magnifying his homosexuality you are "preferring" to do it and lacked all real "conviction." But if you painfully, angrily, sorrowfully reject your child you have true "conviction" because you actually would have "preferred" something else and your very suffering is proof that your conviction comes from some other place, some higher place, and not from your mere personal preferences.
I think that leads directly to what a.b.e. called her "martyrdom complex." Anyone who can read the story of job and decide that the right thing to do is to submit to the whims of an angry god by more submission and more prostration and more love and self abnegation is, in deed, suffering from a martyr complex. At any rate they are going to be martyred. And if you are going to be martyred you'd better be darned sure that its worth the martyrdom because its otherwise just a kind of soul suicide that can take a lot of other people down with it.
aimai
Friday, April 10, 2009
a.b.e. said...
Thanks Vycke. You are helping me because I'm seeing someone who did things of a somewhat similar nature to what I did.
If people knew what I did while I was living out my matrydom complex for Christ - they would think I was totally insane. I haven't been able to share that with anyone yet. I think it will be awhile before I can because there are so many embarrassing aspects to it.
I acted out my matrydom complex apart from the belief in male supremacy. But even so, I still suffered as a result of it.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Kaderin said...
Conviction is both religion's greatest strength and greatest weakness. It empowers people with zeal to follow a cause till the bitter end and yet nothing stops the cause from being destructive, self-destructive or even both (think suicide bombers)
As a sidenote, the CS Lewis quote has an atheist and a tad mean version: I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen - because I am 500 years behind on my science education and have no idea how the universe works.
For those who didn't get it: it's one of the pitfalls of the english language to say the sun rises, because as Galileo observed 500 years ago, it does not. The rotation of the Earth gives it the illusion of rising. Apply to quote and God above ;D
Sorry for the brief comment, I have so much more to say, but my PC is not letting me post comments - I can't choose a name *grr* So I'm currently posting from a Mac and don't have much time *sigh*
Friday, April 10, 2009
Anonymous said...
aimai,
It is exactly your belittling and misrepresenting of other poster's words that made me not want to share on this blog, at all. The reason I chose to share yesterday, is because I have already examined the word conviction and wanted to present a definition of conviction I had wrote about, last year.
So for you to make statements about me not being able to examine whether or not I have been right or wrong on anything is disingenuous. I am a thinker and question a good many things, to the point of driving people crazy.
I am in no way saying that people should not re-examine beliefs they hold on to. I am simply stating a conviction stands the test of time. If it does not stand the test of time, it is simply not a conviction. Laura stated her 'fire insurance' reasons for holding on to her faith. That's not a conviction. She was holding on to an ideal, based upon fear. Vyckie walked away from her ideals, believing she had convictions. Convictions are immovable. I don't doubt that she had experiences. She is free to call them convictions, as we are all free to chose names we want to use for things in this life; however, I am trying to point to definitions on the word and conviction, by definition, is unshakable. Vykie's belief system came crashing down, that's simply not a conviction, even though she believed it was. Perhaps through this discussion, she may come to realize conviction wasn't the right word as she re-examines that part of her life.
Kelly
Friday, April 10, 2009
Anonymous said...
Aimai,
If a son turns to homosexuality, but rejects the Bible, you still love them, according to Scripture. If the child wants to claim to be a Christian, and practice homosexuality, then that is where the separation comes in. And yes, that is where conviction vs. preference will come into play, as to what a person really believes. It is my belief, that people take up a 'martyrdom complex', all too often, for wrongly held beliefs or prideful reasons.
I want those who hold convictions to understand the differences in the words. It becomes confusing to people, who understand the word, 'conviction' to see people use the word incorrectly. I understand that words change over time and perhaps, that's what might be taking place right now. However, conviction, such as in the justice system, is to be unmovable....but we see how that is also changing, thus almost mocking the word 'conviction'. Convictions are being over-turned a little too often, making a mockery of the justice system. If, however, a conviction of a criminal was in fact wrong, then it should be re-examined and the person set free, wiping the record clean of any conviction and title of criminal.
Kelly
Friday, April 10, 2009
jemand said...
"It becomes confusing to people, who understand the word, 'conviction' to see people use the word incorrectly."
Exactly.
"Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Princess Bride
Friday, April 10, 2009
Some Woman said...
Disclaimer: I am not Christian. I identify as an agnostic deist.
Convictions in this context seem to me to be beliefs that will not be shaken despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Convictions frighten me. Convictions cause people to do things that don't make any rational sense at all. They don't allow for shades of grey, for circumstances outside of their narrow definitions. In your case, one situation was a near-death experience during childbirth. I can't imagine a loving husband would put his wife's life in danger for more children after that, even though your previous plan was to have as many children as would happen. A reasonable person would take into account their changing environment. If God is so omnipotent, surely he would acknowlege that all of his people are indivuals with unique circumstances. Convictions in this context take away from personal responibility by making everything that happens somebody else's "fault" (God in this case).
Friday, April 10, 2009
Linnea said...
Kelly, I still have a question for you: how can we tell, in the present moment, that someone's religious ideas will not change in the future? If that's what distinguishes a conviction from a preference, no one can be definitively said to have a conviction until they die and there is no longer any possibility that their ideas will change. Therefore, as I see it, the distinction between "conviction" and "preference" has no useful application to actual life.
Again, unless you're clairvoyant, there is no way to distinguish whether a belief I strongly hold at the present is a "conviction" (i.e., a belief I will hold forever) or a "preference" (a belief that I will no longer hold at some future date).
In common usage, "conviction" refers to a strongly held belief, regardless of whether that belief may change in the future. "Preference" refers to a less strongly held belief. I don't think it's useful to judge that a person's belief was not strongly held in the past, simply because it has changed in the present.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose Vicky had died in childbirth (perish the thought!). Looking at her life until that point, wouldn't you say that she was "convicted" in her Christian beliefs? Or are you saying that it's someone possible to tell that her belief at that point was mere "preference"?
Friday, April 10, 2009
aimai said...
Well, I've already posted on this too much and my previous posts are being held in moderation. But I can't resist.
OK, Kelly,
You say:
If a son turns to homosexuality, but rejects the Bible, you still love them, according to Scripture. If the child wants to claim to be a Christian, and practice homosexuality, then that is where the separation comes in.
What does "separation" have to mean for it to be in accordance with a true "conviction" and when does the separation that the "convicted" Christian parent choose slide over into an impermissible (to you) mere "preference?" If we go by scripture surely the punishment for homosexuality could be literally anything, from stoning to shunning. But say that there's a bit of scripture that Kelly approves that indicates the parents should go on "loving" their child. Is there a definitive scriptural admonition that they *have* to follow about how much love is ok? Is it ok if they see their son every day but still chastise him verbally? Is it ok if they see their son on major christian holidays at his new (episcopal) christian church where he is ministered to by Reveren Gene Robinson or is it only ok if they get up out of the pew and shout "get thee behind me satan?"
I'm serious--how is a person who is *not Kelly* without Kelly's personal perspective on scripture, interpretation, and knowledge supposed to know what is the convicted thing to do here? Because I would clearly come to a completely different conviction, and a completely different course of action, than Kelly presumably would. And not only me, but plenty of those Christians that Kelly thinks are falling away from the true path because of personal convenience and preference.
My self like the expression "she who lives the longest will see the most." In other words--we prize maturity, growth, experience in most things why would we suddenly reject it in religious perception? Surely the understanding of a new mother, or an old grandmother, is actually *better* than that of a child? So, to my mind, setting aside the totally spurious and uninteresting distinction between "conviction" and "preference", I would prefer the mature consideration of an older woman like Vyckie, reflecting on her life to the immature vision of the younger Vyckie who can not imagine just how bad things can get for her children. Because she *knows more* and therefore she can *think harder* about important things like biblical interpretation.
aimai
Friday, April 10, 2009
a.b.e. said...
My convictions changed, or should I say they took a new direction. My Christian co-dependence or (shall I say matyrdom) made me almost despair of life itself. The terrible burden it placed on me was enormous, more than I could ever handle. It was killing me. The emotions here are so personal I can't bring myself to precisely what I want to say.
Well, my convictions made a turn through time spent in co-dependents anonymous and therapy. And I am still working on this issue years after becoming aware of it. Somehow the matrydom becomes so ingrained in you that you can't imagine Christian life without it.
My point is that my convictions changed, or shall I matured with CODA, therapy and reading self help books.
This blogs and the discussions here are on touching on areas in which I am in process of receiving healing, but need much more.
I can never express how much CODA did for me.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Vyckie said...
aimai ~ have you written something that has not been posted? If so, your comment must have been gobbled by the evil Blogger comment monster ‹(ô¿ô)› ~ because I've published all the comments that have come through on this thread. Hopefully you made a copy of your writings and will repost. Sorry!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Vyckie said...
a.b.e. ~ I agree that once that martyr mentality enters your thinking, it's pretty hard to shake. I'm still dealing with it just about every day. So glad you found help through CODA. It is a process ~ as someone else mentioned here ~ sometimes it seems like one step forward and two steps back. Ugh. I know it's tough, but hang in there, okay?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Anonymous said...
Linnea and Aimai, I hope to answer your questions, later tonight. Right now, I need to prepare to leave the house for several hours.
Just two quick thoughts. I believe many people refer to strongly held ideals/beliefs and call them 'convictions' when they are not.
Like Vyckie, I too had labor/delivery issues, willing to give of my life to have the beautiful blessings of children. I even had an alternative family picked out to take my last baby, should I not survive. That way if my husband found it was going to be too difficult to have a baby, we knew the baby would go to a very good home. I am not speaking from hypothetical, but from reality, my own. I will expand on this later.
Kelly
Friday, April 10, 2009
Xara said...
Until I began reading this blog, I had never heard the word conviction used in the way it is used here. It was not something that was included in the version of Christianity I grew up with. We talked about beliefs, and being convinced of various things, but never convictions.
To me the idea of being convicted of something connotates a negative thing that happens TO someone rather than being something one actively deliberately does or believes. As in someone being convicted of a crime. That person can still in fact be innocent, but they have been convicted by the court. I realize that convict and convince probably come from the same root word, but I don't usually hear conviction used in this manner.
This is obviously a hot button word for some.
If Vyckie says she was truly convinced and believed with her heart that she was doing the right thing at the time, and then later changed her mind, that doesn't negate the fact that she believed it at the time. The insistence on whether or not she was truly convicted of these things or not and whether or not her conviction was REAL or not seems counter-productive to me. These beliefs were real to her at the time, and were what she used to steer her life at the time. Someone else saying that because she later changed her mind they were not TRUE CONVICTIONS, seems to be a way of invalidating her experiences and being holier than thou. The fact that she had these beliefs and steered her life by them makes them valid regardless of what someone decides to call them.
Words have various meanings and connotations for different people, particularly in different communities. Each community has its own vocabulary that is not always obvious or accessible to those outside that community. For instance I am a science fiction and fantasy fan as well as a gamer. There are a number of words and phrases used commonly in fandom that are not used elsewhere, or that are used differently than by those outside the group. And often when communication with others I need to find different words to express myself than I would when speaking to another gamer or member of fandom. The explanation is often longer but that is because of the lack of shared vocabulary.
I am probably getting off topic here, but conviction seems to be one of the QF/P community's "in words."
I wish you all health and happiness.
Xara
Friday, April 10, 2009
Grandma Lou Ann said...
Convictions. Preferences. Circumstances.
Can I throw in another idea? Automatic pilot. Like in Angel's case, being brought up in a home where all you ever knew appeared to be 'normal' because you were always surrounded by people whose 'convictions' were like everyone else's. Same with preferences. If you are living with someone who gives you NO choices, how do you ever develop 'preferences'?
I grew up with an alcoholic mother. Looking back, which is all I can do, Mom had very few 'convictions'. But she had preferences, and hers were to spend time with people who loved to party and drink and dance. That is all I knew also. Laugh it up...many jokes. Seeing Mom drinking, being 'hung over', these were 'normal' ways of living to me. Being expected to bring her aspirin, barf pans, OJ...that was how I won her approval. I did it so automatically it was like breathing.
When I was about ten, we moved next door to a church. My best friend went there with her mom, and they invited me to go with them. Hey, Sunday mornings Mom almost always 'slept in', and it was simply a matter of walking out our back door and in the church's front door. Beat staying home and watching Mom wake up, stagger around moaning and puking a lot.
The first time I actually went to someone else's house and saw another 'normal' I was shocked...."You mean....your mom and dad.....don't ....go out ....and....drink? Party? What do they do for fun? What? Play board games with you and your brothers? Go visit other families? WOW!"
So Angel, like me, went through the first bunch of years of her life on 'automatic pilot', not knowing what was real, what other people's ideas, preferences, convictions were...she just did whatever it took to get through another day...until she grew up, moved away from home, and INSTANT CULTURE SHOCK!
People who are in controlling relationships quickly become SO on Auto-pilot they can't recognize the situation they are in for what it is...being controlled.
This is why it is quite often absolutely necessary for a third party, unemotionally attached, to intervene...someone who is not so close they are unable to see. Someone who is not afraid to call it what it is, and will not back down or become intimidated, as so many who live there are...just my 2 cents worth...BTDT...not fun.
But you know, I've often heard it said, and it's true, we don't miss what we never knew we had...like the baby elephant tethered its whole life by a tiny string does not know what freedom is. So it doesn't miss that freedom. It just exists. Period.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Ann S said...
Linnea- I just want to say that I really like the logical way you thought this through and I would love to hear Kelly's answer to your questions.
Kelly- I think overall this is a pretty respectful group. What happened is that in downgrading Vyckie's level of commitment from level 1 to level 2 (the words attached to these levels are irrelevant), you pretty much implied she wasn't trying hard enough when she literally put her life on the line for her beliefs. This may not be what you intended, but that's how it came across. That's probably why people are piling on a bit in the comments.
Friday, April 10, 2009
W. Lotus said...
Leaving fundamentalist Christianity was the beginning of me learning how to be kind to myself, so I can relate to your relief at having your biggest critic off your back, Vyckie. :-)
Friday, April 10, 2009
Annie C said...
aimai and Some Woman, you both said it far better than I ever could. *g*
Friday, April 10, 2009