Post by cindy on Jan 25, 2010 16:50:08 GMT -5
I could not find the intro that I posted several months ago when I first signed up here, and I didn’t want to hijack the Prairie Muffin/Pole Dancer thread, so ...
My motive for involvement in the discussion:
I grew up attending an Assemblies of God church and supplemented this with various other charismatic experiences ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous over the years. That journey carried me to a Gothard/shepherding/cultic/spiritually abusive church and denomination in the Maryland/DC area where I attended and left after four years. After cult exit counseling in Maryland (without which I don’t know if I’d have survived this life-altering experience), I actually ended up at a church that Doug Phillips and many of his followers attended immediately before he started his own local church in the San Antonio, TX area. (Seeking refuge from charismania, we thought we would be “safe” from things cultic in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after relocation in Texas. Ha! I now live in the Detroit area, BTW.)
I believe that I had a duty to my peers who were vulnerable to these groups to share what I’d learned about thought reform and spiritual abuse in Christian churches, as well as my experiences in the OPC. I also hoped to advocate for the childless like me due to chronic illness, infertility, etc. -- those who did not have children because of life circumstances other than "hatred of children and motherhood," "rejection of God's Lordship," "selfish self-interest," "feminism," or whatever mean-spirited thing come up with... We are denied personhood in many churches and circles even if they are not QF or VF, and the overt ones are cruel and punitive.
Andrew Sandlin (former president of Chalcedon) published my writings on this topic in 2004, though I did not name Vision Forum specifically so that it would apply to the largest possible demographic. In the late Spring of 2007, I stopped supporting several ministries because of their open support of Vision Forum. I had the opportunity to work at informing the rest of the Church about patriarchy’s abuses as though it was “my job,” at the time (which I did for two full years). Toward that end, I started blogging in 2007(to interject the social psychology perspective into what was previously just counter-cult) and presented a workshop on the subject of Vision Forum’s patriarchy at a counter-cult conference in 2008 (video of which is on both Vimeo and YouTube). I was also pretty active on several blogs that criticize the extremes of QF and patriarchy during that time. (That’s where I met up with “Madame,” as noted in the Prairie Muffin vs Pole Dancer thread.)
My personal beliefs:
I am still an Evangelical Christian, but I follow a non-hegemonic theology that corresponds somewhat with “New Covenant Theology” but is not consistent with it. I’m still very much an evangelical Christian, but my epistemology is “coherentism,” so I am willing and am not threatened to consider ideas and collaborate with those with whom I do not share religious beliefs. (This differs dramatically from the “foundationalist” epistemology demanded by patriarchalists like Doug Phillips who is only willing to consider axiomatic truths from “acceptable and untainted sources,” reducing if not vilifying any value of input from traditions at odds with his own.) I believe and contend that patriarchy never preached the gospel of the Bible but promoted a subtly skewed but very different one that contained distorted elements of the real thing making it far worse from a Christian perspective.
I believe passionately in the reformed concept of the “five solas,” and I consider the Bible to be authoritative. When I state the reasons that support my own views, I do not consider the discourse to be any type of personal repudiation of people contending for different views, whatever they are. (Why would I contend for them or follow them passionately myself if I didn’t think they were the wisest?) I am comfortable with agreeing to disagree on matters of belief without those issues becoming personal ones. But, I don’t believe that it diminishes me personally in any way if atheists think me a deluded fool, confabulating a programmed meaning and causality through the highly creative abilities of the right side of my cerebral hemisphere, so long as that atheist understands that I do not think less of them as a person for holding a different causality from my own!
[b]My approach to NLQ (and other belief systems to which I do not ascribe) in light of the general mission of getting free from patriarchy:
[/b][/u]
Many people (Evangelicals) find my approach to NLQ problematic. For them, let me state that I neither believe atheism personally nor do I wish to encourage anyone to swing over to atheism after exiting patriarchy/QF. I also believe that people are best served to recover privately for at least 2 years before they speak about their experience in a public forum. (But as my friend says, “People in hell want ice water, but they don’t get it!”) I am not paternalistic, just opinionated! However, I have no issue with supporting any efforts that get people out of systems of religious or personal exploitation and manipulation, particularly patriarchy, so I am supportive of NLQ. To me, exiting a group and choosing one’s faith are two separate issues, and for many Christians, they are not.
To draw an analogy, if patriarchy and QF is an ideology like unto a burning building, my first desire and objective is clearly to help encourage and support people to choose to get out of the building. I would like to see all people leave patriarchy, though I also believe it is their right as an American to worship as they choose. It’s America! We can pray to a potted plant if we so choose. (Our founding fathers did not intend a theocracy in the sense that many now promote!)
I also am willing to “fight the fire” and have done so (which involves criticism of and exposure of the abuses in patriarchy, per this analogy). I would like to see the fire of the abuse of patriarchy extinguished, but not by paternalistic means.
My second objective would be “helping the people outside of the burning building” who are “outside on the street” in active distress. Following this analogy, I am a Christian, so I view Evangelical Christianity to be the best place to receive care for burns and smoke inhalation! (And good, balanced, safehospitals churches are difficult to find, in my experience as I am currently searching for a place where I click and feel very comfortable, too.) But for those who find hospitals to be unsafe, Christianity may not be adequate for them to recover or may be the worst place imaginable, depending on their own unique experience. That is why I am supportive of the Take Heart Project, though I am very grieved that this resource did not emerge from a Christian organization. I’m troubled deeply that the Evangelical Church at large views the subculture of patriarchy to be “fringe” and not worthy of significant attention.
I am a nurse by profession, and if people injured in a literal fire would not be willing to go to a hospital after exiting a burning building, I am very willing to render care to them on the street, in a home, or at a community center. (You could call those alternate locations “atheism,” though it is my personal opinion that healthy Christianity would be the most ideal “place” to be.) Though my perspective is expressly Christian, I find much value in the thought reform/spiritual abuse literature which I see as equally helpful to all people. I therefore aspire to make the information available to all people, just like I would be willing to wash the wounds of a person who couldn’t handle the hospital. And I can’t say as I blame anyone for considering atheism after having the rot of patriarchy shoved down their throats and as they contend with the aftermath.
For Christians who find my approach problematic, consider that if a person emerging from a group was manipulated and thus got involved in the first place without proper “informed consent” regarding the reality of what the group really was, it is very wrong to likewise manipulate the person exiting a group. If I demand that a vulnerable person accept my belief system at the height of their vulnerability, I am no better than the coercive and covert manipulators. I believe, from an exit counsel standpoint that differs from my position as a Christian, that people must first awaken and establish their own critical thinking skills that have been blunted and lulled to sleep as a consequence of the cult’s covert mind control.
They must also find a place of safety where they must think through their involvement in order to make peace with themselves and their history (and God, if the so choose – because even God does not ask of us what patriarchy does through social force and coercion by allowing us to reject Him). That involves emotional honesty and what is often going to involve much unpleasant emotional purging. When the person has recovered enough and reintegrated their experience, their choice of faith (in atheism or God or whatever) should be entirely their own in the human sense, or at least free from human coercion.
Anyway, that should be helpful to those who are trying to figure me out here. And as a member of the human race, I’m also working to figure myself out! I aspire to figure out how to best accomplish my intended objectives as stated, and I am figuring that out, too. It doesn’t always go according to my high aspirations, but I am learning. You are among my most valued teachers.
……
If your eyes aren’t bleeding by now, you can read more about spiritual abuse and thought reform at my site: www.UnderMuchGrace.com.
For anyone who’s even more morbidly curious now, I have a longer testimony online: tiny.cc/Waea1
And, I recently posted about my difficulties with Bible study in the aftermath of everything which also contains some personal experience: tiny.cc/TjVDC
And there’s the stuff on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog: tiny.cc/KoBmd
And then, there’s the blog I put together that intends to dispel the myths about the virtues of the Victorian Period (and eventually, Gothard’s Glorious 1950’s): victoriantruth.blogspot.com/
My motive for involvement in the discussion:
I grew up attending an Assemblies of God church and supplemented this with various other charismatic experiences ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous over the years. That journey carried me to a Gothard/shepherding/cultic/spiritually abusive church and denomination in the Maryland/DC area where I attended and left after four years. After cult exit counseling in Maryland (without which I don’t know if I’d have survived this life-altering experience), I actually ended up at a church that Doug Phillips and many of his followers attended immediately before he started his own local church in the San Antonio, TX area. (Seeking refuge from charismania, we thought we would be “safe” from things cultic in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after relocation in Texas. Ha! I now live in the Detroit area, BTW.)
I believe that I had a duty to my peers who were vulnerable to these groups to share what I’d learned about thought reform and spiritual abuse in Christian churches, as well as my experiences in the OPC. I also hoped to advocate for the childless like me due to chronic illness, infertility, etc. -- those who did not have children because of life circumstances other than "hatred of children and motherhood," "rejection of God's Lordship," "selfish self-interest," "feminism," or whatever mean-spirited thing come up with... We are denied personhood in many churches and circles even if they are not QF or VF, and the overt ones are cruel and punitive.
Andrew Sandlin (former president of Chalcedon) published my writings on this topic in 2004, though I did not name Vision Forum specifically so that it would apply to the largest possible demographic. In the late Spring of 2007, I stopped supporting several ministries because of their open support of Vision Forum. I had the opportunity to work at informing the rest of the Church about patriarchy’s abuses as though it was “my job,” at the time (which I did for two full years). Toward that end, I started blogging in 2007(to interject the social psychology perspective into what was previously just counter-cult) and presented a workshop on the subject of Vision Forum’s patriarchy at a counter-cult conference in 2008 (video of which is on both Vimeo and YouTube). I was also pretty active on several blogs that criticize the extremes of QF and patriarchy during that time. (That’s where I met up with “Madame,” as noted in the Prairie Muffin vs Pole Dancer thread.)
My personal beliefs:
I am still an Evangelical Christian, but I follow a non-hegemonic theology that corresponds somewhat with “New Covenant Theology” but is not consistent with it. I’m still very much an evangelical Christian, but my epistemology is “coherentism,” so I am willing and am not threatened to consider ideas and collaborate with those with whom I do not share religious beliefs. (This differs dramatically from the “foundationalist” epistemology demanded by patriarchalists like Doug Phillips who is only willing to consider axiomatic truths from “acceptable and untainted sources,” reducing if not vilifying any value of input from traditions at odds with his own.) I believe and contend that patriarchy never preached the gospel of the Bible but promoted a subtly skewed but very different one that contained distorted elements of the real thing making it far worse from a Christian perspective.
I believe passionately in the reformed concept of the “five solas,” and I consider the Bible to be authoritative. When I state the reasons that support my own views, I do not consider the discourse to be any type of personal repudiation of people contending for different views, whatever they are. (Why would I contend for them or follow them passionately myself if I didn’t think they were the wisest?) I am comfortable with agreeing to disagree on matters of belief without those issues becoming personal ones. But, I don’t believe that it diminishes me personally in any way if atheists think me a deluded fool, confabulating a programmed meaning and causality through the highly creative abilities of the right side of my cerebral hemisphere, so long as that atheist understands that I do not think less of them as a person for holding a different causality from my own!
[b]My approach to NLQ (and other belief systems to which I do not ascribe) in light of the general mission of getting free from patriarchy:
[/b][/u]
Many people (Evangelicals) find my approach to NLQ problematic. For them, let me state that I neither believe atheism personally nor do I wish to encourage anyone to swing over to atheism after exiting patriarchy/QF. I also believe that people are best served to recover privately for at least 2 years before they speak about their experience in a public forum. (But as my friend says, “People in hell want ice water, but they don’t get it!”) I am not paternalistic, just opinionated! However, I have no issue with supporting any efforts that get people out of systems of religious or personal exploitation and manipulation, particularly patriarchy, so I am supportive of NLQ. To me, exiting a group and choosing one’s faith are two separate issues, and for many Christians, they are not.
To draw an analogy, if patriarchy and QF is an ideology like unto a burning building, my first desire and objective is clearly to help encourage and support people to choose to get out of the building. I would like to see all people leave patriarchy, though I also believe it is their right as an American to worship as they choose. It’s America! We can pray to a potted plant if we so choose. (Our founding fathers did not intend a theocracy in the sense that many now promote!)
I also am willing to “fight the fire” and have done so (which involves criticism of and exposure of the abuses in patriarchy, per this analogy). I would like to see the fire of the abuse of patriarchy extinguished, but not by paternalistic means.
My second objective would be “helping the people outside of the burning building” who are “outside on the street” in active distress. Following this analogy, I am a Christian, so I view Evangelical Christianity to be the best place to receive care for burns and smoke inhalation! (And good, balanced, safe
I am a nurse by profession, and if people injured in a literal fire would not be willing to go to a hospital after exiting a burning building, I am very willing to render care to them on the street, in a home, or at a community center. (You could call those alternate locations “atheism,” though it is my personal opinion that healthy Christianity would be the most ideal “place” to be.) Though my perspective is expressly Christian, I find much value in the thought reform/spiritual abuse literature which I see as equally helpful to all people. I therefore aspire to make the information available to all people, just like I would be willing to wash the wounds of a person who couldn’t handle the hospital. And I can’t say as I blame anyone for considering atheism after having the rot of patriarchy shoved down their throats and as they contend with the aftermath.
For Christians who find my approach problematic, consider that if a person emerging from a group was manipulated and thus got involved in the first place without proper “informed consent” regarding the reality of what the group really was, it is very wrong to likewise manipulate the person exiting a group. If I demand that a vulnerable person accept my belief system at the height of their vulnerability, I am no better than the coercive and covert manipulators. I believe, from an exit counsel standpoint that differs from my position as a Christian, that people must first awaken and establish their own critical thinking skills that have been blunted and lulled to sleep as a consequence of the cult’s covert mind control.
They must also find a place of safety where they must think through their involvement in order to make peace with themselves and their history (and God, if the so choose – because even God does not ask of us what patriarchy does through social force and coercion by allowing us to reject Him). That involves emotional honesty and what is often going to involve much unpleasant emotional purging. When the person has recovered enough and reintegrated their experience, their choice of faith (in atheism or God or whatever) should be entirely their own in the human sense, or at least free from human coercion.
Anyway, that should be helpful to those who are trying to figure me out here. And as a member of the human race, I’m also working to figure myself out! I aspire to figure out how to best accomplish my intended objectives as stated, and I am figuring that out, too. It doesn’t always go according to my high aspirations, but I am learning. You are among my most valued teachers.
……
If your eyes aren’t bleeding by now, you can read more about spiritual abuse and thought reform at my site: www.UnderMuchGrace.com.
For anyone who’s even more morbidly curious now, I have a longer testimony online: tiny.cc/Waea1
And, I recently posted about my difficulties with Bible study in the aftermath of everything which also contains some personal experience: tiny.cc/TjVDC
And there’s the stuff on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome blog: tiny.cc/KoBmd
And then, there’s the blog I put together that intends to dispel the myths about the virtues of the Victorian Period (and eventually, Gothard’s Glorious 1950’s): victoriantruth.blogspot.com/
