|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 14, 2010 15:23:27 GMT -5
Another thought: I don't see QF as being structured around one central authority figure, true. But what I do seem to see is a conglomeration of small fiefdoms, each with a patriarchal authority figure (a husband-father) at its head. Each fiefdom seeks to expand its own wealth and influence according to each micro-lord's inclinations. Some of them, like the Pearls, increase their power and wealth by setting rules for all the others.
Just because the authoritarianism is unstructured, makes it no less authoritarian.
And that's why I'm inclined to include the "conformity" aspects as part of the authoritarian control-- because when there is no centralized authority, conformity is one of the ways power is maintained within the group.
As Sierra points out, what diversity is allowed, is superficial. Some latitude is given with regards to the less important choices. I think Cindy has called this aspect of cultic control "bounded choice." But conformity to those things that are actually considered rules (such as wifely submission and having-- or at least professing complete willingness to have-- lots of children) is a must.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 21, 2010 0:22:51 GMT -5
I'm hoping we can get some more discussion/examples here of how authoritarianism and heirarchical control happens in Quiverfull. Since this is NOT a centralized group organized around one or two leaders, we obviously can't give examples of that type of authoritarian control here. We have to talk about the ways authoritarian control happens in Quiverfull movements. Sierra spoke of "invisible" power structures in The Message group. So if the power structures are hidden, how is it that they do work? Looking back on it, my dear ex-QFers, what controls were you actually under, whether you were aware of them or not? I have gotten the impression that peer-pressure is a huge controlling factor in QF; hence my lumping of ideas of "conformity" together with "authoritarianism." Just because there isn't a visible figure at the top, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Please give me examples of how you feel you were controlled. Authoritarianism is one of the biggest and most damaging factors in spiritual abuse. I think it deserves a place as second in our series. It may be a little trickier to identify in QF than "Isolation," but we can find it. And it's important that we do-- that we point out the bait-and-switch that is going on. "We're allowed latitude in these areas, therefore this isn't a cult" or "There isn't a central leader, therefore this isn't a cult" can't remain unchallenged. (Another thought: we may consider re-naming this something other than "authoritarianism" if that word gives people too much of a picture of one central authority figure. Perhaps we could call it "Power and Control" or something like that. Any input?)
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 23, 2010 13:30:50 GMT -5
"God would not contradict your parents" "if it was really God we would feel that way too" "don't disrespect me!" "you're being disobedient/rebellious" "God says honor and respect your parents - you're not being respectful" "do the *right* thing" (which is, whatever they think is right) "Your father will interpret your motives"
Most of this was said by my mom. We didn't really go to a QF church per-say. Mom was manipulating the whole situation and dad was her puppet - but he was the head, technically?
I guess major use of the words "honor" and "respect" and doing (what they believe) the "right" thing. Made it so questioning, or even just defending yourself really, was disrespectful because you dared to counter. If you didn't do what they wanted you were in the wrong and on a path of losing salvation.
My parents decided when and how much I could cut my hair because "her hair is her glory" or something like that. So, at first I could have it shoulder length and then I became a teen and they decided shoulder length was too short, it had to be below - around my 18th birthday I highlighted my hair, and when I was 17.5 I chopped it off to my shoulders by myself (it looked great btw) and they couldn't really stop me, although my mom was like "you better ask your father!" and I was like, no (so she told on me and he didn't do anything). And then she'd tell people "yeah, he *allowed* her to cut her hair" and I was like um, no, he didn't stop me and I was going to do it _anyway_.
We didn't do dresses only or anything like that, but there were things (like hair) they were insistent about. Also, if they said something you *had* to do it, and pretend to be happy about it. They were mad after I left because I disobeyed them by talking to my (now) husband after they "forbade" me from doing it.
That's another one btw, "I forbid you!".
Hope that helps some....
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 23, 2010 13:44:46 GMT -5
There's this whole mentality, that your life is simply there to serve your parents. It feels like your personhood and identity doesn't really exist after a while, because well, you're just your parents daughter - they tell you what to do and you (cheerfully ) obey. Because, it's what you're supposed to do. You don't really even realize you're being manipulated and controlled because you're raised in it. Up until you realize that it sucks and there's more to life and not much of what you know makes sense. Then it becomes obvious. You want to do something, you have to ask your parents, they "pray" about it and decide if you can or can't. I wanted to get a job and go to a meeting in Alabama, I had to run it by my parents and then they decided, no, you can't go. They said I could get a job at starbucks and mom would take me, but she was pregnant and I knew there was absolutely no way that would happen. I was about to get engaged, my mom got pregnant the month before, they "prayed" about it and decided no, we *forbid* you to accept and speak to him again. If you try to voice a contrary opinion or say something about how you're tired and can we please stop having kids - they tell you that you're selfish and lack faith. That life isn't easy and you need to get over yourself because they are following God. Essentially, they become God for you. They decide (randomly!) that you do not hear from God yourself, that God does not want a PERSONAL relationship with you and that the *only* way that you will hear from God is through them. If you say that *you* have *actually* been praying about your relationship and they say that they have too, and you have two different answers - theirs wins because they are your parents and God would never tell you (their child!) something different! Because, obviously you are just blinded and can not discern God from your emotions (that you are still trying to find from boxing them up). So, naturally, they, being older (and your parents) will interpret God, and your motives for you. Basically, no matter what the situation (mine being my relationship with my husband) they are God's mouthpieces and will never be wrong. --- Also women are not supposed to work outside the home. Daughter's who have internships must give up the internships to care for their pregnant mothers and siblings (and be cool with it).
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 23, 2010 14:06:23 GMT -5
Okay, kiery got me thinking (great points, kiery).
Most of the pressure to conform was horizontal.
Modesty was enforced by other women. In my church, an older woman once wore some tiny stud earrings to church on Mother's Day and then very publicly repented for leading the young girls astray with her vanity. As I mentioned in another post, an older woman once dragged me into the church bathroom to safety-pin shut the knee-high slit in the back of my baggy floor-length denim jumper when I was about 16. I could hardly walk for the rest of the day.
William Branham used to tell a story about a man hiring a stagecoach driver and listening to the various candidates boast about how close they could get to a cliff without falling off. The man chose the driver who just said, 'I don't know. I hug the bank.' This was supposed to mean that you should try to go to extremes to obey God rather than flirting with the borderline of what was 'acceptable.' Based on this principle, the most godly young women were the ones whose skirts trailed when they walked and who wore several layers of clothing (and who were so skinny they betrayed no dangerous feminine curves).
There were also:
-Submission wars. Women one-upped each other by being more subservient to their husbands than their friends. One woman in our church started asking her husband's permission for everything, like going to the grocery store and buying new shoes for the kids. Soon all of the women were tormenting themselves for not having done so all along. -Patriarchal wars. Younger and less patriarchal men were informally apprenticed to elders to learn the secrets of Godly leadership. They held special camps for men to learn how to be authoritative fathers and husbands. -Testimony wars. There was so much pressure to give testimonies that we actively sought out good things happening in our lives to be able to speak in church. I gave three or four public testimonies (I can't remember what they were now), desperate to prove that God talked to me, too.
I don't have so much experience with the father business as my dad was an unbeliever. I was still technically supposed to obey him if he didn't ask me to sin, but the crucial element was that I was allowed to think about whether or not he was asking me to sin and decide for myself if I obeyed. Not so in kiery's case, obviously. Like hers, though, my mom was the one who pulled the fundie strings.
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 23, 2010 15:57:31 GMT -5
I feel like I should clarify - we always had the addition of "unless someone asks you to sin" but they would never "ask us to sin". My dad wasn't abusive and so though there was no real danger in that sense in my family, but I know it was totally there for other people.
I just don't want to like, misconstrue anything because while we had to do what they asked/told, and sometimes it was ridiculous, there was never a sense that they'd ask us to do something...wrong (like, in a major sinful sense, not a raise my kids sense) or put us in a position where we were physically/sexually vulnerable - and we could tell other adults no (and run/scream/kick/bite/scratch/aim low) if they tried to do something like that (which never happened - but my mom was abused by someone growing up...at least once, so I think that's a big reason they were really into the whole not putting us there and being able-to-get-out-of-there-if-it-should-happen deal).
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Apr 23, 2010 22:01:46 GMT -5
I'm hoping we can get some more discussion/examples here of how authoritarianism and heirarchical control happens in Quiverfull. Since this is NOT a centralized group organized around one or two leaders, we obviously can't give examples of that type of authoritarian control here. We have to talk about the ways authoritarian control happens in Quiverfull movements. Sierra spoke of "invisible" power structures in The Message group. So if the power structures are hidden, how is it that they do work? Looking back on it, my dear ex-QFers, what controls were you actually under, whether you were aware of them or not? I have gotten the impression that peer-pressure is a huge controlling factor in QF; hence my lumping of ideas of "conformity" together with "authoritarianism." Just because there isn't a visible figure at the top, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Please give me examples of how you feel you were controlled. Authoritarianism is one of the biggest and most damaging factors in spiritual abuse. I think it deserves a place as second in our series. It may be a little trickier to identify in QF than "Isolation," but we can find it. And it's important that we do-- that we point out the bait-and-switch that is going on. "We're allowed latitude in these areas, therefore this isn't a cult" or "There isn't a central leader, therefore this isn't a cult" can't remain unchallenged. (Another thought: we may consider re-naming this something other than "authoritarianism" if that word gives people too much of a picture of one central authority figure. Perhaps we could call it "Power and Control" or something like that. Any input?) Another term is totalitarianism. When you mean "movement", do you mean the Quiverfull culture, a la VF, etc? Or individual families? To answer your question HOW authoritarianism is "done", in families it is through mind control. Here is the BITE method authored by cult expert Steve Hassan..... The B.I.T.E Method Four Aspects of Mind Control (as it relates to people in cults) 1) INFORMATION CONTROL: * Important information which is available to the general public is withheld from members and potential members. * Deception is the basic feature of all cult recruitment. It is also what keeps people inside cults. * Information is one of the best weapons against cults. * In cults information about the cult's history, purposes, doctrines, financial disclosures, methods of dealing with problems, counseling, training, and discipline for offenses are kept as confidentail as possible. * Only those members with trusted status are allowed inside information. 2) THOUGHT CONTROL: * "Truth" and reality are distorted for those inside the group by subtly changing the definitions of common terms with new meanings through the use of code words, cliches, and slogans. * Different words make the members feel special and separate from outsiders. * These different words confuse outsiders who want to understand what the group believes and talks about. * The change in definitions of significant words keeps even the members from understanding their own beliefs. * Leaders of cults repress questions by conditioning their members to employ "thought-stopping" statements, prayers, hymns, Bible verses, mantras, tongues or rituals to drown out doubt, questions, anxiety or uncertainty. "I can't think about that." "How can you question (the leaders) after all they have done?" etc. The intention is to stop questions regarding the system or leaders. * The word "faith" is employed in a negative sense. Members are conditioned to view "faith" in terms of blind submission to the leaders, rather than positive certainity in God's love. * Members are conditioned to feel guilty for any curiosity about what is going on within the group; curiosity is a lack of faith. (Therefore, even after some people leave a mind control group, they may be afraid to examine information which explains the background of their old belief system.) * Typically, the word "grace" has a different meaning from the Biblical use. The "God" of the group is also different from the God of the Bible. God is defined by, and eventually becomes the group. 3) EMOTION CONTROL: * Guilt, fear and shame are projected onto the members, prompting blame toward themselves for their depression, lack of understanding, anxiety, or inability to cope, rather than examining the leaders, the group's policies, history, doctrines, scandals, and at times, even crimes. * Phobic attitudes or behaviors are sometimes noticeable when attempts are made to converse with members regarding their belief in the group or its leaders. * Fear, anger, rage or repetitious statements which only go in circles keep the members from thinking through to any rational conclusions. * Fear of confrontation with family is common, resulting in very few people being rescued. 4) BEHAVIOR CONTROL: * Tight control of behavior secures the leaders' position of authority and importance. * The behavior control impresses members and outsiders to view the group as especially spiritual or successful. * The leaders link the required behavior to their special "revelation" of a text of scripture. However the required behaviors are usually superficial controls, affecting appearances and outward activity rather than inward character. These can include grooming, daily activities, career choices, clothing, specific technology, posture, speech mannerisms, food choices, recreation, education, even decisions about marriage, sex and children. (They usually do not deter moral sin.) * If a person does not conform, he may be urged to become more like an older group member; to follow the leaders' "example". * OBEDIENCE TO THE HUMAN LEADERS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON TO LEARN. * The leaders cannot totally control one's inner thoughts, but if they can command behavior, hearts and minds will usually follow. * The behavior control isolates the members from society even more effectively. Source
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Apr 23, 2010 22:05:28 GMT -5
The control also happens through fear. Create a crisis, or even pick a crisis, and use fear to achieve desired results.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 24, 2010 14:43:16 GMT -5
This is very helpful, everyone. I'm starting to get my approach more pinpointed in my mind. Anyone else have something?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Apr 24, 2010 22:56:58 GMT -5
I wasn't quiverfull although some of my friends ended up in that movement I discovered later. But I did spend many years in a fundamentalist christian cult (the real thing) and this is all just so familiar. One thing all these churches, cults, movements have in common is their insistence that scripture doesn't need to be 'interpreted', it just 'is what it is'. A quiverfull old friend of mine is completely caught up in the reformed 'grace' movement and is completely incapable of admitting that he does not have perfect understanding of everything scriptural and it isn't 'interpretation' it is just the 'truth'. He recently quoted John Piper, " Submission to Christ without submission to the Scriptures is submission to a self-made Christ, not submission to Christ." To which a bunch of our friends responded 'Yes, so true!' on facebook. But nobody ever asks, 'Whose interpretation of scripture?' There are just two ways to read and understand scripture: you do it yourself, or you pick a teacher you like and let him do it for you. Period. But people who follow these movements and churches never seem to understand that they have actually in fact picked a teacher and are allowing that person to interpret for them, they believe that the teacher is simply telling them what is plainly in the scriptures, no more and no less. It's subtle, but it's extremely important in these matters. Every single scripture is a matter of how you interpret. ALL of them. "If you beat him with the rod he will not die." Well, okay. But how big is the rod? How old is the child? For what infractions do we mete out such a punishment? Is this required or are there other less severe punishments that can also be use? The scriptures don't say this. So a teacher like Pearl interprets this to mean that it is required all the time, that such and such rod is preferable, etc. That's not scripture, that's Pearl. But when you talk to these adherents they cannot make that leap. So, I would say that one of the signs is the belief, not that your interpretation of scripture is the correct one, but that your understanding of scripture is just self-evident and plainly true. This same friend was remarking about a verse in Zechariah that any one could understand it simply if they just had read the entire Old and New Testament. Anyone who doesn't get what he interprets from it obviously hasn't read the entire bible. When someone else pointed out that Luther himself found the verse confusing he simply dismissed Luther as being confused about eschatology. But his teachers aren't confused, they KNOW. It's all so egotistical and arrogant. On a more personal day to day issue, one of the things I and many of my friends found the most difficult about the idea of leaving was that it would be a complete disruption of our entire social lives. One day you are part of a warm loving embrace with friends and family and the next day you are shunned and completely and utterly cold and alone. Bam! Just like that. We were also told that if we left God would destroy our marriages and harm our children. That fear is so deep in me that even to this day I worry over my kids. Every major illness goes right to that 'see, they said your child would die if you left.' It's deep in me and no amount of rationality and reason and knowledge has been able to completely uproot it. One of the things that made marriage so attractive to me was the knowledge that if I left I would still be related to my husband for eternity, and any children we had. Everyone else I knew and loved would be barred from me but at least I wouldn't be alone entirely. It sounds so stupid and pathetic now but it was serious business back then. I lived in complete fear of being abandoned to the world and losing all my friends. Which happened when I left. Just like it happened to anyone else who left. There's a lot of words here. I'm sure there's a way to distill it into something pithy and easily relatable. I may be to exhausted to think of it just now. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 27, 2010 22:54:18 GMT -5
Nikita, that conditional love - that if your beliefs evolved, or you did not follow all the rules, the warm friendships and love would be withdrawn (including God's love, it sounds like) is just terrible. I'm so sorry. One of the things that Hillary said really strikes me:
That's part of what makes everything so hard to unravel - birth control = abortion, love = obedience, happiness = working on showing a happy face, friendship = conditional approval, "personal conviction only for me" = what God wants everyone to do but only Saved people know it, equality = separate but equal, modesty = standing out in the crowd. I'm sure there are a bunch more I can't think of right now. But it makes it really hard even to have a discussion with someone, because you have to go back to the beginning and define the words you're using (and usually argue about that.)
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on May 5, 2010 13:55:04 GMT -5
"So, I would say that one of the signs is the belief, not that your interpretation of scripture is the correct one, but that your understanding of scripture is just self-evident and plainly true. "
THIS. It is widespread in far more fundamentalist (and even just evangelical) churches than just QF ones, but it's a danger sign in all of them.
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on May 6, 2010 13:32:48 GMT -5
I know I am a little late in this discussion, but I want to highlight this point. This was huge in my family. my dad would do seemingly crazy things, like quit his job and go to Bible school and leave my mom with 4 little kids at home, but it was because he had "prayed" about it, and god told him to. When I wanted to spend the night at a friend's house, my parents would "pray about it" and I could only go if God spoke to them that it was OK. I think this is an important point, because it leaves you powerless. If the husband prays about something and hears God's word, how are you going to argue with it? I mean, it was God's word. So life changes that seem irresponsible at best and arbitrary rules for children are given the weight of God's authority.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on May 6, 2010 17:13:05 GMT -5
I'm not a 'Message' person, or really a QF person (didn't even know what it was until I read Vickie's article) but I will say that in many of the fundamentalist fellowships I got dragged through as a child (mainly of the Pentecostal and Messianic Jewish inclination) there was a HUGE pressure from the ranking people for the members to 'pray' for guidance from God.
This roughly translated into 'you're not doing something right, but we're not going to tell you what it is for a few weeks so you sweat and worry and change little things in the hope that one of them will be right, and then we'll yell at you in service one day that you're still all doing it wrong and obviously weren't praying.'
It was this whole control and fear atmosphere, and it happened in almost every place, and each one I remember had a great focus on praying specifically for 'guidance' and 'understanding' and 'discernment.' Those were real key words.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on May 6, 2010 17:19:42 GMT -5
The real kicker was that after this fire-and-brimstone "come to Jesus" lecture, there was always an altar call and a push to come forward and be 'slain in the spirit' to let Jesus start fresh in the body of the fellowship.
So here you are, having been browbeaten about how awful you are, and you go up to the altar and kneel there on your hands and knees for hours while the prayer team prays over you and the worship team sings heartrending music, (and it gets hotter and hotter inside the hall) and then you get pulled to your feet quickly and the pastor or prophet or minister or whoever he (it was always a he) takes your shoulders and shakes you for a minute while he prays at you (he's one step up from you so you have to look up at him), and then you faint. (or fake it so he leaves you alone... )
If you're really blessed, when you wake up, you'll be either singing or speaking in tongues, or have had a dream for someone to interpret for you.
Somehow while I was there, I never really understood the reason it happened so regularly... People are so gullible sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 6, 2010 17:41:25 GMT -5
Ugh, Pentecostalism. Attended a pentie church for a few months... then left when the pastor's preaching got more and more rabid and more and more misinformed. :/
|
|
hrd
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by hrd on May 7, 2010 11:34:27 GMT -5
' It was this whole control and fear atmosphere, and it happened in almost every place, and each one I remember had a great focus on praying specifically for 'guidance' and 'understanding' and 'discernment.' Those were real key words. Oh my stars, yes "discernment!" Code word for, do what I have decided you should do but believe you have "discerned" god's word. I think I went to some of the same churches you did ex-Adriel.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 7, 2010 13:15:26 GMT -5
"Discernment," yes-- that played a big factor in the group I was in, too. It sort of backfired because all that emphasis on hearing God, led us rank-and-file people to dare to trust our own gut feelings-- which is what I have been reading Vyckie was specifically discouraged from doing.
Was "discernment" a big deal in Quiverfull, or were ordinary people (women and children, anyway) discouraged from attempting to hear God's will for themselves? Were only men and leaders allowed to pray for, and believe they had received, "discernment"? Or was this not a factor in this particular movement?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 7, 2010 14:14:36 GMT -5
"Discernment," yes-- that played a big factor in the group I was in, too. It sort of backfired because all that emphasis on hearing God, led us rank-and-file people to dare to trust our own gut feelings-- which I what I have been reading Vyckie was specifically discouraged from doing. Was "discernment" a big deal in Quiverfull, or were ordinary people (women and children, anyway) discouraged from attempting to hear God's will for themselves? Were only men and leaders allowed to pray for, and believe they had received, "discernment"? Or was this not a factor in this particular movement? In my church, anyone could have 'discernment' - but it usually meant a revelation that made 'the rules' even stricter. For instance, I was praised for my 'wisdom' and 'discernment' when at 14 years old I said that women who didn't change their names upon marriage were 'in rebellion.' (Amusingly enough, I'm planning not to change my name now - because if I did, I'd feel like I really was under my husband's authority. Guess the shoe fits?)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 7, 2010 14:25:32 GMT -5
Thanks, Sierra. So what you're saying is that you were supposed to hear from God, but peer pressure and leadership dictated what would be considered really hearing from God, and what would be rejected as self-deception. Is that right?
(As far as "in rebellion" is concerned, I just read a link in another thread from Margybargy, in which Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. ;D That was great! Any man worth his salt would respect your strong feelings in this regard and never try to make you take his name.)
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 7, 2010 14:30:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Sierra. So what you're saying is that you were supposed to hear from God, but peer pressure and leadership dictated what would be considered really hearing from God, and what would be rejected as self-deception. Is that right? Yes, exactly. Well put! If you had a revelation from God that was more liberal, you were accused of 'reasoning with the word' and confusing God's voice with Satan's. I credit this process with the increasing strictures of the courtship movement: No premarital sex became No premarital kissing became No premarital hand-holding became No premarital touching at all became No premarital proximity to each other (i.e. in a car) became No premarital contact without supervision. I'm sure at some point they'll decide that it's sinful to know your future husband's name before the wedding day. They'll start delivering wives in box crates on flatbeds so no one lusts after them before the wedding, for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 7, 2010 15:05:29 GMT -5
In before some doofus brings down the niqab on women because "men might lust after them". -__-
|
|
|
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 nikita on Jun 22, 2010 2:03:22 GMT -5
Oooh, sayings!! "Take one step back, you're backslid!" "If you start out hot,you have to stay hot!" And since we were the only 'hot' church in the world (sigh) going anywhere else was de facto going backward and becoming lukewarm. God hates the lukewarm so... yeah. So you could never leave. Ever. There was no place else acceptable to God to go. It wasn't a matter of getting permission to leave and a letter of recommendation for your next pre-approved church to accept your transfer. There was no transfer, no other church, no place else to apply to or move to or be accepted by. Everyone else was lukewarm, going to hell or close enough to it. So arrogant. But we really thought that for many years. Like I've said, we weren't just a 'cultic church', we were an actual full on cult, defined as so by almost everyone's estimation. And I really loved it. The exclusivity, the specialness, the knowledge that I had something wonderful that almost no one else had. It was like being part of a very special club. I really liked your imonk quotation. That was very insightful, described the mindset to a 't'. Way back then in the middle of my cult days I had a very close friend who, along with another friend, came to me about the prolife position. They didn't understand it from a legal position. I sat down and explained to them from both religious and legal positions why it was correct (pro-life isn't the point of my story so please let's not go down that path here ,'k?) and they both decided they believed in my pro-life position now. So far, so good. But my one friend, I'll call her 'Dee', really got into it. She became a sidewalk counsellor. She picketed. She didn't just go to rallies she helped organize them. She got her law degree and worked for pro-life organizations and got to go sit in the Supreme Court during oral arguments on an amicus brief she helped write a few years ago. This has become her life's passion. Fine. But she was one of my closest friends, and once she started on this path and I didn't join her in her zealous pursuit of all things pro-life (I had my own thing to do, that wasn't my calling to be that active in that particular cause) she dropped me like a stone. I wasn't as good as her, I wasn't as committed as her, I wasn't living up to whatever she thought I should be doing in her pursuit of what she thought her own life's work should be. It hurt, that she found me lacking because she was so much more committed, more dedicated, more willing to sacrifice all than I was for this one thing. Suddenly I was no longer good enough to be friends with her. Then one day she got up in front our entire church and told everyone that we were all not good enough, weren't doing enough, and that she was leaving us for some other group that was dedicated to pro-life and that alone. She was better than all of us and couldn't associate with us any longer. She didn't actually say 'I'm better than you' but the intent and meaning was quite clear. We weren't up to her standards anymore. I felt like apologizing to people for her behavior, like 'Oops, I didn't mean to! We were just having a discussion...' Anyway, oneupsmanship ruined not only my friendship but separated us from her as far as church goes. Because of course once she left we couldn't talk to her anymore anyway...
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 28, 2010 12:38:05 GMT -5
I think church splits are a big thing. Normal churches don't split over slight divergences in opinion. People are able to co-exist together without 100% agreement about absolutely everything. But QF people are often hypercritical of other fundamentalists and other types of QF people. I have heard actual QF people refer to other types of QFers as "too legalistic." Because, like, they demanded an Amish-style headcovering instead of a little lace cloth or bandana. Never recognizing that the idea that headcoverings are a super important matter of theological weight is indicative of legalism in itself. I heard of church splits over the use of musical instruments. An old friend who was into writing music who happened upon Charity Ministries with his family (as a teenager) was publicly denounced.
Which kinda brings me to another point... The most trivial of matters are seen as huge theological issues. Musical instruments, headcoverings, courtship vs. betrothal, ATIA vs. Christian Light... It never ends. So, QF people are often as adamant about sheltering their kids from different kinds of QF people as they are about sheltering them from "the world." When Erika (stampinmama) eloped with her now-husband (then involved in a Branham church), it was QF people who denounced her (and her sister's) "rebellion" and went on and on about how she'd "married into a cult." I'm ashamed to say that I bought into much of what they were saying at the time (I was a teenager then). She was fairly well-known in QF circles as a teenager because she published a magazine for QF girls, and everybody was going around gossiping about this. Not seeing that they were involved in a cult-like religious practice themselves.
|
|