“There are far too many silent sufferers. Not because they don’t yearn to reach out, but because they’ve tried and found no one who cares.” Richelle E. Goodrich
Focus on the Family is a huge supporter of Emerson Eggerich and and the contents of his book Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. This organization regularly features Eggerich on their broadcasts and recommends his book.
Sheila Wray Gregoire blogs at Love, Honor and Vacuum. She is well known for her writings on marriage and sex.
I have long been aware of Emerson Eggerich and his book, Love and Respect. However, I disagree with the trajectory of what he has to say, finding that his binary approach to emotional needs and gender to be simplistic. I am even more alarmed how his views could contribute to further abuse in marriage. He appears to lay the blame on women for the problems that crop up in a marriage while the husband is viewed as being honorable and misunderstood.
I had not found an opportunity to discuss my concerns about Eggerich until Sheila Gregoire decided to focus on Focus on the Family and Eggerich. She has done the work and I find myself agreeing with her concerns. So, I will let her do the talking and let you see how Focus on the Family is dealing with her concerns
I believe Focus on the Family is caught in a 40 year old time warp in which abuse in a marriage is viewed as the fault of the woman who did not give the man enough sex and respect. Thankfully, the world is changing and I suggest that Focus on the Family play catch up. For example, I fed the phrase *child sex abuse* into their search engine and found virtually no material on the matter. The same goes for sex abuse in churches or clergy sex abuse. Perhaps I’m mistaken and there are many articles. if so, get me the links.
Without further ado, here is the exchange between Sheila and Focus on the Family
Part One Sheila writes An Open Letter to Focus on the Family about Love & Respect and Emerson Eggerichs
Sheila has appeared on Focus in on the Family programs so she has an understanding of the format and belief systems.
Her letter is lengthy and well documented. In other words, she backs up her concerns with evidence. Here is her opening statement.
I have just finished a massive, comprehensive survey of more than 22,000 Christian women, asking over 150 questions about their marital and sexual satisfaction. In that survey, I left open-ended questions where people could name resources that helped their marriages and those which harmed their marriages. I did not list any resources; people volunteered them on their own.
Love & Respect was the most frequently mentioned resource that harmed marriages. For every 10 women who said Love & Respect helped their marriage, 15 volunteered that it harmed them. Two women even reported that the book nearly killed them–one said, “without exaggeration” and one “almost literally”. This book has hurt people, and that matters, because they matter.
I am going to present some of her points. I would urge you to read the letter in its entirety to see the links, quotes, etc.
- A man has desperate needs; a woman only has desires.
- Sex is only for a husband’s physical release.
- Women’s sexual pleasure is so unimportant it’s not even worth mentioning.
- If a physically abusive husband “repents”, he should be allowed back in the house, and it’s now the wife’s job to not react to his anger.
- If a man is “drinking or straying”, he should be shown respect, rather than boundaries
- If a woman is upset that a man leaves wet towels on the bed, it’s okay if the husband then denies the wife love–and it’s okay if he teaches his sons to ignore their mother’s correction, too.
- Women are more easily deceived, and thus should not listen to their intuition, or the still, small voice in them.
- A husband can criticize what he does not like about his wife, such as her weight gain, but she must not bring up what she doesn’t like about him–even if her concerns involve sin issues like porn use.
- Since women have body image issues that they expect their husbands to understand, then women should understand that husbands will naturally struggle with lust and be tempted towards affairs. To become upset at this is disrespectful.
- If a husband has an affair, the wife is at least partly to blame because she isn’t having enough sex (p. 252-255)
- Eggerichs posts an email showing how the Love & Respect Bible study caused the men to become condescending towards their wives–and then blames the wives.
- At Houston First Baptist, Emerson Eggerichs mocked those who are concerned that his teachings can lead to emotional abuse, and claimed that all men are accused of abuse when really they’re just being honorable.
Sheila posts this video
I’m afraid it will do the same to you here. In that same survey where Love & Respect was the most commonly mentioned hurtful resource, many also called out Focus on the Family as being harmful (and you were the fifth most mentioned harmful resource). For every eighteen people who said that you helped them, another 10 said that you hurt them. By not distancing yourself from harmful teaching, you are hurting your listeners.
Part Two. Focus on the Family responds: Focus on the Family Statement: Sheila Gregoire and Love & Respect
Since it appears that this letter is on the FOF website, I don’t think I can copy here. So, I will print the first part of the letter and add a direct link to finish reading this.
A note from Dee: I noticed that they refer to Sheila as *a former Focus on the Family Broadcast guest.* Is that their way of saying good-bye?
Readers pay attention to the language employed by FOF which appears to paint Sheila as a person who is engaged in a one woman campaign against FOF/Eggerich at the beginning of their letter. They then give us a clue about the monetary ties to Eggerich.
Sheila Wray Gregoire, a popular blogger and former Focus on the Family Broadcast guest, has orchestrated a concerted campaign against the book Love & Respect by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (originally published through Focus on the Family).
It appears that FOF is going to war since they are the ones responsible for introducing this material to the Christian world. It is my opinion that there will be no apologies forthcoming. Their motives are clearly mixed in this business enterprise.
(PS-I’ve never been on FOF and after this, I most assuredly will not be…😬)
Pay close attention to the final sentence on this site before you link over to FOF. It’s a technique called “covering your bases.” Being an outside observer, I believe this is a possible admission that they’ve heard the ugly rumors but it’s the fault of the reader, not the author or FOF.
For the past year, Sheila Wray Gregoire, a popular blogger and former Focus on the Family Broadcast guest, has orchestrated a concerted campaign against the book Love & Respect by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (originally published through Focus on the Family). The crux of Mrs. Gregoire’s numerous criticisms of Love & Respect is that its central message—that husbands have a fundamental need for respect while wives have a fundamental need for love—promotes unhealthy behaviors in marriage, including inequality in male/female dynamics and emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.
As a ministry with more than 40 years of history invested in helping marriages thrive and equipping both husbands and wives to embrace the gift of marriage as God designed it, Focus carefully reviews every resource we offer. We hear daily from women who have endured rejection and abuse even within the context of Christian marriage and would categorically reject any book that would justify or perpetuate such behavior.
The fact of the matter is that we believe Mrs. Gregoire has seriously misread and misjudged various aspects of Love & Respect, and we further maintain that its central message aligns both with Scripture and with the common-sense principles of healthy relationships. Even 16 years after its release, Focus continues to hear from numerous couples who enthusiastically testify to the positive transformation Love & Respect has brought to their marriages.
Of course, any book can be misinterpreted, misapplied, and quoted out of context...link to continue
Part Three: Sheila responds to Focus on the Family’s statement. She sent this directly to me today.
I have highlighted a few sections in the letter. This is merely for the clarity of the reader. I also want to draw attention to Point 2 in this response. As readers of this blog know, I believe in carefully linking to sources, etc. to prove my point. Nothing irritates me more than to get an email from a critic, accusing me of *this and such* with absolutely no links to any of my writing. I believe that Sheila’s response if correct.
On January 17, Focus on the Family issued a statement concerning their interactions with me that was problematic in several ways.
1. They impugned my motives and gave factually inaccurate information.They said, “Despite attempts to clarify this with Mrs. Gregoire via email, she has continued to mischaracterize and selectively excerpt Focus on the Family’s replies to her and her supporters…”I have sent five emails to Focus on the Family:
- March 14 to Jim Daly
- April 2 to Jim Daly
- September 26 to Jim Daly and Tammy Masters
- October 2 to Jim Daly and Tammy Masters
- October 6 to Jim Daly
I then republished my October 6 email, with some minor edits to include new information, on January 15 on the blog as an Open Letter to Focus on the Family and their Employees.Of those five emails, Focus on the Family only ever cursorily answered the email on October 2.That hardly constitutes “attempts to clarify this with Mrs. Gregoire via email.”In addition, they accuse me of “selectively excerpting” their replies. On the contrary, I have published them in full in .pdf, with screen shots and with text since the screen shots were hard to read, and I linked to those emails in my open letter. Publishing something in full is not “selectively excerpting”.
2. They do not link to any of my articles, but critique them anyway.
Every time I have critiqued Focus on the Family or Emerson Eggerichs, I have linked to the original blog post, broadcast, or video series so that people can judge for themselves. See, for instance, this podcast analyzing one of Eggerichs’ blog posts where he gaslights women; and this Focus on the Family broadcast where the Focus hosts say that husbands turn to porn because women don’t give them sex.
It is proper internet etiquette to link to that which you are critiquing. The fact that Focus on the Family refrains from linking to me shows that they are concerned that if people read what I have said, I may persuade them.
3. They continue to disregard the many critiques I brought up in my Open Letter,
focusing instead on two minutiae, which I have since corrected.4. They are still framing this as a doctrinal issue, rather than addressing what has always been my primary concern: this book is hurting women.
They say that every book hurts women if it is misconstrued, but this is simply not the case. In my survey of 22,000 Christian women, many resources were mentioned with very bad harm/help ratios (meaning that large numbers of women said the resources harmed them, in comparison to the numbers who said they helped), including Love & Respect, Every Man’s Battle, I Kissed Dating Good-Bye, Created To Be His Helpmeet, and Focus on the Family. Many resources, however, had virtually perfect help/harm ratios (with many saying that they helped, but virtually no one saying they hurt), including resources like the Boundaries books, Leslie Vernick’s books, or John Gottman’s books and research. Social science research clearly shows that some points of view, if believed, are more likely to lead to negative marital outcomes, so it is hardly surprising that some books do far more harm than others.
Jesus left the 99 to go after the 1. He cares when people are hurting. He calls us to compassion. I see none of that in Focus on the Family’s statement.
I would remind them that Jesus is not impressed with people who willingly blind themselves to the harm being done to others. As Jesus said, many such people will say at the judgment, “‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”
I encourage Focus on the Family to care for those who are harmed by this book. Listen to their voices (and many are in the comments in my open letter). Your inaction is showing where your priorities lie, and showing that you are not a safe resource for women or marriage..
First
Thank you so much, Dee! I really appreciate your support. I pray that this whole episode will help others see the true nature of Focus on the Family, and also how dangerous Love & Respect is. It’s still the most commonly used book study in churches, I believe, and we really need to change that.
Second.
Wait I’m confused…I thought Focus on the Family was a church or… ahem an “Association of Churches,” not marriage counselors. I’m wondering if maybe the Eggrich’s book is one of their sermon topics when they worship in the chapelteria.
For those who don’t know what I am talking about Focus on the Family is one of several organizations that legally lied to get an exemption from the IRS from have to file the form 990 that among other things makes their senior employees’ salaries public. To justify their claim, they literally called their cafeteria a chapelteria and all their employees both ministers and congregants. Hmmm… Now that I think about that, I realize Focus on the Family most certainly does not employ only men, ergo, they must believe in Women being Church Ministers! Oh, I’m off to tweet that now. 🙂
Bronze?
Focus on the Family also sells books like “9 Marks of a Healthy Church” by Mark Devers. The blind acceptance and profiting off books like that seems to show their willingness to advance the spiritual abuse that occurs due to these books.
Accept it or push it away. Those seem to be the only two options.
In my opinion, the teachings in this book and the philosophy behind it are divisive and harmful to a close, mutually respectful and loving marriage. It emphasizes and accentuates differences between male and female to the point that we seem like two distinct species that have to play scripted roles to make things work. It is a book that may encourage men to believe that most problems in marriage can be solved simply by the wife’s stepping up her “respect”. This is not reflective of the humility that is central to the Christian life, and reminds me of a “Christianized” Stepford Wives scenario. Demanding admiration and blaming other’s for one’s own sin nature are not healthy Christian behaviors. Love is not a reward for desired behavior. Christ loved us before we knew him. We love our spouse because Christ loves us, and respect for one another grows as two imperfect people accept many imperfections, every day,with the goal of unity and harmony, remembering that we are all made in the image of God. I find it highly irresponsible for any church or ministry to endorse this book.
If Sheila has indeed “orchestrated a concerted campaign,” sign me up. I read the book BEFORE becoming aware of the prevalence of spousal abuse in church circles, and even then was able to tell the book is problematic.
Pages 222-223: “If a husband is acting in a dominating way, he is usually trying to maintain control. His foolish reasoning tells him that if he maintains complete control, he will be respected. Ironically, if his wife gives him the respect he is looking for, he will back off and be less controlling! Trust me.”
So… he is seeking respect by being domineering and trying to maintain control. His wife gives him respect. Doesn’t that just reinforce the bad behavior? If my preschooler throws a temper tantrum when she wants a popsicle, giving her a popsicle doesn’t exactly cause her to throw fewer temper tantrums in the future.
Pages 256-257: “She cannot comprehend that seeing some well-endowed woman at the office with a plunging neckline would ‘turn him on…’ She cannot understand the concept that he could be aroused simply by looking at someone he barely knows… If your husband is typical, he has a need you don’t have.”
Because Matthew McConaughey clearly appears shirtless in movies for the benefit of the men in the audience.
Sheila, you’ve stood up for what is right even though it’s cost you the endorsement of Focus on the Family. On behalf of myself and my daughters, thank you.
Focus on the Family, if anyone there is listening in… You may have joined the organization because you wanted to help build stronger, more Christ-centered families. Is the response to Sheila’s emails and open letter in line with this mission? Is hiding the salaries of top executives and stretching the truth to governing authorities in line with this mission?
As a side note, the salary of every single person paid from state taxpayer dollars is easily available online for California (https://transparentcalifornia.com/). If those “godless liberals” are willing to be so transparent, why is Focus on the Family trying to hide?
Editing alert:
The date of FOF’s letter in Part Two should read 17 January not 17 July.
Thanks, Dee, for highlighting Sheila’s work and the reaction to it.
Focus on the Family is a business disguising itself as a church for tax reasons as well as an automatic ‘in’ with those Christians who automatically trust any so-called ‘Christian’ source. But does anyone really know what they believe and stand for, theologically? They have a lot of dubious events and advice in their past, from founding member and gay conversion therapy proponent George Alan Rekers’ rent-boy scandal to James Dobson’s early advice to fathers to shower with their little boys and discuss their genitalia, James Dobson’s foolish promoting of Ted Bundy’s BS, all of the Christian clap-trap they’ve hawked on their radio show. I think their undue influence has played a big part in side-tracking Christianity into politics. I guess they figure they should be above all criticism, too. Sheesh.
Jesus put it differently: … But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
He doesn’t say, anyone who looks at a woman lustfully is facing a battle because the power and strength of his masculine biblical leadership manhood has joined forces with a plunging neckline to attack him. And it’s some woman’s fault.
To a very good approximation, we (men) do not have “needs”. We have appetites. While there’s no biblical example of a mortal man or woman going their whole life without food, water or air – indeed, Jesus Himself is the ultimate counter-example – there’s no biblical evidence of anyone dying from a lack of intercourse.
Perhaps corporations like FotF (profit-making or otherwise) should direct the generic man who cannot control his appetites (but very gently and carefully, lest he feel disrespected and be compelled through no fault of his own to fly into a rage and hit someone), towards those christians who are gay, and celibate. He should sit at their feet, submit to their godly oversight and biblical bible teaching, and biblically follow their biblical example of self-control.
Investigative reporter Julie Roys has this article about the organizations claiming to be churches: https://julieroys.com/are-focus-on-the-family-bgea-rzim-churches-and-should-they-be-exempt-from-reporting-salaries-of-executives/
Amen.
That last sentence you quote from the Jan 17 FOF letter does not go to the end. If you see it all it is even worse :
Of course, any book can be misinterpreted, misapplied, and quoted out of context by husbands (or wives) who hold nefarious intent.
Really? It can only be misapplied if the intent is nefarious? So the content is so straightforward, so clear, that it is impossible to misapply as long as your motives are pure? That is a lot of guilt to place on someone who’s marriage has been damaged after reading this book.
Of course, I would argue that opposite. That actually applying as written is what causes the damage.
IMO, the American church started going south when Christian psychologists stepped onto the stage. They mess with your mind not feed your spirit.
Ok, so FoF only addressed two points of Sheila’s (among…so many!) and they said the rest is the result of damage from spouses ‘misapplying’ the text. Which is a cop out really.
Of the points they actually addressed, i find the answers weak.
If a man ‘loves her properly’ she will get respect…This argument is circular imo because love without respect is garbage. So in that case, it’s incredibly stupid to write an ENTIRE BOOK stating that men need respect and women want (because women aren’t allowed to have needs) love.
Fof’s response is garbage and the incessant whining about Sheila’s commentary on this book is absurd.
This really just makes Sheila’s point, by saying that you can only submit to God above your husband. It’s Pipers “maybe you can say something to your husband about his behavior if he is making you have a threesome or something but otherwise you’re stuck” point.
TRUST ME! That is wild.
Men like this have this weird idea that women aren’t ‘visual’. Because Captain America wore tight tee shirts in all those marvel movies because they were comfy…I’m so tired of this worn out trope.
“I am going to present some of her points. I would urge you to read the letter in its entirety to see the links, quotes, etc.: (8) A husband can criticize what he does not like about his wife, such as her weight gain, but she must not bring up what she doesn’t like about him – even if her concerns involve sin issues like porn use.” (Dee)
Reminds me of potty-mouth Driscoll’s rant about wives who “let themselves go.”
“It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.” (Mark Driscoll)
Driscoll went on to write his pornographic “Real Marriage” book. IMO, some of these guys write books like this to send a message to their own wives about how they want them to be … stretching Bible text out of context to beat them into submission.
Wild Honey,
An hypothesis as a possible answer to your last question is that Form 990 filing exemptions make sense for tiny groups that don’t have deep accounting departments to deal with the paperwork. For large groups with large income, the most reasonable supposition is that the exemption may help to conceal the extent to which the on-the-surface “not for profit” entity is being managed for the benefit of the officers rather than for the sake of the original mission.
I read years ago that the ancient Greeks (or maybe it was the Romans) believed that this was a real malady, and if that’s right it must have influenced their attitude toward male infidelity. Funny (as in “highly odd”) to see a pagan idea cropping up in a product promoted by large ‘christian’ corporations. The churches have absorbed eclectic influences into their thinking, it seems. As you say, Jesus would not have been impressed had he encountered this “under the sun” and, presumably, granting that he is alive forever and at least in a de jure sense “Lord” over the churches, he presumably is not impressed now.
Another “Christian” entity enabling man to continue to abuse the woman in their life. It is SIN to do that. It misrepresents the teaching of the Savior.
Oxymoron alert! 😉
(Yes, I know a few Christian psychologists myself, but the folks we’re discussing have no respect for legitimate psychology, psychiatry, or psychotherapy.)
As far as “respect”, what is their definition?
We have all heard too many examples in which merely disagreeing with someone is considered disrespectful, argumentative, divisive, and many other negative connotations.
there is nothing wrong with being a psychologist but this dude isn’t (from what I can tell).
“Emerson holds a Ph.D. in child and family ecology from Michigan State University, a BA in Biblical Studies from Wheaton College, an MA in communications from Wheaton College Graduate School, and an MDiv from the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary.”
Read the story where his wife tries to get him to stop leaving wet towels on the bed!!! Gave me Michael Pearl vibes tbh…albeit probably not quite as terrible. Are there any “christian” marriage book guys who are actually good and kind husbands???
Lea,
It’s actually interesting to read Emerson Eggerichs’ Ph.D. He did it on what makes a strong evangelical father. (My daughter did this research, and I’m writing from memory, so I may have some things slightly off, but I think that was his point). Anyway, to identify the fathers he was to study, he asked a whole bunch of churches to nominate good fathers (without interviewing the wives to see if they agreed). Every single last one of them was white. All Caucasian. So I guess there are no minority good evangelical fathers? He also did not mention this as a limitation of his study.
There’s a component of the Christian Industrial Complex where psychologists and philosophers cover themselves with a thin veneer of Christianity to fleece the flock (books, consulting fees, etc.). It’s not the legitimate professionalism you refer to, but a practice where advice is slanted toward personal gain wrapped in a Christian delivery. There’s a whole section of self-help/self-improvement books authored by them in your local Christian bookstore.
Wow! there are…so many things wrong with this methodology. Fascinating.
For starters, it seems like this would skew heavily to people perceived as ‘good’ fathers, which could include all sorts of secretely terrible people. I would be much more interested in a study of ‘good’ fathers as perceived by grown children.
I’m probably the only person to have had marriage problems over the years, so I ask that you bear with me.
Wow, no wonder it took so long (20 years) for me and my wife to BEGIN to understand each other. The process of finding someone who was willing to help, building a rapport, scheduling sessions, etc. has been exhausting. We’ve been through a lot of the list of books. This last counselor tried to do the typical “read this book” suggestion. We asked “why not just use the Bible?”. No meaningful answer. That was our first, and last couples session with that Christian counselor. And I believe my wife and I are closer since then because we’re not chasing after some imperfect persons imperfect interpretation of how best to make it work.
My wife will probably get a kick out of hearing about this article because she was the person in our relationship who was able to see through the hurtful nonsense in Love & Respect when we did the class at the church we were attending at the time.
And how many of those people are actually clinical psychologists I wonder? I’m guessing the percentage is low.
Hmm. I took a cursory look at FoF’s Facebook page, and cannot find their statement regarding Sheila. It’s possible that I need to look harder, but it’s nowhere to be found among the January 17th posts.
Could it be that they want to draw as little attention to Sheila as possible? Or that (heaven forbid) they want to avoid anyone discussing her findings in the comments?
Curiouser and curiouser…
I haven’t read EE’s book, though I know that it was not useful in a friend’s marital conflicts, but the thought that comes to me from reading the OP and comments is “social construction of gender norms”, with Scripture brought in at the back end to justify the construction. No notice seems to be taken of the masterful “woman of virtuous character” of Proverbs 31. It’s enough to drive one to drink (also in Pv 31).
Therein lies the problem. Pastors promote these authors and their books without ministering to the flock themselves. Seeking God apparently is old-school. Beware of self-help classes offered by a church … “My help comes from the Lord” says the Psalmist.
Sheila: “They are still framing this as a doctrinal issue, rather than addressing what has always been my primary concern: this book is hurting women.”
FoF’s doctrine is way more important to them than the emotional, spiritual, and physical needs of women. Their doctrine is more important than women. Period.
The reason their doctrine is more important than women is because their doctrine defends their power, authority, and control. Another reason is because their doctrine makes them lots of money that also shores up their power and control.
No, they aren’t going to let a woman (or group of women, or even men) shine the light of truth on their Phariseeism, legalism, and error.
They are foolish Galatians/Complementarians who have been bewitched by their own hunger for power and who try to bewitch others, laying heavy burdens on them that they are not willing to lift a finger to help. They are blind guides leading the blind. And they are upset that the seeing are calling out their blindness.
They can try to frame it however they like. They are still wrong.
“I insist that the ministry and teaching of Emerson Eggerichs are not rooted in the cross of Christ, and thus present a counter-claim to the Gospel. One cannot claim the cross of Christ while working to keep others in positions of vulnerability, abuse, and disenfranchisement. Abuse and the Gospel cannot be mingled, for anywhere the cross is made manifest the abused must be uplifted and freed from their abuser.” (Nate Sparks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Respect#cite_note-20
Nick Bulbeck,
Thank you!
At earlier times in my journey when I reflected on the word respect I thought of growing up around rattlesnakes and knew of a young girl in my neighborhood that had lost a leg after being bitten by one. I always watched out for rattlesnakes like my mother told me to when I was going out to run in the countryside. As an adult I decided that practicing respect involves consideration of context and may include keeping distance if that’s what makes most sense.
Is Emerson Eggerich?
No. Posted his resume above!
Laura,
This is really good Laura! You’ve expressed my thoughts better than I’m able to articulate. Thanks!
Serving Kids in Japan,
I think it’s pretty funny, too! They were sharing it on social media on Facebook a bit whenever anyone questioned them about Love & Respect. They stopped doing that when my daughter started sharing my statement in reply. I have been sharing their statement heavily; they have not been. I guess that shows us who actually ends up looking good from that statement?
Respect can be code for make me feel important as I do whatever I want to you.
Everyone is different and these books promote gender stereotypes that do not speak to a specific couple’s dynamic.
If the need, desire, whatever you call, it is based in selfishness and something dysfunctional, you are rewarding bad behavior and legitimizing troubled thinking that needs to be confronted, not supported.
Final thought —I also cannot get over how conservative Evangelicalism can be so unkind to Christian professing LGBTQ people, being absolute that desires for intimacy be contained, with zero compassion over human desire for intimate companionship.
Yet, if we’re talking about straight manly men, well, we better understand that he has desires and how dare you make him feel bad about his desires. Excuses are made. Heck, they even make excuses for child molestors in the Evangelical church. But being gay is the ultimate depravity.
Yes, but what is their actual doctrine? Aside from conservative politics, 50’s style gender role tropes, heavy handed parenting and using Jesus’ name to sell things (none of which, I think, constitute actual theology)?
I am a flaming heterosexual single Christian woman, and I too have unfulfilled desires for intimacy. The only difference between me and a Christian professing LGBTQ person is that I have a (vanishingly small) chance of actually having an opportunity to have my desires fulfilled in a legitimate, God-honoring fashion. In truth, though, there just are not a whole lot of eligible single decent Christian men in my demographic, so I give myself about the same chances as those of a snowball in a traditionally warm place.
Shame on all of you folks for trying to besmirch the image of the Godly men at Focus on the Family!!!
It’s fake news, a witch hunt, and a hoax!!!
If he’d done a survey of people that evangelicals nominated as being good fathers, then interviewed/studied those fathers, and THEN presented the conclusions as a commentary on evangelicals, he’d have been onto something meaningful and I’d have been interested. I’ll be quite frank: I have certain inbuilt hypotheses about evangelicals, not all of which are favourable. And to be equally frank: maybe his research would genuinely have challenged my inbuilt hypotheses. “Evangelical” is a very broad label, after all. But it looks like a missed opportunity to me.
Bah! Finally someone here is telling it like it is. Because they tell it like it is.
You’re all rubbish.
Up Yours,
Roger Bombast
I believe James Dobson is or was a member of the CotN, which yes, ordains women.
BUT if he claimed his group was a church then he should have lost his membership in his local CotN, as per the Manuel.
I’m baffled.
Why would anybody toss wet towels onto the bed?
I mean, how hard is it to hang the goddang thing up on the towel bar so it’ll dry and not get mildewed?
So their poor wives would have to pick them up. Some jerks are like that.
Because his mommy is not there to clean up after him?
What an interesting thought!
I would be curious to see a compare and contrast of what ‘church people’ thought of someone’s parenting, and then what spouses thought, and then what children thought, with some sort of objective scale to back it up (time spent parenting, dynamics, IDK).
I don’t understand what you would even learn describing dudes people at a specific type of church thought might be good dads, but it certainly wouldn’t be the be all and end all of good parenting.
Even asking the wives isn’t going to guarantee too much. I can think of at least a couple families whose wives are full of nothing but praise for their husbands, but who (at least in social settings) seem very hands-off and uninvolved with their kids.
Good Question? It certainly doesn’t sound like a way to ‘love’ your wife.
EE describes it as one of his ‘bad habits’ that his wife didn’t like. She’s apparently a neatnick for thinking towels belong on the specifically made towel hook not the bed or the floor. I’m trying to skim through this book on google reads looking for the thing where he was really pretty terrible to her which I thought was about towels but I may have misremembered?
[BTW: One of her ‘flaws’ was putting pepper in eggs, which you’ll be happy to know he decided she does not intend to be disrespectful in her deepest soul with this deep flaw! Also her coughing is very irritating apparently]
Also Emerson is apparently one of those people who leaves cupboard doors open which would drive me up the wall tbh.
Lea,
Lea, I wrote out the wet towel incident in full on my blog here.
MOD: Your inline link was broken. Plus inline links are not allowed here in comments. If you want to point somewhere else please do it with the full URL. GBTC
A life long Baptist attorney,
I’m not arguing, only looking for verses or passages your basing your statement on. 🙂 🙂
Dang. Dobson himself wrote Love Must Be Tough which correctly advocated that a wife tell an adulterous husband that he had to make a choice….the injured wife had to force a change or watch him go and not go running after him. What happened here with this book? Dobson was great in the other book
Sorry, I put my prayer request here because I couldn’t find the prayer request page: please pray for my family because we are going through a crisis, which has affected my mother and I quite deeply.
Dee,
When I read that you didn’t get any results from searching the Focus on the Family site for sexual abuse, I suspected that they have issues with their search engine, and they do.
I searched their site using Google. This is what I entered:
child sex abuse site:focusonthefamily.com
I got 2600 responses. I searched on clergy sex abuse. I didn’t get as many responses, but got a few.
How? By linking to and quoting a statement that they wrote?
Also, why no mention of the women who work at Focus on the Family? Do they not count? Or are they not godly?
Sheila Wray Gregoire,
Sorry, Lea, the full wet towel story is here: https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2019/01/love-and-respect-why-unconditional-respect-cant-work/
Sheila,
Thanks Sheila I guess that’s what I was thinking of, which is really more about the trip and resenting her trying to have any standards of cleanliness in the house than anything.
Also forgot about this which is awful: ‘ No matter what, in all of these cases, she regularly gives him sexual release, without any regard for her own feelings, understanding that this is a need that he has, and that he cannot show her love without it.’
I don’t know how he typed that out without any shame honestly. It’s gross.
Some people are lazy and self centered. They want a maid instead of a spouse.
Hell no it ain’t.
Sounds like his (Eggerich) mother never taught him anything, namely that the world does not revolve around him and that he is not its central axis. As a matter of maturity and domestic statecraft, he could’nt have just indulged his wife’s towel hook thing? It could have gone a long way in ensuring domestic tranquility.
Eggerich’s love and respect vids?
Based on strict gender binaries allegedly taught in Scripture, they are theatre of the absurd more than anything else.
I think the Queen of Soul has way more currency than he does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0
StillWiggling,
“In truth, though, there just are not a whole lot of eligible single decent Christian men in my demographic, so I give myself about the same chances as those of a snowball in a traditionally warm place.”
++++++++++++++
there are intelligent, kind, compassionate, responsible men who don’t sport the christian label whatsoever.
how ’bout it?
i mean, FOF and ee’s L&R make the unwitting indictment:
the model evangelical christian man is a perpetual 12 year-old whose critical thinking skills amount to “the in-crowd says my self-entitlement is biblical. that must mean God said it. Yes, that’s right- God said it. I–…hmmmm, wait a second…. oh, i got it, i got it: ‘God said it. i believe it. that settles it.’ ”
StillWiggling, you can do much, much better. you deserve much, much better.
Abigail,
“Dang. Dobson himself wrote Love Must Be Tough which correctly advocated that a wife tell an adulterous husband that he had to make a choice….the injured wife had to force a change or watch him go and not go running after him. What happened here with this book? Dobson was great in the other book”
++++++++++++++++
it’s just not trending anymore, therefore theology is adjusted accordingly.
oh, i just love my religion! 😐
love, respect…. good lord, they’re the same thing. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” that is, if I Corinthians 13 means anything.
but we have to be biblical, so let’s make things up, call it doctrine & theology, start a
businessministry and make money and a name for ourselves with it!(sounds like evangelicalism to me)
Serving Kids In Japan,
I assumed this was meant to be a parody. Roger Bombast seems to’ve taken it seriously, but I’m not convinced he’s a reliable witness…
i’m really enjoying calling it FOF.
“FOF!”
Nick Bulbeck,
Aunt Polly is a composite of the best of evangelical persnickety.
“These are the few ways we can practice humility:
To speak as little as possible of one’s self.
To mind one’s own business.
Not to want to manage other people’s affairs.
To avoid curiosity.
To accept contradictions and correction cheerfully.
To pass over the mistakes of others.
To accept insults and injuries.
To accept being slighted, forgotten and disliked.
To be kind and gentle even under provocation.
Never to stand on one’s dignity.
To choose always the hardest.”
― Mother Teresa, The Joy in Loving: A Guide to Daily Living
Why do I disagree?
This is often the “teaching” of predators of spiritual abuse. Inside, the “humble” exteriors are counters of merits and demerits, and those who judge books by their covers.
If a person has a history of psychological and emotional damage from abuse, and he or she believes G-d is healing, then when that victim re-enters an environment whereby the :higher spiritual” expectation is: “Accept insults and injuries” and “To be kind and gentle even under provocation” the spiritual predator then has full access to completely demolish any and all “dignity” that could be restored. Why? Because in this “teaching” dignity is nothing of value — nothing to “stand on”.
I say TRUTH is dignified —
But hey, I ain’t no saint — and I don’t have a saint-mask.
Spiritual predators depend on this “teaching” (and those who depend on saint-masks) in order to move freely in and out the smile-greeters-welcoming-church door. The unspoken understanding is, “Keep the peace no matter the cost, suffer for Christ’s sake, pray in silence, don’t point, don’t judge…”
The result?
Ignore the desperate cry of the child-victim, “pray she “matures” in Christ so she’s not such a disturbance to the mercy we all know. Why? Because we who have swallowed this jagged little pill know that in the end, we win. Because mercy triumphs over judgement… even at the expense of another innocent victim.”
I say, NO!
PS
After a while The Cross has no meaning, and Grace is just another word slapped in front of something else for the next word-play teaching-slogan so that grand-poo-pa “leaders” can appear indispensable and worthy of a 6 figure “blessing” as one of “God’s chosen”? All this at the expense of another victim?
I say, NO!
Now, tell me humble saint, what place have you prepared of me?
Sincerely.
TheSoliderMadeMeCarryHisCross
elastigirl,
This is a VERY important post, observation…..
It’s been adjusted so much in 2,000 years that even theologians have lost touch with Truth. The church has become so culturally-relevant that very little of it resembles Church.
elastigirl,
As I continue to think about this further ( always a dangerous thing!), the number of Christian “gurus” that have been highlighted here on TWW, and that have pushed theology that is “suspect” and in many cases contradictory to each other, is quite large….. let alone just bad behavior ( i.e. potty mouth Driscoll, and the large number that can not keep their pants zipped)…
But remember, we that think “critically” and question these “ issues” are just Sons and daughters of Stan..
And also remember, it is always OK for these gurus to call out other brands of Christianity as bad… i rember the Toman Catholic Church being called “ Whore of Babylon”
https://www.wxii12.com/article/wilkes-county-pastor-charged-multiple-sex-offences-minor/30614854
https://www.wxii12.com/article/wilkes-county-pastor-charged-multiple-sex-offences-minor/30614854/
Brian,
“more than 100 counts of felony sex offenses that span 15 years”
Surely, someone other than the victims knew! Surely, the flags must have been there! Why are church folks so complacent when children are exposed to devils in the pulpit?!
Bingo on that Julie Roys latest post clearly shows this as she catches the mouthpieces for these organizations lying. Read the post and see some of them promise to get back to her with how much their principal makes only they never do. Prof. Throckmorton has documented the biggest of the big scams: Gospel for Asia, doing these same things. They made many promises of future disclosure of private financial information going back to 2015. Yet nothing has ever been disclosed. The same is true for promises made to Roys about these other organizations. All of these are about Mammon and not Jesus. You cannot serve both. These claim to be churches which they are not. They are false missions organizations. I have come to the conclusion that there are a great many false “Christian” mission organizations today. FotF is certainly one of them now. So donor beware…
AProblemLikeMaria,
I think these are really good points. The “carry your cross” message is used to place bonds on the consciences of people who are relatively powerless while those who are more powerful seem to get a “pass.”
I doubt very much that Paul intended his famous 1 Cor 13 “love suffers long yet remains kind” teaching to be used to trap people in abusive relationships.
It is earnestly to be desired that abusers be confronted and restrained “under the sun”.
“Let justice roll down”
Lea,
“‘ No matter what, in all of these cases, she regularly gives him sexual release, without any regard for her own feelings, understanding that this is a need that he has, and that he cannot show her love without it.’”
++++++++++++
huh. some people are unable to function sexually.
guess that means love is not possible in their relationship? ridiculous.
why make such an absurd statement?
elastigirl,
Actually, looking back at the quote that might be a paraphrase which is a little bit better. I may have to actually read the book just to see what I should be maddest about
Of course, as a single person I dont spend a lot of time reading marriage books. I read a book on Attachment styles though which I found very helpful in thinking back/forward about relationships. I don’t think these books should be so gendered anyways. We are all humans, with the same basic, innate needs – I’m convinced it is more socialization that makes us different than biology.
*tiny voice* Uhm, I thought it was because you don’t want extra fabric around when you’re trying to do heroic deeds? And because that’s how Cap was depicted in the comics?
OK, I seriously never, ever thought that the reason Cap wore tight shirts was for the sex appeal factor. It never occurred to me…
/wanders off muttering “I always knew I was a bit weird but I guess I’m REALLY weird?”
There are several verses in the Bible telling men to respect women. Yet Emerson rejects God’s command to keep his man made tradition.
Ummm…Maybe you just don’t have a thing for Chris Evans like I do lol. It is very hard for me not to read this as sarcasm hee!
(I don’t know or care what’s in the comics)
(Please enjoy this video)
https://youtu.be/dNPkJ7eEVDU
Sheila,
That was painful to read.
First, he humiliates his wife in private by letting her know how little he missed her. Then he humiliates her on a massive public scale by publishing the story of how he finally put her in her place.
Somehow I just can’t believe that wet towels were the real issue here, and neither was the alleged nagging.
Samuel Conner,
I agree.
Lea,
“I don’t think these books should be so gendered anyways. We are all humans, with the same basic, innate needs – I’m convinced it is more socialization that makes us different than biology.”
+++++++++++++++
is there a nice-&-neat word for ‘assigning sin to something’? (it’s not moralize, is it?)
like, making a sin-issue about something as neutral as a baked potato?
and then inventing rules about the baked potato… like, if you peel it without washing it first it’s a sin? and then, of course, the slippery slope of a baked potato done in the microwave in 4 minutes versus in the ‘traditional’ oven for 30 minutes?
professional christians just can’t help themselves. can’t resist turning yet another something that just ‘is’ (like gender) into a sin issue.
[yes, emerson eggerichs claims to speak for God. he wouldn’t have written his book and actively tried to sell it to pastors unless he did. (even if he’s just pretending)]
so it becomes not just mere explanations & advice but “if you don’t do what we say it’s eternal curtains, you’re a deep disappointment to God and to us (in fact, we are now afraid of you), and your name is probably being erased out of the Lamb’s Book of life at this very moment.”
…but what is that nice-&-neat word for moralizing/sin-nizing?
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
“I thought it was because you don’t want extra fabric around when you’re trying to do heroic deeds?”
+++++++++++
absolutely. no capes!
Now, tell me humble saint, what place have you prepared *for me?
I am serious.
+++++++++++
More than making a few points, I want thinkers to consider the Hi and Bye of Christ’s Spirit.
Some of the Hi and Bye considerations come to mind —
Before Jesus said, Hi and Bye and all that is said around Hi and Bye, including, see and touch, don’t see and don’t touch, (proof, no proof) talk, don’t talk, and more blessed are those who believe who don’t see… and, while away I go to prepare a place for you…. and while I’m away, you’ll die in your own sins….I am with you to the end of the age… Oh, I could go on and on I suppose. It’s quite a waltz.
I want to seriously consider healing and the “calling” some have to “prepare a place” in the midst of the realities of Hi’s and Bye’s.
The parable of the one who leaves the 99……..
One leaves the 99….. does that mean while the one was with the 99, the count was and even 100?
Who said hi and who said bye?
…….so I go out and find one.
Have the 99 prepared a place for me and my friend?
Did the 99 think they had to fix the place so I’d come back to be 100 again just in case I didn’t find one?
Did the 99 care to want to know why the one left the 99 — the one who was “lost”?
Is there room for one more, or better one less?
Who says Hi and who says Bye and why?
Consider the “teaching” of the “five fold ministry”
The teaching is serving The King…….. until He comes back
The “teaching” is to prepare for “the King”.
How do you think the King will present Himself in such a structure?
Would it be a Hi or a Bye?
And how might He then keep The Promise of reconciling all things to Himself?
Does there always have to be a problem-reason to “prepare a place”?
Is that the way to justify a “good work”?
Do I have to prove I am a victim before Wartburg Watch prepares a place for me?
PS
I know The Answer
Please consider . . .
Now, tell me humble saint, what place have you prepared *for me?
I am serious.
+++++++++++
More than making a few points, I want thinkers to consider the Hi and Bye of Christ’s Spirit.
Some of the Hi and Bye considerations come to mind —
Before Jesus said, Hi and Bye and all that is said around Hi and Bye, including, see and touch, don’t see and don’t touch, (proof, no proof) talk, don’t talk, and more blessed are those who believe who don’t see… and, while away I go to prepare a place for you…. and while I’m away, you’ll die in your own sins….I am with you to the end of the age… Oh, I could go on and on I suppose. It’s quite a waltz.
I want to seriously consider healing and the “calling” some have to “prepare a place” in the midst of the realities of Hi’s and Bye’s.
The parable of the one who leaves the 99……..
One leaves the 99….. does that mean while the one was with the 99, the count was and even 100?
Who said hi and who said bye?
…….so I go out and find one.
Have the 99 prepared a place for me and my friend?
Did the 99 think they had to fix the place so I’d come back to be 100 again just in case I didn’t find one?
Did the 99 care to want to know why the one left the 99 — the one who was “lost”?
Is there room for one more, or better one less?
Who says Hi and who says Bye and why?
Consider the “teaching” of the “five fold ministry”
The teaching is serving The King…….. until He comes back
The “teaching” is to prepare for “the King”.
How do you think the King will present Himself in such a structure?
Would it be a Hi or a Bye?
And how might He then keep The Promise of reconciling all things to Himself?
Does there always have to be a problem-reason to “prepare a place”?
Is that the way to justify a “good work”?
Do I have to prove I am a victim before Wartburg Watch prepares a place for me?
PS
I know The Answer
Please consider
I think I’m going to start complaining that my husband doesn’t love or respect me because after 32 yrs of marriage he still pulls his socks off inside out and crumpled up!
Seriously, though, there is way too much leeway for harmful interpretations in their book.
Is that bad? #goodthingimsingle
[My ex bf would fold his stuff in a really fancy way and I was just hanging everything up or just normally folding it over…]
Emerson Eggerichs, Ph.D., is an internationally celebrated communication expert …
Combining an earned doctorate in Child and Family Ecology with the perspective that 20 years as a senior pastor …
This has to be a typo in Kairos’ website. There is no such doctorate in Child and Family Ecology.
Or maybe there is….????
AProblemLikeMaria,
“I know The Answer
Please consider”
++++++++++++++
the process of divining what it is we’re supposed to consider is like walking through a maze in molasses with no outlet.
don’t think i can pencil that in for today.
Jeffrey Chalmers,
well, that’s the problem with sin-nizing everything & inventing sins to control it all. the sins in section IV, part D, subpart 3, items 4-27 become obsolete and you have to keep inventing new sins to maintain control.
I looked it up too because it sounded weird and this is what I found in a class course description:
“Examines the influences the family has on the child, family dynamics and issues impacting families. Focus on the importance of understanding relationship building, support for families and interpersonal skill development that is culturally conducive with individual communities. Examines the ECE program’s policies and procedures on families and parental involvement.”
As for them framing this as a doctrinal issue, it may be. FOF advocates for hyper-complementarianism. Look at this from FOF https://www.boundless.org/advice/what-does-submission-look-like-for-christian-women/
The husband decides number of children, whether they will use contraception, homeschooling or not, whether a sick child should be treated or not, where they will live, what church they attend, money matters….
Isn’t it a doctrinal difference if FOF believes with Eggerich that women are more easily deceived and so her voice is not to be heard, valued, and trusted like a man’s voice? Isn’t it a doctrinal difference if they propagate male only rule and authority? The first three of Eggerich’s CHAIRS acronym describing who a husband is and what he wants is CONQUEST, HIERARCHY, and AUTHORITY.
Sheila seems like she is more egalitarian which is different doctrinally than complementarianism.
Thanks for speaking out, Sheila. Eggerichs does not handle criticism well. My best guess is that his organization is, at least in part, orchestrating the FOF response.
It may help to know that while a pastor, Eggerichs promoted the teaching of Gothard and Ezzo. The Gothard/Ezzo influence is especially strong in the middle third of his teaching on the Energizing Cycle. The CHAIRS counsel to wives is Gothard’s 24/7, unconditional submission. The COUPLE counsel to husbands reduces love to 15 minutes a day of Ezzo couch time.
Sheila has done a great job analyzing the potential for abuse in the final third of the teaching on the Rewarded Cycle. There are places where Eggerichs caveats the teaching with counsel to wives to leave the home if they’re abused. But, Sheila’s analysis still stands.
It’s worth asking why the materials are so popular. I think it’s the first third of the book on the Crazy Cycle. This is where Eggerichs relies on the insights of Dr John Gottman, who suggests there are four communication behaviors that destroy marriages – criticism, contempt, stonewalling, and withdrawing. Women are more prone to criticism and contempt, which Eggerichs labels as disrespect. Gottman’s research also shows that men are more prone to stonewalling and withdrawing, which Eggerichs labels as unloving. Many couples see themselves engaging in these destructive behaviors when they read the L&R book, stop the bad communication behaviors, and see a real benefit in their marriage.
I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that Eggerichs introduced evangelicals to Gottman, who is arguably the leading marriage and family therapist of our time. It’s a shame that the final two-thirds of the L&R book aren’t also based on Gottman’s work.
It’s also worth asking how Eggerichs justifies his one-sided teaching on sex in light of what most of us see as the mutuality of I Corinthians 7:4.
Eggerichs argues that the Corinthians passage isn’t about sex. Rather, it’s about felt needs. He then asserts men have a felt need for sex, while women have a felt need for emotional communication.
So, what Eggerichs says the I Corinthians passage means is “sex for him; conversation for her”.
He provides this exegesis in his book, “The Love and Respect Experience: A Husband-Friendly Devotional That Wives Truly Love.”
What the what now?
“When it comes to more heartfelt issues like how many kids to have, where to educate them, and whether to stay at home with them, as well as decisions about treatment for serious illness, I think yes, biblically the final decision does ultimately reside with the husband.”
That’s a NOPE for me. ‘Honey, you should have 9 kids and stay at home with them, and even if you are actively suicidal i’ll leave you to watch them against the advice of doctors’ is how you end up with Andrea Yates. I can’t believe people promote these folks and their misogyny.
elastigirl,
One question at a time…
I have come to realize that A LOT of people say “Lord, Lord…” and the reason is for self — always measuring what they do or don’t do based on their own want and will. Would that not suggest they’re their own gods?
One question at a time…
Have you ever left the 99 to find one?
Has Wartburgwatch become the 99? What if the “lost” was the one you’re calling out as the abuser?
How that for cut and dry?
I think it was gracious to give the molasses.
elastigirl,
One question at a time…
Do you know “with you always until the end of the age”?
I have come to realize that A LOT of people say “Lord, Lord…” and the reason is for self — always measuring what they do or don’t do based on their own want and will. Would that not suggest they’re their own gods?
One question at a time…
Have you ever left the 99 to find one?
Has Wartburgwatch become the 99? What if the “lost” was the one you’re calling out as the abuser?
How that for cut and dry?
I think it was gracious to give the molasses.
“But you were not willing…”
Michigan State University Archives, Home Economics, 1895-2005
http://archives.msu.edu/collections/home_economics_maturity.php
“In 1941, the Home Economics Division was reorganized…The name was changed in 1944 to the School of Home Economics.”
“in 1970…the name of the college changed to the College of Human Ecology”
“In 2005…The university’s administration decided to eliminate the college and realign its academic programs with other programs and departments on campus.”
Lea,
I remember that story, now that you brought it up. Her husband made a decision to sell the house and move into a camper trailer after the second child. They then move back into a new home, Andrea is checked into a residential treatment facility. Then he pulls her out, they tell him no more children. Then he pushes for child three.
He was some sort of engineer for Raytheon. They never identified his denomination, so it was hard to get a fix on him. He never took any responsibility for the creation of the home environment.
Yeah, could never figure out why Batman had a cape.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
i’m guessing what it took to escape the pit gave him the coordination to somehow use the cape to his advantage in his deft maneuvers. maybe for inertia, or for a sail- or parachute-like function.
(or just to wrap up with & keep warm when perched on top of very tall building)
lucius would know.
This is patriarchy, pure and simple. A man having total control over a woman’s body is a foundational tenet of patriarchy– possibly THE foundational tenet of patriarchy. I can’t believe this dreck is accepted in mainstream Christianity. Where are peoples’ brains?!?!
I wash my wife’s clothes. I am a Calvinist and was a pastor for decades.
More fake news from JD Hall – remember the pastor who’s ‘replanting’ that UMC church in Minnesota? Well, the goofs at P&P mixed that pastor up with another one two states away and wrote an article about the wrong guy, complete with pictures!
“404 NOT FOUND”
https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/01/21/irony-the-united-methodist-pastor-excluding-old-folks-advocates-lgbt-inclusion/
but Google has it cached:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nJiS68xF5FIJ:https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/01/21/irony-the-united-methodist-pastor-excluding-old-folks-advocates-lgbt-inclusion/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
AProblemLikeMaria,
you suddenly sound familiar. have we interacted in the past? something about ‘speaking plainly’?
i reckon none of us could possibly know why anyone might say “Lord, Lord…”.
Me? i tend to say it like i would when i’m talking with a friend because the weight of the world is on my shoulders. “oh, mathilda, mathilda….” all i want is peace, advice, wisdom… can’t see how that promotes me & demotes the god of abraham, isaac, jacob, & junia.
re: the 99, the lost: neither wartburg watch, dee, nor anyone else can be all things to all people & meet every need. in the limited resources of time & energy which we allot to this or that, we choose what needs we meet, what purposes we help fulfill.
yes, your reply was sort of cut & dried. but then you messed it all up with ““But you were not willing…”
do you mean i wasn’t willing to make a running list of all the possible meanings for all your shifting allusions of confusion?
if communication is actually your point, i’m sure you can do better.
She and Arnold Smartarse might be distant cousins…
If you research Ezzos youll find fraudulent credentials and some scarey teaching about babies and comforting them. Ezzos teaching led hospitals and pediatricians to condemn their book “Babywise”. It pretty much advocated controlling babies from day one. Bunk!!!!!!!
Does she throw wet towels on the bed? 🙂
Max,
Nope, but our dogs jump up om the bed.
How interesting! I think I”m much more prone to withdrawing than anything else. ‘More prone to’ is a pretty far cry from women always do X, therefore need Y, and vice versa.
Thank you for breaking this all down, i had never heard of ‘couch time’ but I can see how that might be popular?
I am absolutely astounded at this interpretation. I don’t want to be in a relationship that is solely about ‘communication’. Or rather I do, but those are called ‘friendships’ and I don’t want to be dating someone I’m not interested in sexually. This is basic.
Sigh.
Lea,
One reason this person is bobbing up and down in the fractal boundary between passing and failing the Turing Test.
Nick Bulbeck,
I wrote the first couple off as gibberish, but that sentence sounded coherent and wrong enough to respond to I guess.
My husband is Calvinist, also. Funny, I’m just now remembering that he used to sometimes leave his wet towel on the bed. That hasn’t happened in years. I must have been a bad influence.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate hearing this. I tried this method with my oldest because moms at church were recommending it and I felt like a failure because it just wasn’t working. I have since stopped paying attention to what the “I have all the answers” people are saying and started paying more attention to cues from my children. That is working better, so far.
I’ve never read Eggerich or even heard of him until now but it boggles my mind how anyone could combine Gottman’s teachings with those of Gothard and the Ezzos (yuck)?!
If you study child development and then read the Ezzos, it’s a manual of everything not to do if you want to have a healthy child with a functioning conscience. It’s just horrible.
But, I’ve got to say. I’m old enough that I’ve seen enough about people who write books on marriage and child rearing only to find out later that their own families were shambles. When we had our contracting business, we worked on the homes of some. I would never divulge anyone’s private lives but suffice it to say, use your own brain and do your own research of actual facts. There are no angels among us, just folks with their own egos and feet of clay.
I think I can sum up my feelings about Focus on the Family like this:
We have this admonition:
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith”
And we have an organization telling us to:
“Focus on the family”
It’s a subtle difference at first but it’s a fork in the road. When you take a fork in the road, the further you walk, the further you travel away from the path you didn’t take. The paths may seem to go on side by side for a while but soon you are way off from where you were meant to be.
When you turn your eyes from Jesus and onto the family, it leads into all kinds of strange things, things like we are discussing here today. Things about control and power and hierarchy and position, things Jesus said we were not supposed to pursue. “It shall not be so among you.” He told us again and again to just love- to love our neighbor as ourselves and to consider every person our neighbor.
Instead of looking for books and leaders to tell you the approved way of how to love someone based on their gender, why not ask that person what makes them feel loved?
We need to get back to Jesus.
I have grown to detest Focus on the the Family. In my fundamentalist days I agreed with my (now ex) fundo husband to follow the teaching of James Dobson’s book “The Strong Willed Child” it caused immense emotional damage to my now adult beautiful girls. In the book he heavily promotes smacking/physical punishment which ex did and being a good submissive Christian wife I thought it was the biblical thing to do. I am still ashamed I did not protect them.
Any teaching from Focus on the Family, or recommended books should be avoided like the plague. Sorry but this touched a raw nerve
elastigirl,
Maybe.
I meant, you were not willing to move through molasses. “No time to pencil it in…”
I do think “molasses” is more graceful. I think “making points” can harm the tender heart of a poem.
“ You cannot put a fire out
A thing that can ignite
Can go, itself, without a fan
Upon the slowest night.
You cannot fold a flood
And put it in a drawer
Because the winds would find it out
And tell your cedar floor.”
If a person says, “We can only do this one thing well, we can not do everything. . .” and that one thing is… say… starting fires or causing floods, it would be foolish to respond in defense of one’s work and act by dismissing the communication that children are being burned with no place prepared, and whole fields are flooded, destroying land and the hope of germination.
Now that’s metaphorical, but it is also based on fact. For some creatures, just a tiny taste of blood, and the craving for more and more, so to never be able to say “enough” is ignited. These soles move fast, from point to point to point making and eating points and seemingly gaining strength and power to “call justice down”. The consequences are seldom counted as a cost. . .
The human brain is easily deceived by the written word. A person can too easily believe he or she has lived and lives true if he or she “makes points”. (That’s not true). The quick drug-like amphetamine high of an up vote or even a reply can create a kind of gang mentality. If I stand at a distance, those who communicate this way on the internet are like water-creatures. Huge schools (or gangs) are created and move here and there with tides and food source. The people become what they feed on — the people crave what they kill and eat . . . I am not sure it is “holy communion” but many claim this mega-work is in Jesus’ name.
As far as my not being so clear… Let me be clear. I need you to consider how much distance is needed for me to communicate this to you. I do not want to make excuses for what you see as problematic communication — there are weaknesses that are a part of my life at this time.
I want care and compassion to be a part of who I am rather than a response only justified by a victim’s cry. Compassion and Care can not be divided by who deserves what and why.
Finally, I want to speak about “facts” and “proof”. You might say that what I have said makes no sense. That from your POV there is nothing you can do or say that can support what I said. I say there has been proof, historically speaking. It’s too easy to get caught against something, rather than energy for something. To often I am ignored and usually it is because someone says, “You make no sense.” (As if it was my problem and for years I thought it was… so I moved to painting and poems).
Here’s a metaphor or word picture….
Let’s say Wartburgwatch is traveling in caravan heading toward a certain destination. Each driver is a good driver and the passengers trust the direction and each one has something to offer the travelers as they go. From a distance there is a large group, all under one banner moving forward. Closer, there are friendships, and communications on the side that keep the clan tight and protected. A link or professional “we got your back” friends.
Now, say one person has been on that road and suffered great harm because at the end of the road is a HUGE and horrible bloody wreck. Aid cars can’t get to it, because of the caravan takes up the whole road, and sirens are heard, but the caravan sound the same sirens.
For Good Reason, the one person finds the freeway going in the opposite direct. Of course THAT direction is suspect because it appears that person is not part of the caravan clan! But still that one person calls out to the caravan drivers from the other said and says, “There is a dead end ahead of you! You’ll all be stopped and backed up with no place prepared!”
The response?
“Who are you?!! You are on the other side of the road — there is no way you can tell us what is ahead for OUR side of the road! You don’t know what we’ve been through — nothing can be worse then what some of our clan have endured as abuse!”
But the truth is, it can get worse. The pile-up devastation of no place prepared is horrific.
The drivers of the caravan didn’t think that they might be following the person who warned them and pleaded for a place…. instead they said, “me too!”
One Christ
“I go to prepare a place for you….”
I think it is what it is not to be human.
Lea,
(sorry my formatting was a mess, the paragraph in the middle was mine)
The interesting thing is that he quotes Gottman, but totally ignores all that Gottman says in his book refuting Eggerichs’ core theme in the book: that men should be in charge. One of Gottman’s 7 principles is shared influence and shared decision-making, and in his book he spends several pages talking about religious people who think the husband should be in charge, and how in those marriages, there’s an 81% chance of divorce. Those marriages only work if people don’t live out their beliefs. But Eggerichs takes all of Gottman’s findings and draws the opposite conclusions from Gottman. My husband and I picked this apart in our podcast of how Eggerichs gaslights women: https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2019/09/love-and-respect-eggerichs-gaslighting-example/
Lea,
Yes, daily emotional connection is a great idea. It’s undoubtedly part of the reason Ezzo’s materials once attracted so many people. It’s not all bad. I think Ezzo is also the one who popularized the term and the idea of ‘date nights’. The problem, I think, is the reduction of love to connection events like couch time and date nights.
This is hard complementarianism with a soft communication style. Unlike many traditional complementarian models, the wife does not have authority over the running of the household.
At the church where Eggerichs was pastor, women couldn’t be elders (no surprise). They were also prohibited from being deacons. The concern was that in the process of ministering to the sick and poor, someone might come to the mistaken conclusion that the woman was exercising authority.
Meanwhile, a few headlines. I won’t include links, but these can be copied and pasted into browsers if anyone is curious.
“Women now outnumber men in the American workforce for the first time since the Great Recession” (2020)
“Women Are Majority of New Medical Students” (2017)
So go ahead, try to avoid women’s skill anywhere but inside your own home and that unpleasant church you* go to…
*generic you
AProblemLikeMaria,
Never spend 3,000 words on something for which 300 will do nicely.
Becky Thatcher,
Comments like that remind me that my brain damage is not so severe.
“Come on kid, get up and walk already!
I’ve never seen someone crawl for so long to get from here to there!
If you were bigger, better, stronger, THEN you could take two steps and get to something I WANT.”
Compassion and Care
Does it not have a place for the Wartburg gang?
Sheila,
“But Eggerichs takes all of Gottman’s findings and draws the opposite conclusions from Gottman.”
++++++++++++++
because being ‘biblical’ is all that matters.
doesn’t have to be feasible, sensible, reasonable, productive, fair & just, kind, life-giving…. doesn’t even have to be true.
just needs to fit in the fantasy called ‘biblical’.
elastigirl,
well, the social & political agenda. the one that siphons off more and more power & wealth at the top.
drstevej,
Did that include Calvin Klein jeans (humor)?
AProblemLikeMaria,
thank you for the time you put into your reply.
if i’m understanding you correctly, you’ve had a large share of suffering. which opens up deep wells of compassion in me. i’m very sorry for it, whether physical, emotional, relational…
natural-born misfit, here. (on the inside, at least.) i know what it’s like not to be understood. (gahhhd, if they only knew what they were missing)
i like the poem. (the lines in quotes, to be specific) did you write it?
i’ll just respond to some of the ‘pictures in the clouds’ i think i see in your reply:
————
“me, too” is not monolithic.
the fact that people are saying “me, too” (regardless of context) means they voices had once been silenced by those more powerful. but now they are being heard. this is a good thing.
saying “me, too” doesn’t mean you sign on to an agenda. while there are naturally many commonalities, there are also differing perspectives and conclusions.
the only thing tying it all together is “you who silenced me will do so no longer.”
—————–
a desire for justice is a good thing (as is its pursuit). challenging ‘authority’ and speaking truth to power are good things.
I remember when Condoleeza Rice was Nat’l Security Advisor she was giving a speech and there were protesters in the back. She affirmed them, gave them some time, saying this is what democracy means. (not a perfect analogy).
as justice happens, normal & healthy human beings will breath a sigh settled relief (individually and collectively. this is not an expression of rabid revenge.
—————–
re: ‘the pile-up devastation of no place prepared is horrific’, if you see danger up ahead, abstract poetic imagery will simply take too long. cut to the chase. sound the alarm. speak as plainly as possible.
(perhaps you’ve already done this and it hasn’t been received. try again, and better hone the justification maybe. as succinctly as possible. people tend to skip over lengthy, wordy things.)
Brian,
BIGFOOT ALERT
BIGFOOT ALERT
(google bigfoot washington)
elastigirl,
One of my happy memories as a kid was the follow all the Bigfoot media stories. Cryptozoology has been locating animals thought to be mythical in the past, like the deer with gills, breathing air through them, in the area of Vietnam and Laos. If the WDOT photos are real…finally.
Brian,
i think my first exposure to Bigfoot was on The Six Million Dollar Man. now THAT was exciting! But then when i found out there really was a thing to it…. oh my gosh….
(totally dating myself)
I loved that sub-plot!
Nick Bulbeck,
bigfoot AND aliens! and then a compound inside a granite mountain in the Sierras, and that turning tunnel… well, it’s just too wonderful, isn’t it.
Typo
** Now, if I build on a problem, the problem will not be able to sustain my build no matter how noble a concept.
That would be a mistake for the people who tend to skip . . . revealing nonetheless.
AProblemLikeMaria,
“Would you like to hear why I resist saying “me too”?”
++++++++++++++++++
sure. (can you do it in 50 words or less?)
If you want to be heard you have to give people a reason to hear you, and you have to make yourself understandable. Otherwise you are just noise, no matter how important or profound your message might be.
Someone here linked to Dobson’s “Love Must Be Tough”.I just read it. It is great. Nothing like Eggerich’s teaching.
As long as you write surreal comments that have no general meaning, you are silent.
These folks, while not being respectful of “legitimate psychology, psychiatry, or psychotherapy” are also not actually Christian, in any sense of that word.
Emily Dickinson — she was the author.
She was prolific and alone enough to see and know what it would be like to be a frog —
I suppose similarly singing, “I’d rather be a hammer than a nail…” or “a forest than a street…”
I enjoy reading comments here, and this article struck home. I grew up in churches heavily influenced by Focus on the Family, and I’ve noticed their anthropology is often unbalanced and unbiblical. In effect, “Women are porcelain dolls that do not have or need moral agency.” It leads to wackiness like y’all are discussing, along with some strange views.
1) Boys needs to be disciplined/taught, but girls will naturally grow up virtuous.
2) Men sin. Women don’t…they just make bad decisions due to bad teaching or low self-esteem. (http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm)
3) All women just want to be wives and mothers, and have no interest in sex otherwise. A single mom must have been deceived by a bad man (it isn’t possible she knowingly chose a bad man,) a divorced woman must have been abandoned, even though women initiate 70% of divorces and things are usually much more complicated. (https://www.divorcemag.com/blog/why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men)
4) Single men are irresponsible and immature, who need a wife to “domesticate them.” They must prove they are marriable. Single women are by default “Perfect Daughters of the King” and are just waiting on the Prince Charming they deserve.
5) Any problems in marriage are the man’s fault. If she is unhappy or discontent, he must be doing something wrong. Biblical commands given to every Christian about contentment don’t matter, it’s his fault. If his wife is unfaithful, abusive, etc….he must “deserve” it for being a bad husband.
6) Lack of physical intimacy in the marriage is simply because he isn’t virtuous enough. If he just went to church or read his Bible more (or did whatever these wacky books tell him to do), she wouldn’t be able to keep her hands off him.
This is…not the impression I have ever gotten from evanglical nonsense on marriage! It seems the blame/onus for fixing is far more often put on women.
I went to that article about why women initiate divorces and found the author said ‘Even though a husbands infidelity is women’s #1 reason for divorcing” but followed it with “but while infidelity is listed as the reason for divorce, what exactly was the reason for the infidelity?”
That’s SUPER blaming the women!
No doubt there is a lot of nutty ideas out there but I question some of those sources…
Random Midwestener,
You’ve just listed a sample of stinkin’ thinkin’ by Christian psychologists. They’ve done the church much harm.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Tell that to a tree?
Gig the tree give give give good reason for the boy the listen?!!!!!!!!
*Did the tree give give give good reason for the boy to listen?!!!!!!!!!!!!
No heart, no ears.
elastigirl,
Not willing is a reference to being gathered.
Why do you insist on blaming ‘psychologists’? How many of these people are actually psychologists?
Mental Health treatment/therapy is useful. Twisting it where the evidence doesn’t go or letting people who have no training and no interest in actually helping people is not.
What is the percentage of women you think are out there actively seeking out a ‘bad’ man???
As opposed to getting drawn in with kindness and emotions only to see a flip? Or being stuck because of finances and kids? Or being afraid to leave because of abuse and the possibility of retribution?
A Problem Like Maria- your comments will not be approved on this blog. They make no sense to me and I’ve read all of them .Why don’t you start your own blog?
Very few of the folks I refer to as “Christian psychologists” (that’s what they call themselves) have any experience as clinical psychologists. IMO, they have chosen to deal in this arena (with the psyche rather than the spirit) because self-help advice and books sell easily to 21st century churchgoers.
Lea,
Lea, you bring up good points. Here’s a link to the Stanford study trying to determine why women initiate most divorces: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf. I think every marriage is somewhat different, and I think we’d agree it isn’t helpful to presume guilt on one party from the start.
It’s an interesting statistic, but I’ve never heard it addressed or analyzed in a church. I don’t know why, as it would be eye-opening for men and women. One reason for the statistic may be that “penalty” of divorce isn’t evenly distributed. In the US, mothers get custody of children 85-90% of the time. (http://www.childcustodycoach.com/child-custody-statistics.php).
I realize this varies by state, but it means that regardless of why she leaves (his infidelity, her infidelity, conflict, etc.) she will likely get the children, and likely the house, alimony and child support. Any difficult partnership– and I believe any marriage is difficult at times– where one partner has (or perceives) less “risk” is in for trouble.
Second…you’re exactly right, some men (and some women) seem wonderful prior to marriage and then “flip.” Those are painful and terrible stories. I was referring to women who pursue “bad boys” for whatever reason, against the advice of loved ones and in the face of warning signs. These women believe they can change him into a responsible husband and father. Maybe they really believe that because they’ve seen it in movies, or because they believe they are better than other women in his past. Or maybe “I will fix him because I love him” sounds better than “I just want to sleep with him” or dealing with “I can’t stand to be alone.”
dee,
Seconded. The comments (whether human or robotic in origin) had started to purport to be those of some kind of “victim” but without actually saying anything. It’s fine being weird (I should know) but there is a line.
Random Midwesterner,
My mistake– that link says women get custody 75% of the time. I have seen 85% in other sources. Apologies.
dee,
Until I saw your reply I was planning to reply with a string of words only loosely connected and with confusing punctuation. But that would only have added to the problem.
The studies I have seen show that when custody is *contested* fathers are slightly more likely to get custody. As a general rule women get custody because men don’t push for it. The vast majority of these things are uncontested. (Your article was rather thin on those details)
People think men are penalized in this system but the data I’ve says that’s a myth. Yes many have to pay child support but quite a lot of parents do not, inform have time to look up numbers right now…just feel that should be acknowledged.
And I don’t know how old you are, but I thought in yee old adulthood I would stop hearing thus ‘women pursue bad boys’ thing. Teenagers make lots of stupid choices in dating but that doesn’t mean that adult women are consciously going after bad men. I really think that’s absurd. There are so many factors at play here.
Also thus rationale seems so infantalizing!
I’m not trying to get into a dull gendered discussion here and I’m not sure why you’re off about movie tropes anyways. It’s a flat explanation that doesn’t fly.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I think that Roger Bombast and Arnold Smartarse should also comment:
Does APLMaria pass the Turing test?
Lea,
Lea—if you find statistics on men successfully contesting custody, I’d genuinely like to read them. I’m dismayed and doubtful of the “don’t get married, women can wreck your life with impunity” on some men’s blogs.
I am not infantilizing women. Everyone is influenced by books, movies, music, etc. People with healthy influences realize when a story is false, but not everyone has those. How many movies have you seen where boy likes girl, girl isn’t interested, boy keeps trying until she changes her mind? It’s creepy in reality, but some boys and men believe it really works. Similarly, how many movies/books/songs have you heard where girl is convinced her friends/family are wrong about her boyfriend, so she changes him and proves them wrong? It doesn’t work in reality, but some girls and women believe they are the exception.
I have no idea how many women knowingly date “bad boys.” 1 percent? 5 percent? However, some do. How should a culture or church respond, especially when their choices impact other people?
Culture isn’t helpful; remember Sheryl Sandberg’s advice to date ”bad boys” but marry a good man later? (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/772391-when-looking-for-a-life-partner-my-advice-to-women). She never explains why a good man should or would agree to be a woman’s last option….and forgets good men may be taken already by women who didn’t waste time with ”bad boys” first.
The church? Preach the Bible, which is bluntly clear that both men and women need a Savior. Groups like Focus on the Family aren’t helpful. Their advice leads to either:
1) Legalism (“Ladies, stay on the pedestal where you belong!”) or
2) Flattery (“You’re wonderful and deserve Prince Charming no matter what you do!”)
Injun Joe,
The short answer is, no, in both senses. Ironically, to my mind it’s not convincing either as a chatbot or as a human!
I’m not well-versed in the current state of play regarding chatbot software (there’s a Udemy course on writing chatbots in Python that I’m curious about!). For instance, what sort of algorithms are commonly used when scraping a web-page for references to itself in order to create the impression that it is reading and understanding [generic] your comments.
One of the ways in which “psychics” fool people is by making a number of speculative (and generally plausible) statements, at least one of which is likely to be accurate simply by chance. The large proportion of gibberish in these comments suggests a combination of both approaches to me. Then again, it could be a human just mucking about. Whatever it is, it has nothing useful to say.
There are a more substantial number of men than 1% who cause real harm to their partners, so why all this talk about women choosing ‘bad boys’. (and I would argue that doesn’t imply bad men necessarily either. In popular chatter it might just be an awesome dude with tattoos and a motor cycle). This kind of convo always comes off like a way to blame the women who end up in these types of relationships. I also primarily associate it with teenagers and hey, people grow up! Sheesh.
As for custody stats, I am having trouble posting them but you can look them up. The end result is not the same thing as how you got there!!
https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1456/
This study shows that a woman mentioning abuse, particularly child abuse, is penalized in trying to get custody and that that penalty is gendered.
Not really. I agree with Nick’s reply to you above. The only point I wish to add is that people choose to function as chat bots when they don’t take the time and effort to communicate meaningfully. It’s a poor man’s chat bot in the same way that sending an urgent mesaage to everyone in your inbox asking them to forward some kind of warning to everyone in their inboxes is just a poor man’s computer virus.
There are different levels of human chat bots. Piper is an example of a sophisticated chat bot – lots of words that sound like they could be meaningful, but very little actual information content.
Lea,
Lea, good points. Definitions matter and I should have started there. By “Bad Boy,” I don’t mean “has a tattoo” or “has a motorcycle.” I mean a man who may be fun and physically attractive (good things) but lacks the maturity, stability or inclination for a healthy relationship. The positive qualities are visible immediately. The negative qualities aren’t, but usually (not always) become evident early.
Thank you for the GW article. I look forward to reading it.
I’m confused by your comment that “conversations like this are always just a way to blame women,” though. I think we agree women are adults. Adults are responsible for their choices, especially if it’s a pattern. Why should relationship choices be any different? Or, why should they be different for women? (Note: I am NOT saying that bad relationship choices mean a woman “deserves” abuse.)
Ken F (aka Tweed),
So glad I am not writing (and living) for your critique.
The greatest is love.
Now THAT is my kind of “content”.
Someone recommended this book to me a decade ago or so. My husband and I read just a few chapters and threw it out. I wasn’t even going to pass it along to others by resale. The book fully disregards the fact that women want and deserve respect as well, and seems to think that men don’t need love. I don’t know what kind of “doctor” this author is, and he knows shockingly little of human nature to write such twaddle.
Now I have just completed my certification for counseling those who are victims of domestic abuse, and all through my classes, I kept thinking of this book and what it teaches.
I have a question for you. Do you want to be understood?
A maid With Benefits (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)
I’m kinda late to this thread, but I remember Focus on the Family back when it was on Christianese AM Radio (late Seventies thru mid-Eighties). In retrospect, it appears James Dobson (FOTF’s Founder and Head Apostle) viewed EVERYTHING in terms of Power Struggle, from his first major book The Strong-Willed Child (where the whole idea is to Break the Child’s Will to make him Godly) through the incident with Dobson, his Dachshund, and his belt.
Then Dobson was one of the first Christian Leaders(TM) to dive into Culture War Politics. From Christian Kingmaker under Reagan & Bush to on the outs under Clinton to Kingmaker under Dubya Bush to on the outs under Obama to Kingmaker yet again… that riches-to-rags-to-riches-to-rags whipsaw had to have an effect.
Chaplain Mike over at Internet Monk once described him this way:
“Remember James Dobson? Did a lot of things before fear of Homosexuals drove him over a cliff with most of his constituency in the car.” (This was probably connected with FOTF’s “Letter of Warning from The Future” regarding the 2008 election; which was pretty obvious propaganda even for its didactic “I send this back in time to you as a Warning” genre.)
Think of it this way:
FOTF is Dobson’s personal virtual Megachurch, he is Lead Pastor and Head Apostle, and the same dynamics are in play. Or (since FOTF’s emphasis was Christian Family and raising Perfect Christian Children, DOBSON AS BILL GOTHARD WITH FOTF AS HIS ATI.
I keep seeing parallels between Biblical Counseling and Scientology Dianetic Auditing, not the least of which is both have a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory about that EEEVIL Secular Psychology. (Such Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory regarding EEEVIL mainstream medicine is one of the main tropes of Quackery.)
“Up on Cripple Creek, she sends me
If I spring a leak, she mends me
I don’t have to speak, she defends me
A drunkard’s dream if I ever did see one…”
— The Band, “Up on Cripple Creek”, 1969
Headless Unicorn Guy,
True, that!
Sheila,
Hey! I read Sheila’s blogpost and Focus on the Family’s statement, and Sheila made it more than clear in her multiple blogposts that she is campaigning against Love and Respect. All of her blog readers understand that, so it’s no surprise that Focus would recognize that as well. They’re not making that up. Sheila has said she also wants Focus to stop endorsing the book.
Personally, I think that we all need to be willing to recognize that just because one book doesn’t work for you doesn’t mean that it’s not exactly what thousands of others need to hear. For example, Amazon reviews of one of Sheila’s books call her a misogynist. Now, just because their interpretation is important and has validity doesn’t take away from the experience from so many of her blog readers that her intent is quite the opposite. I believe her goal is to help foster healthy, mutually satisfying marriages. Just a thought!
I am very skeptical that this is true. More common than materials from Lysa TerKeurst, Andy Stanley, Beth Moore, Max Lucado, Kyle Idleman, Priscilla Shirer, John MacArthur, Adam Hamilton, Elizabeth George, and Louie Giglio? Or, even if this was limited to marriage books, more common than Gary Thomas, Gary Chapman, Townsend and Cloud, or the Raineys? I can find nothing to suggest your claim is likely to be true. Please provide evidence.