"They(those hurt) experience grief, distress, and dissatisfaction with their former church community, and specifically, its leadership. As a result, they encounter a personal dilemma regarding the entire concept of Church." Barbara Orlowski
Hill of Tara, Ireland
The Prodigal Prophet by Dylan Morrison
Part 2
We are continuing to work our way through the book chronologically. Today, we look harder at some of the theology that was lurking in the background. There are definite ties to some of the current trends in evangelicalism in the United States today.
In our last post, we left Dylan Morrison having narrowly escaped from the bombing of Protestant church. As Americans, we profess to have little understanding of the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Yet, Jesus told us that lust in our hearts was like committing adultery. Perhaps, if we look deep inside ourselves, we can see some of the same roots of such hatred towards others who believe differently than we do. Some of us will not have communion with those who baptize differently. Jimmy Smryl, a pastor at FBC Jacksonville, has called Catholicism a cult during sermons. Ken Ham alludes to heresy when committed Christians simply disagree on the age of the earth. Although we don’t throw physical bombs, we cause terrible pain, division and can wantonly destroy bridges to understanding amongst those who profess Christ. May we be peacemakers and treat all men as befits those who bear of the image of God. Here is a link to the Jimmy Smryl story called "Jimmy Smryl, Redneck Theologian."
1. Narcissistic Leadership can spell trouble.
Jake, a medical student from Queens Hospital, takes the leadership reins of the Crusader Union. He begins to mentor a small group of young men, which includes Dylan. Although Dylan loved Jake's teaching, he now wonders if Jake needed these close followers for his own ego. I believe that this is an important observation. In many spiritually abusive churches, we have documented instance after instance of narcissistic individuals who seemed to care more about their own stature than the people they are supposedly leading. We call this the “admiral in a rowboat" syndrome.
I personally recall one incident in which a pastor was being confronted about his poor handling of a group of teens who were deeply harmed by a sexual predator. As the meeting got going, this pastor asked, “What about my authority?” This was a major red flag. The meeting was about some teens that were devastatingly harmed yet this pastor's concern was for his “authority.” Mankind seems to have a penchant for being “in charge” be it in the Garden, a church, or in politics. However, the One, that Christians profess to follow, was more concerned about the little guy, the outcast, and those who were in pain. He sacrificed His dear life and never once brought up that he was the Ultimate Authority, the King of the Universe. He was the humblest of servants.
2. There is a strong Charismatic Influence in this group.
Dylan is introduced to the gift of prophecy during a meeting in which he heard a man, speaking in King James English, asking the people of Northern Ireland to repent. He now begins to prophesy and this manifestation will now figure prominently in his Christian walk. He experiences this gift in the form of vivid visions which he describes in detail in the book. It is important to note that the Jesus Movement was instrumental in the wave of charismatic beliefs that flooded both the United States and the British Isles.
Now I can imagine some people might think that this is not a common occurrence in many churches. I hasten to point out that there are "prophecy microphones" at Sovereign Grace churches. Did you know that John Piper attended a Sovereign Grace church during his recent sabbatical from ministry?
In keeping with this new-found passion, Dylan and and his friends begin a new meeting for Charismatics on Friday nights which is attended by up to 100 students. Dylan and six others became known as "The Big Seven" who essentially planned and led the group.
3. There is also a Calvinistic/Reformed emphasis
Dylan describes his mentor, Jake, as the Calvinist head shepherd. At other times he mentions the adherence to Covenant theology. Interestingly, they sang themselves into God’s presence with long hymns written by Gerhard Tersteegen- an 18th century mystic- set to contemporary music.
Gerhard Tersteegen was a German Reformed religious writer and composer of hymns and was considered to be part of the radical pietism movement. Wikipedia defines this movement as "lasting from the late 17th century to the mid 18th century and later, which emphasized the need for a "religion of the heart" instead of the head, and was characterized by ethical purity, inward devotion, charity, asceticism, and even mysticism."
Here is a sample quote from Tersteegen. Note the emphasis on the word “perfect as possible.” “The Christian ought to form an invincible resolution to become as perfect as possible, and take the life and doctrine of the Saviour as his pattern.”
There is often a subtle pressure to be "perfect." Of course it is impossible to fulfill such pressure. So the group, which stresses radical perfectionism, is forced to "cook the books" as Jim Abrahamson says. Such a group will pick and choose which areas to be perfect in and these areas define their concept of radical obedience. For some it might mean homeschooling, attending church whenever the doors are open and gross tithing. However, they may have other sins such as lying or cheating but those are not spoken of and concealed. When a person, who enters such a group and does not adhere to that community's definition of perfection, let's say they do not homeschool, they are looked at as less perfect Christians then those that adhere to the group standards.
That is why I always look askance at a "perfection" standard. Not only does it show a potential misunderstanding of the doctrine of grace, but it can be used, by leadership junkies, as a means of group control.
It is a well-known tactic, in abusive groups, to turn the tables on a person who is expressing a concern to a pastor. All of us are afflicted with sin. That is why we need the grace of Jesus. An abusive pastor will tell the person, bringing the concern, that his/her own sin prevents his/her from seeing the situation clearly. In fact, the person is mired in his own sin and that needs to be dealt with far more than the pastor's issue. This effectively takes the burden off the pastor and puts the problem squarely on the shoulders of the congregant. This tactic has been well described in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse (TWW reviewed this book at length) as well as being spoken of on the Sovereign Grace survivor type blogs. Somehow, the pastor gets a pass on his own sin.
4. Charismatic +Reformed= The Perfect Storm for Spiritual Abuse
Jake, the charismatic Calvinist, is now asked to assume control for this burgeoning group. This would prove to be the beginning of Dylan’s pain although it would take some time for him to realize it.
Barbara Orlowski, in her seminal book, Spiritual Abuse Recovery (TWW will be reviewing this book during this series) makes two important observations that give insight into this phenomenon.
First, she addresses the issue of Calvinism. ”Although many theologians acclaim Calvin’s democratic approach to church leadership, some have evaluated the Protestant Reformation as a breeding ground for authoritarian, controlling leadership.” (P.29)
Secondly, she reviews Lee Grady’s book, What Happened to the Fire which explores the problems inherent in the charismatic movement. These issues include “shallow theology and weak biblical interpretation; pride in spiritual gifts; hyper-mysticism and lack of discernment; spiritual abuse and heavy-handed leadership; exaggerated claims of healing, miracles and manifestations.” (p.75)
Imagine what can happens when both of these theologies combine in one group? There seems to be a high potential for spiritual abuse and that is precisely what happened in Dylan's story. However, this didn't just happen 30 years ago in Ireland. There are groups in the United Sates today that emphasis these two doctrines. Unfortunately, one such group, Sovereign Grace Ministries, has received a high degree of visibility and accolades from the growing Reform movement. (Remember, John Piper is a friend of Mahaney's and has attended one of the Sovereign Grace churches).
TWW has written extensively about Sovereign Grace Ministries and what appears to be high number of claims of spiritual abuse by former members. Two websites, sgmsurvivors.com and sgmrefuge .com, outline these concerns. CJ Mahaney, the “top dog” (we will get into his title tomorrow) is often credited with combining Reformed and charismatic theology. However, there appears to ample evidence that this combined theology was well in place in the 1970s. Could it be that history is repeating itself in the United States?
5. Physical, Social and Spiritual Isolation Increases Potential for Abuse
Dylan’s group, the “Big Seven” began to live in what he calls mini-monasteries. Although Dylan begins attending Queen’s College, it appears that the vast bulk of his social experience centers on his Christian group. At the same time, some of the girls involved in the ministry also lived in a group home setting. He makes the observation that there were marriages that occurred between these two groups. Jake, their leader, often would suggest, or attempt to prevent, some marriages.
He also states that some of the parents in the community began to become concerned about the well-being of their teens who were involved with the group. Although Dylan does not go into depth on this point, I find it to be significant. It is a well-known cult tactic to isolate the members from outside contact. Such a group teaches a “spiritually superior” mentality in which the group is perceived as having special or superior revelation to other groups in the community. This also creates a spiritual dependence on the leader (Jake in this instance) whose very words represent the spiritually “correct” form of the faith.
However, the worst is yet to befall Dylan’s group. The leadership is about to become involved with the American Shepherding Movement. If the combination of Calvinism and Charismatic is defined as The Perfect Storm, the addition of shepherding adds a Tsunami to the volatile mix. We will pick up the story on Monday. Tomorrow, we will look at an interesting development at Sovereign Grace Ministries that fits quite well with this story.
We leave you with an English performance of one of Gerhard Tersteegen's hymns.
God Himself Is With Us
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 20:22-22:16 Mark 9:1-29 Psalm 43:1-5 Proverbs 10:18
.
Dee asked in the post:
“Did you know that John Piper attended a Sovereign Grace church during his recent sabbatical from ministry?”
As our readers know, we believe it’s extremely important to document the claims we make. Here is how we know that John Piper refreshed his soul in an SGM church during his leave of absence.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/john-pipers-report-on-his-leave-of-absence
“I have been able to linger longer in the word and prayer than in any other eight-month period in my life. These times have been sweet. The insights and changes in ourselves that we have seen are owing deeply to these meetings with God in his word. I am jealous that these encounters not become hurried or mechanical on my return.
Our normal place of corporate worship has been Sovereign Grace Fellowship, led by Rick Gamache, who used to serve on the Desiring God staff and is one of the best preachers in the Twin Cities.”
To verify that Sovereign Grace Fellowship belongs to Sovereign Grace Ministries, go to the church website and click on “Family of Churches” under the “About” heading. http://www.sovgracemn.org/
Clearly, John Piper has a different perception of Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney that Dee and I do.
While I do see that abuse occurs in churches that have reformed theology and abuse occurs in charismatic churches, they occur equally in churches that do not share reformed beliefs and that are not charismatic in their theology. In fact, the abusive church that I got thrown out of was a Free Will Baptist church that rejected reformed theology and rejected anything that was charismatic.
All that to say, abuse is not caused by one’s reformed or charismatic beliefs. But, there are certainly wrong beliefs that cause people to abuse others, in addition to being narcissistic.
Michael
Research by Orlowski, which I will be reviewing in the next weeks, may indicate that there might be a higher probability of abuse in certain types of churches. Of course, abuse is everywhere but certain doctrinal practices or beliefs may make a particular persuasion more prone to see abuse.
“We call this the “admiral in a rowboat” syndrome. ”
I cannot stop chuckling over this. What a perfect description! I must steal it for use elsewhere…
I understand where Michael is coming from but I know I saw little of this “focus on authority” growing up in the SBC because it was focused on the priesthood. The pastor was “among” us, not over us. We used to pity the other denominations with their authority structures and ecclesiasitical courts because they did not understand soul competency.
By focusing on Christ as the authority in the Body, each believer was encouraged to grow in Holiness with the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding us in truth. I now see the growth of authority focus as a death knell to the power of the Holy Spirit in the body. That was transferred to mere humans.
If John Piper was taking off to also “work on his marriage’. SGM was a very bad choice.
Lydia
I am startled that he went to an SGM church. It appears that he is most willing to overlook the pain and suffering of many former members to further his doctrinal mandates. I have to admit that I am saddened by this. I thought he was a smarter and more spiritually astute man than this.
“…there might be a higher probability of abuse in certain types of churches…” and “…but certain doctrinal practices or beliefs may make a particular persuasion more prone to see abuse.”
Association and causation are not the same thing. If abuse occurs in a charismatic church, it’s not because the members collectively believe in the gifts, etc. The cause would not be a correct belief and practice of biblical prophesy, per se, but in some incorrect belief, like elitism of the pastor, rooted in a works-based theology. That incorrect works-based theology and elitism could show up more often in a charismatic church, but it’s the wrong theology, not the correct charismatic beliefs that is the cause of the abuse.
I traveled extensively throughout the country singing in SBC churches for nine years and my ballpark estimation is that about 1/3 of the churches had some authoritarian leaning that was a hop, skip, and jump away from some level of abuse.
Michael
You are absolutely, 100% correct. It is wrong theology. However, take a look at Sovereign Grace. There seems to be consistent reports of pastoral abuse throughout the system according to the survivors sites. Could it be the belief in authoritarian leadership which seems to be present in many reformed and charismatic churches have come together in a more hyper way in such a system?
I agree with you on the theology. But the SGM leadership would fight you tooth and nail to prove they have the correct theology. Then folks like Piper seem to lend their support. What worries me is that, if this sort of trend continues, more and more churches will pick up on an authoritarian structure and more and more people will become disenfranchised.
However, there is hope in the mixture. It seems that more people are waking up and voting with their feet. I know of a number of authoritarian based churches, including some in my general area, that are experiencing declines.
I would be interested to know why people stay in churches like that. All the information is regarding the church, but has anyone studied what keeps people there. Are we a nation of people that can’t think for themselves, can’t read the scriptures for themselves and don’t have the strength to stand up for what is right and true. If these leaders had no parishoners – there would be no church to lead. I know that is simplistic, but there’s got to be a reason people stay.
Maybe part of the reason is that there is still some good that goes on there. Maybe people are still being fed and growing spiritually. Maybe God is still at work in these churches in spite of poor leadership and abuse. It is amazing that God will use bad people to accomplish His will – the scriptures are full of such people.
“I am startled that he went to an SGM church. It appears that he is most willing to overlook the pain and suffering of many former members to further his doctrinal mandates. I have to admit that I am saddened by this. I thought he was a smarter and more spiritually astute man than this.”
Not at all….his slide has been going on for years. He had the “scream of the damned” teaching concerning the cross with CJ a few years back at a conference, hooked up with and promoted Driscoll and then hooks up with Rick Warren who is nothing more than a false teacher and opportunist. And more inbetween. Piper is big time into being shocking. Ten years ago, I had a young extended family member and her husband who went to work for Piper and study under him. The change in them when they came back for visits was astounding. Cultish, even.
His views on women are sick. His teaching at the TW conference a few years ago had even Piper supporters scratching their heads. he told women they should ‘take abuse for a season’, among other silliness such as women can only give men driving directions if they can do it wthout appearing to ‘teach them’. Then recently he announces he is taking time off to work on his marriage. Huh? He has been teaching everyone that comp marriages are wonderful. Yet, he had been neglecting his wife? (His words).
One thing about SGM that is so bizarre is their terminology. They have “Apostles”
strawberreyed,
One of the most effective cult tactics is called “love bombing”. SGM has this tactic down pat. It works and folks get sucked in and it is years before they even notice the cognitive dissonance going on.
strawberryred
I am afraid there are reasons that people stay un those churches even if they feel abused. The reasons will be outlined when I review Orlowski’s book and the reasons are not positive ie spiritual growth.
Lydia
You will not believe the post today regarding the Apostle thing! You must be a prophet.
Barbara Orlowski’s book sounds very interesting. I’m looking forward to that review, too. Thanks for bringing my attention to all these books I probably wouldn’t have heard of otherwise.
Well, in all their supposed bad theology, at least SGM recognizes that there are still apostles today. I wish other churches would get a clue.
When we gain the understanding that God has given, not just pastors, (the word, “pastor,” being mentioned only one singular time in the New Testament), but apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, then that knowledge, alone, helps us move out of a pastor-centric authoritarian mindset to a mindset of shared responsibility and service.
For every charismatic church that has abuse, I could show you a noncharismatic church that does, as well. Same goes for reformed churches vs other.
I resonate with the things Michael is saying. The word “charismatic” almost seems like a bad word, something to shun, something to be very suspicious of. It’s unfortunate (to put it mildly). The more expressive, demonstrative spiritual activities that are labled “charismatic” are very spiritually “nutritious” individually and corporately. They are true assets, and are not inherently prone to lead to abusive behavior. Far from it. I mean, boy, those people in Acts, what abusers they were! (sarcasm on)
Michael and Elastigirl
Remember, I was a part of charismatic prayer groups. My husband became a Christian through one. Orlowski is involved with charismatic groups.This is not a diss on these churches, I promise. It merely means that there are some doctrinal distinctives that, without keeping a close watch on how it is applied, can potentially lead to abuse.
Let me state this loud and clear. There are charismatic churches which are wonderful and not abusive.
I’ll tell you what. I have to go out. But there is a charismatic leader who is speaking out against abuses in such churches. I will refer you to his site. Since he is a solid charismatic, maybe you will hear his words better.
Notice, btw, that I also used the word reformed along with charismatic. What I just said applies to those as well.
Dee:
It does not matter to me of what persuasion these churches gravitate to doctrinally; any church that allows abuse is off track and worth exposing and correcting. So sign me up, I’m on your team.
Michael and Elastigirl
here is a site written by a committed charismatic leader speaking to the abuses in his movement. Hope this is of help.
http://www.charismatic-captivation.com/
“When we gain the understanding that God has given, not just pastors, (the word, “pastor,” being mentioned only one singular time in the New Testament), but apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, then that knowledge, alone, helps us move out of a pastor-centric authoritarian mindset to a mindset of shared responsibility and service.”
Michael, I agree with what you are saying but SGM does not use “Apostle” in it’s NT definition. Think of groups that use the word “prophet” to describe their leaders.
Lydia:
I hear ya. Come to think of it, though, do many churches use the word, “pastor,” the way they use, “Apostle,” and others, “prophet?” Food for thought.
Certain personality types and folks with a certain uniformity among IQ levels are attracted and/or susceptible to authoritarian structure (leaders and followers). Just so for charismatic churches I would think. Do authoritarian leaders and those who tend to follow them crop up very often in Episcopal churches? Not very much. What about within reform or conservative Judaism? Also not much. What about within experiential movements — Rev. Ike, Jim Jones, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, C.J. Mahaney? Quite a bit.
Surly Boy’s comment about certain personality types and certain uniformity among IQ levels is the kind of comment that points the finger back at himself while pointing at others. It’s absurd, not to mention that it has no basis whatsoever in fact.
Not really pointing fingers, Michael. I’m not sure what your issue is with my contention. If you disagree with it, please elaborate. Anecdotally, I have seen it. I would argue that my point about Episcopalians and certain strains within Judaism rings quite true. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I’m a graduate of Kenneth Hagin’s Rhema Bible Training Center. I’ve been a member of charismatic churches. I attended a SGM church for 7 years. It’s what I’ve seen, dude. Perhaps my eyes lied to me like yours are lying to you.
Warrior of Thor-
Interesting, so my former CLC care group member, Claude Allen – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allen – who seemed a pretty sharp
guy with an unfortunate desire to not pay for things, and all 3000
other members have “a certain uniformity among IQ levels.”
Yet I know a Care Group leader at CLC who received a 92 on the Stanford-Binet. (Between Low Average & Average) On the whole there seemed to be great diversity in those attending. Shall we say 92? Hmmm
How are you delineating – Verbal Reasoning, Abstract/Visual, Quantitative, and Short-term Memory, to support your thesis?
Shall I place all of CLC at the less than average intelligence? Perhaps there is something I am missing in regard to how you are quantifying your data.
In regard to personality types, SGM is a mixed bag in that they are not overtly authoritarian. (Using conventional terms in unconventional ways, unique loaded language, etc..) Besides, most of the research into the subject supports that individual vulnerability is the deciding factor, rather than personality type, when it comes to joining or staying in a cult or abusive relationship.
There are of course, other things that can indicate a pre-disposition;
– A desire to belong
– Unassertiveness
– Gullibility
– Cultural disillusionment
– Susceptibility to trance-like states
– A lack of self-confidence
– A desire for spiritual meaning
– Idealism
– Ignorance of how groups can manipulate individuals
Yet not all the aforementioned need be present. Then when it comes to a desire for spiritual meaning, I would say just about every christian may have that trait. In the world of higher functioning groups like SGM, one finds that typically only one or two of these traits need be present.
As for me, I was raised Catholic, Married a Baptist woman, and SGM seemed to be the best of both worlds. I will say that I liked the structure, and was ignorant of how CLC would manipulate people. Perhaps a bit idealistic as well.
Whats your personality type? What drew you and kept you at SGM for seven years? I am sure there are a few lurkers out there that may wish to benifit from who you are and what you learned. If you have some data or research, share it.
Surley Boy:
I don’t need evidence to disprove a comment that is not backed up with any factual truth. But, if we’re going by anecdotal evidence, some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met were those who were not charismatic.
My comment about pointing fingers meant that you may not be intentionally pointing fingers at anyone, but you’re making a very untintelligent comment, about others’ intelligence.
[wades into fray]
I do believe that both Reform and Conservative Judaism are far more open to people asking questions of their faith, of themselves, of their rabbis, and of what they are taught.
My guess is that that is also fairly true of many high-church Protestant denominations, although I think there is something truly unique about the way in which the Conservative and Reform movements in Judaism have fostered both faith and a spirit of inquiry.
Make of that what you will.
[wades back out of fray]
Unassimilated, I’m not sure if you’re deliberately attempting snarkiness, but be that as it may, I freely admit my experience is anecdotal. I would think that SGM members are of above average intelligence, which, of itself, is not indicative of spirituality. But given the fact that most of those with whom I’m acquainted at least have undergraduate degrees, I would think they’re IQ level averages somewhere in the 100 to 115 range. Not so, I would say, with charismatic churches generally. In any event, if one is susceptible to submission to authoritarianism, that doesn’t preclude intelligence as such, but it probably does preclude particularly high intelligence in the first place, as those folks aren’t really drawn toward religion in our culture.
Michael, sorry, but charismatics of the particularly experiential sort are generally drawn from lower IQ levels, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Numo, well said.
Surley Boy:
I’m not sure if you’ll understand, being one of lower intelligence, since you went to a SGM church for seven years, but just repeating your opinion does not equate to any factual proof of what you say.
Have you given IQ tests to a random sample of charismatics versus noncharismatics or know of a study that did? I didn’t think so. So, at least say it’s your opinion, that’s all, based upon what you’ve observed, instead of pretending your comments are factual.
Michael, it’s apparent that I’ve touched a raw nerve. Please re-read my posts. Words like “anecdotal” and “generally” should jump out at you. The former means these things are based on my observation. The latter means that I don’t contend that each and every charismatic is dumber than any given non-charismatic. But plenty of studies show that a preponderance of those who attend charismatic congregations operate on a lower intellectual plane than those who attend mainline Protestant denominations. Even if such studies didn’t exist, that fact would not render my observations of no value. Humans don’t necessarily need a study to know and believe the truth. You have imbibed in Western linear thinking for too long, I suppose, to understand this.
Surly Boy:
You haven’t even begun to touch a nerve. I am just pointing out to you and everyone else that your comments have absolutely nothing to do with fact, but are simply your opinion. Charismatics are not less intelligent than others at all. I would argue that they are more intelligent, based on actual evidence I read awhile ago, as opposed to just my opinion.
But I would never make that declaration based on my opinion or anecdotal evidence, because my opinion and my observations are sometimes wrong, as yours are in this case.
Then, when you lump those who believe in reformed theology into the equation, the waters get even muddier, since my observations show that those in that camp tend, more often than not, to be, not just noncharismatic, but often times, anticharismatic. So in those cases where someone is reformed, but not charismatic, how do you decide if they have a lower IQ? I know you don’t have any factual information to share, but do you have an opinion on whether the charismatic nonreformed person is dumber than the reformed noncharismatic?
I’m sorry, but this whole discussion is laughable.
Following your conclusion, I guess all of Jesus’ apostles were a bunch of dummies, since they spoke in tongues, prophesied, healed the sick, and cast out demons, right? And would that low intelligence apply to Jesus, Himself, since He was the ultimate charismatic?
Plenty of studies? Just provide us with one study. I challenge you.
Surly Boy, yes, you have clearly touched a nerve. I am not sure whether you meant to or not but you certainly entered the conversation with a demeaning tone. Was this done on purpose or are you generally not socially gifted enough to understand how your words impact others?
Being an Ivy League graduate (as I am) does not ensure that one has the necessary social skills to be able to interact with others without bringing unintentional insults. Nor does a higher than average IQ prevent one from saying some really stupid stuff. Others here have tried to communicate to you that you have, in fact, started off with a somewhat insulting tone. I am not sure why you presist in not seeing what they are trying to say to you. Again, is this truly just ignorance on your part where maybe you’re not able to communicate in a way that is more typical of regular folks, or are you just too insecure to say, “Wow, I hadn’t realized how insulting I was coming across. I was really arrogant there. Thanks for helping me to see it”?
Let’s assume that you are very intelligent and well educated. (Normally that’s a fairly good indication that the person sucks at “normal” human interaction.) So if that is the case and if you do give a fig about what anyone else here thinks or feels, please, allow me to help you understand the above comments.
You said, “Certain personality types and folks with a certain uniformity among IQ levels are attracted and/or susceptible to authoritarian structure (leaders and followers).”
There are two thoughts on this one. One is that this kind of comment, though not spelled out, is normally understood to be an insult. Both you and I KNOW that you said nothing particularly insulting. However, among the normal population of the US (heck, even a nine year old would be able to feel that this was insulting), this sentence has much greater implications in spite of the fact that you are trying make them seem innocent or innocuous. Again, I would like to know whether you are truly ignorant of the kind of impact you make from this statement or were you trying to imply that people in cults are of lower than average intelligence.
The second thought is that, in spite of your stellar education and your observations, you seem to be ignorant of the fact (yes fact) that studies have found that those who are involved in cults actually have well above average intelligence in comparison to the rest of the population. They also are more highly eduacted than the average American. I am sorry that you wasted your time creating your own hypothesis when these statistics have actually been studied and compiled and are available.
So, to sum up the first part- a) you entered in a way that is socially known to be insulting whether or not you have the ability to detect the impact of the words you used and b) your hypothesis is not found out to be accurate when actually studied.
(Btw, I think the part about certain personality types being drawn to such churches is really interesting and I’d like to see some studies done to let us know if that is true or not. Though, I think the average person who has never been involved in such institutions would assume that we are talking about mousy- please-tell-me-what-to-do types but I for one am a firecracker yet was in an unhealthy SGM church for a long time so I suspect that they may find there aren’t any molds of personality as much as there are other factors that draw or hold people into such places. And I believe Unassimilated has done a good job of compiling such a list.)
Then Michael responded to your comment. (If I may do an interpretative dance of sorts of your post, Michael…) What he was trying to say to you was that your post sounded like you were questioning the intelligence of people in authoritarian churches and that your comment served to make you look stupid even though it came across like you were trying to say others were stupid. Oh, he was also saying that your comment was not based in fact at all.
You then said that you weren’t pointing fingers. Again, the way you spoke in “normal” America is the way one would speak who is pointing fingers. So can you now understand why others would interpret it this way? And after reading this, do you still not understand why Michael may not have been thrilled with what you said?
In your next comment, did you really need to be nasty and say that Michael’s eyes are lying to him. He didn’t start out snarky to you to my knowledge, did he? He only went there after what you said and in an effort to point out to you that you weren’t doing yourself any favors. I believe he was just responding to what you initially said (which if you haven’t caught on to what I was saying before- would have come across as an insult to many people, whether you intended it that way or not.)
Unassimilated’s post was great. Judging by your response to it, you do understand the concept of snark (which is a fairly recent word in our language which already gives you more social skills than I first thought you had which more and more makes me think you were just being ignorant and nasty with your first comment above.) Since you understand snark or have at least heard of it, I can I guess that you do understand that words are not the only thing communicated in writing, but tone, as well?
“Not so, I would say, with charismatic churches generally. In any event, if one is susceptible to submission to authoritarianism, that doesn’t preclude intelligence as such, but it probably does preclude particularly high intelligence in the first place, as those folks aren’t really drawn toward religion in our culture.”
Oh dear Lord, where do you get these stats from?! And please, don’t start spouting off any link between higher education and church attendance. If you do, then you are making the HUGE mistake of connecting high intelligence to academic success. I am sure that the smartest person in the world has never seen the inside of a classroom or a university. Now, if you want to say that those who are “overly” educated are not drawn to church…. well, I could say that in the past I may have agreed with your hypothesis, but my current church as well as another church I’m thinking about checking out is loaded with overly educated people. (If you need me to define that for you later, I’d be happy to.) But please, let us NOT make the error that so many of us make in connecting intelligence to academic success or lack thereof.
You also said, “Michael, sorry, but charismatics of the particularly experiential sort are generally drawn from lower IQ levels, despite your protestations to the contrary.”
Again, where the heck are you getting the evidence for such a statement?!
Finally you defended yourself with saying that you used the words “anecdotal” and “generally”. Unfortunately, you did NOT say, “Michael, sorry, but coming from my limited observations, charismatics of the particularly experiential sort are generally drawn from lower IQ levels, despite your protestations to the contrary.” Neither did you use the words anectodal or generally in those sentences. Gee, seems you didn’t use them a lot of the time when you were making your insulting, outrageous statements. Now, I know you may be thinking, “So what?” Given the social skills you have displayed here, that is understandable. So again, if I may, let me try explaining it to you with this example.
“Your mother is a (fill in the blank insult).”
“Genearlly speaking, your mother is a (fill in the blank insult).”
“From what I’ve observed, your mother is a (fill in the blank insult).”
Now, can you see that even when you throw in the “Awww, I said generally” it still doesn’t really help the situation?
Maybe if you said something like, “Hey, I was a jerk. I made those insulting statements based on my own, limited observations. And now I realize I must also be an A%$ because, come on, who goes around their church judging people’s intelligence levels? They must be glad that I am gone. Maybe I’ll be careful never to do it again. AND I’ll be careful when I am making insulting gross generalizations in the future. Better yet, I will stop making insulting, gross generalizations all together.”
Surly Boy
Your blog Tsarina has decided to speak from on high. This discussion has become intuitively counterproductive. Do you understand what that means? It is not a compliment.
Here is the bottom line told in bullet points.
– Jesus chose fishermen, not Einstein. That is because our faith is not meant to be based on IQ but in the grace of Jesus. The Holy Spirit indwells all believers. This means that the village idiot can know more of the important things in this world and the next than Stephen Hawking, a highly proclaimed genius. From my understanding, the Holy Spirit is very intelligent;)
-It is said we will all be called “fools for Christ.” That means all of us reject the wisdom of this world in some fashion. As Michael Card once sang, (in regards to the people of this world looking at Jesus’ life on this earth) “He must have seemed out of his mind.” I love, love , love being called a fool because of my faith.
-The head of adult neurosurgery nearby at Duke University Medical Center is a charismatic. My husband, a recipient of The ACC Young Investigator of the Year, became a Christian through a charismatic group. Neither of these guys have a low IQ.
-Finally, Scripture speaks very clearly that some things are not profitable. This is one of those things.
Stunned
Loved you response. As my dear pastor often says, “Even on my best days, my motives are mixed.” Today he discussed empathy in regards to what was being discussed in Galatians.
I think there are many who visit this blog who have been deeply hurt by the church. Sometimes, it takes time to process the pain and regain equilibrium. I know, I have been there. One day I need to talk about the road I have been on in this area. Slowly getting there but it has been a long process.
I pray this blog will be a place for us all to work out the faith. So glad you are here, friend.
Pingback: About | Apostasy | Author | Book | Debuts | images of Jesus
As others have said, I think we have to be careful when making generalisations. Are charismatic, pentecostal, or reformed churches prone to being authoritarian or abusive? Quite possibly yes, but there are also non-charismatic and arminian churches that suffer from the same problems.
I do think that there is a correlation between church government and these areas. If the leaders of a church are accountable to its members, then it is less likely that they will become authoritarian or abusive (and if they do, the members can get rid of them). However, when a church is run by leaders who are appointed (either by their predecessors or an outside body), this does frequently create a situation where abuse can happen.
I wouldn’t wish to deny that SGM and its leaders (from CJ down) are abusive, and it’s obvious that their approach to church has seriously hurt a lot of people. Yes, the combination of reformed and charismatic has undoubtedly contributed to this. But let’s not use this as ammunition to target all groups with similar doctrines. Do what they say on CSI – stick to the evidence.
Dave,
I would tend to agree. I personally have had man wonderful experiences in charismatic and even some pentecostal fellowships. Indeed, it was under their teaching I learned that I could pray and seek God on my own and needed to develop my own relationship with God and NOT follow men who may wish to lord it over me for personal gain. That I was responsible for ‘listening’ to God’s voice and following Him.
In the end, abuse is about men seeking their own end at the expense of others. Romans tells us the even the law becomes death for us because sin, becoming utterly sinful, takes that which is good and uses it for evil. Ultimately, this is not about ancillary issues like charasmatic or reformed or arminian. This is about the wickedness in the human heart that Christ came to save us from. And to the extent a pastor yields to that, either consciously or unconciously, is the extent to which Satan has the opportunity to use that pastor for his own ends rather than the Glory of God.
I would think that in many cases the pastors themselves are blind to their own misstep – most people I know going into ministry truly want to serve the Lord, and a truly sacrificing a lot of personal ‘wants’ in order to accomplish that goal. But the temptations of the world, the deceitfulness of sin, it can trip all of us up.
So lets stick with the evidence as regards specific individuals and be wise when dealing with their direct disciples, but not go over that into broad condemnations of whole groups of folks without specific evidence to support it.
Zeta
OB and Dave
There is some specific evidence that supports higher rates of abuse in these two groups. I will be reviewing the book next week. However, does this mean that all charismatics or all reformed or all reformed and charismatics will abuse-of course not! Repeat that last phrase several times.
Here is the lesson. Some abused people will leave one group, travel on over to a similar group and experience the same issues. One should be on the alert that certain governmental or doctrinal church structures might contribute to a certain group of churches as having a higher incidents of reports. It behooves the person who is looking at a church to ask good questions and evaluate a church carefully before becoming a member.
Of course, the average joe church can be just as abusive. However, in my previous church, had I known that the pastors were committed to reformed theology with a particular view of papal (whoops-pastoral) authority, had known that they were buddies of CJ Mahaney, and known they were into strange things like early marriages as a “cure” for premarital promiscuity,an insistence on YE doctrine with a confessed policy of covering up such a belief, then I would have run from it. However, I might not have had the gumption to start this blog as well.
You can be darn sure that I would assess a new church based on these criteria. If the church was following Scripture and was loving, I would join if even if it was Reformed and charismatic but I would first be careful to complete my research.
I am not making sweeping generalization, I merely observing a trend. Once again, I point out that I attended charismatic prayer meetings and my husband became a Christian through such a group. I have nothing against charismatics or reformed. If I did, I would lose several friends (right, “me”?)
OB/Dave
Let me try another explanation which makes sense to me given my nursing background. People are born with certain genetic predispositions to diseases- these could include breast cancer, Huntington’s chorea, sickle cell anemia, arthritis and Alzheimer’s. Just because you have a marker, does not mean you will definitely inherit the disease. But it is helpful to know that the predisposition is present.
So, in some cases, a woman who has some genetic markers for breast cancer and has had her mother and sister die from breast cancer will need more frequent exams and, in some cases, will even allow a prophylactic removal of her breasts. However, there is a real possibility that she will never develop the disease.
This is what I am driving at with no insult intended regarding charismatics or reformed. It is simply a warning about certain markers.
OB & Dee,
Thanks for your replies. I want to pick up on two things:
Pastors who are blind to their own misstep. This, to me, is the million-dollar question. Do abusive pastors realise that their approach to ministry ends up harming people? I think generally not – they are sincere, but deceived, and may often have issues such as NPD. The important thing, though, is how they respond when confronted with the damage they’ve done. I think it’s fair to say that in SGM, they ignore it or even blame the “victim”.
Which bring me on to the second point – predisposition. It is true that there are some people who end up being hurt by every church they go to (which are not necessarily all the same sort). Many of these do have genuine issues in their lives that need to be addressed.. But equally there are some who are unsuited to particular types of church. I for one would never be able to go to a church where I would have to accept all the doctrinal distinctives of the pastor unquestioningly. That’s not because I’m rebellious, it’s because I’m unique and not a clone. But generally, I am very suspicious when people blame the victim, especially where there are repeated stories of abuse over a long period, as is the case in SGM churches.
Dave
I hope you don’t think I blamed Charlie.I fully blame the church and the pastors for his mistreatment. I have worked with abused women in my role as a public health nurse. Often they have be taught how to spot abusive individuals who can come across as charming and solicitous. Jesus called these people wolves in sheep’s clothing.
That is why it is imperative to teach Christians how to tell the difference between a healthy and problematic church. We are attempting to do this by this post and others we have done. Trust me. I was taken in by a “good old boy” who was not. I did not have the skills to spot this sort of individual. I do now and I’m writing about it.
Dave
Perhaps I am a bit cynical but I think there are a fair number of pastors who know they are manipulative and are doing things wrongly. How could they not if they are reading the Bible and have the Holy Spirit in residence? I do agree, however, with your assessment that there are a some with NPD-these sorts are drawn to ministry because it fits their pathology.
What I don’t understand is the response of the church leadership which is mandated to keep the pastor in check. I have seen one too many elder cover up for sinful and nutty pastors due to some misconception that the pastor is to be protected whether he is right or wrong.
“Certain personality types and folks with a certain uniformity among IQ levels are attracted and/or susceptible to authoritarian structure (leaders and followers). Just so for charismatic churches I would think. Do authoritarian leaders and those who tend to follow them crop up very often in Episcopal churches? Not very much. What about within reform or conservative Judaism? Also not much. What about within experiential movements — Rev. Ike, Jim Jones, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, C.J. Mahaney? Quite a bit.”
I do disagree with this based upon many factors.
One is that I spent a zillion years facilitating personality based assessments in corporations and can tell you it happens to ALL personality types. In fact, many of us stopped using such tools as part of our training because they have the potential to be deceptive. An example is that based upon research, some came to the conclusion that Mother Theresa and Hitler had very similar personality traits. Mother Theresa used hers for compassion and Hilter used his for destruction.
Another reason I disagree is because I have witnessed too many independent, intelligent successful businessmen fall under the spiritual authority spell. By day, they are leaders of people…in church they grovel to the leader.
In my experience something else is at work. And those are cult tactics. Love bombing is a big tactic at work that sucks people in. There is a cognative dissonance because of it: These people who love me so much would not want to hurt me so what I am “thinking” I am seeing or hearing cannot be true. I must not have all the information.
Another tactic is the teaching that any analysis or critical thinking in the situation is a sin. Instead of it being viewed as the priesthood, it is viewed as being gossip and negativity to question. And everyone lose “positive”. It is a religion in this country and has kept us from thinking about anything too deeply.
You cannot swing a dead cat without hearing the words “civility” these days in both the spiritual and political realm. Warren has made a religion of it.
but who defines civility? Questioning leaders is not uncivil in and of itself. But many think it is.
In effect, it takes a long time for those in these systems to figure it out if they ever do.
These are control tactics. If one can shut people up using any of these tactics, they win. The key is to marginalize those who disagree or question.
It worked in Germany because when some started waking up, it was too late. Power was concentrated.
The only “personality type” that is not fooled for long is the one totally immersed in Jesus Christ with the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Word. And that includes me. It gives me the shivers to even think about what I went along with for so long.
It is real simple: I was not following Christ. I was following man.
PS: Surley boy, you use the Espiscopalians as an example. Keep in mind these groups are very hierarchical. They have ecclessiastical courts. The difference is that these courts can be made up of those not involved in the conflict and can be more neutral in decisions. Same with the Presbyterians who actually defrocked RC Sproul’s son!
Oops, the above is me. My computer keeps erasing my identity when I come here…
BTW: If we study cult tactics closely, we can see them at work in these religious groups who focus on human authority.
Cindy Kunsman has done a yeoman’s work in this area on her blog ‘undermuchgrace” that I recommend. See her side bar for cult tatics and teaching on these tactics.
A friend of mine really tried to point this out over at SGM Survivors but was shouted down by a few commenters and accused of hating the church. Some over there are still totally immersed in the ‘human authority in the body’, thinking. They think that CJ et al, are just “bad authorities”. So, they will continue to look for “good authority” when they should be looking to Christ as that authority.
It really is sad to me and why this problem will persist. People do not understand the Word. Jesus said that the greatest in the kingdom will be the lowliest servant of all.
Lydia,
I remember that exchange over at SGM Survivors. The lingering effects of SGM brainwashing can be observed in some of the commenters. That’s why we must educate others on the dangers of cult-like organizations like Sovereign Grace Ministries. Sadly, it’s only one in a long list of abusive ministries.
Lydia, I wish I knew what that exchange was. Would you feel ok refreshing my memory on it?
stunned,
I do not remember the name of the post, it was a few months ago, I think. I don’t have the time to search it out. My friend sent it to me to read as an example of how errant the teaching is out there about human authority in the Body and marriage.
the exchange was with Matt and a woman who goes by PDI5years. I can understand that one commenter would be so vehement in disagreement about human authority in the body but what shocked me was the response of the blog owner and some other commenters who did not seem to understand the true meaning of the priesthood and that authority in the Body is the Word through Jesus Christ. (in fact, an elder would never claim authority. A true elder would be modeling truth as in fruit and look like the lowliest servant)
It is as if they really learned nothing from their experience and some are ripe to experience it again. Instead of engaging they just blasted him. That is one reason I do not visit there anymore.
I think it goes back to people just want to go to church, sit and be fed. They do not want meat. It is easier to listen to someone else tell you what the Word teaches than take the time and energy to really understand the meaning of the Cross and the New Covenant. There is also the consideration that some have believed something so long their ego cannot take it that might be wrong. I was one of those, myself. And as a result many years were wasted.
I have come to the conclusion that Church can be a dangerous place if one is not immersed in the Word BEFORE they walk in.
“Perhaps I am a bit cynical but I think there are a fair number of pastors who know they are manipulative and are doing things wrongly. How could they not if they are reading the Bible and have the Holy Spirit in residence? I do agree, however, with your assessment that there are a some with NPD-these sorts are drawn to ministry because it fits their pathology.”
A LOT of rationalizing goes on. I had a few tell me they knew tithing was not in the New Covenant but they had to teach it anyway or people would not give. So, they rationalized that teaching something not there for the New Covenant was a good thing. The ends justifies the means.
Same with comp doctrine which is a huge money maker for most mega’s in books, conferences, materials, etc. Many did not live it out in real life but taught it as Gospel.
There is also the consideration that some pastors in larger churches are rarely questioned about what they teach or do. They live in a bubble and start believing in themselves because of all the accolades and people who just want to get near them. It is a horrible sin trap for them.
Let me clarify what I said about “blind” pastors. I wasn’t defending them. I only give them one “get out of jail free” ticket. If they sincerely do something that’s actually abusive, once they’ve been told about it, that’s it. Ticket used, no more excuses. They’re no longer allowed to be blind. The reason is that the office of pastor is a high calling, one with big responsibilities, and someone who continues to harm people after they’ve been told about it is unfit to be a pastor. Likewise the whole NPD thing – in my view it disqualifies someone from being a pastor. Remember – no-one has an automatic right to be a pastor. If you don’t have the right qualities and gifts, then you are not called to the role.
Lydia, thanks for answering my question!
Your one comment triggered a thought, or rather a rememberance of something I read the other day. It really upset me. It may not upset others, but here goes.
According to a documentary made in 1950, at that point… are you ready?… 1 out of four marriages ended in divorce. Wait a minute! (At this point in US history it is somewhere between 40 and 49 percent, depending on who you research- though I’ve always been led to believe it was more than 50%.) But in 1950, it was 1 in 4?! But, all through the 80s and into the 90s and even now, I was always told that marriage and families were stable back in the 50’s. Things were honky dorey then. Husbands and wives had roles and they played them. And everything was great. But 1 in 4 doesn’t sound great to me at all. (Especially when that divorce happened children and women oftne plummeted into poverty- which they still do.)
So how the HECK do the comps (I used to be one) HOW do they justify the idea that things used to be so good? One in FOUR?!?!!? Are you kidding me? And that was in a documentary CREATED in 1950, therefore the stat had to have been for 1949 or before. And given the fact that divorce seems to have grown steadily from that time until about 1981 or 1990, then I can only surmise that during the 50’s (the supposed golden age for American families- who weren’t black or Asian or female led) the divorce rate only grew BEYOND 1 in 4.
So HOW THE HECK has anyone with a good conscience taught this baloney all these years?!
Am I the only one who ever heard the 50’s held up as an example to emulate (unless, of course, you were black or Asian or had been abandoned by your husband because, let’s face it only utter idiots could EVER think that was a good decade for anyone who wasn’t upwardly mobile and a white male or the white kid of a white male who lived at home still.) So am I? Am I the only one who believed that divorce seldom ever happened in that “idyllic” era?
I felt so burned when I read that and couldn’t believe all the erroneous beliefs I have built up over the years based on baloney material.
Not to derail the thread but Stunned, you have brought up the lie that is hidden. In fact, poor women have always worked like dogs in the fields and in sweat shops with babies strapped to their backs. Pioneer women were having babies in covered wagons and helping plow fields and build cabins.So, where are those biblical roles outside of bearing children?
The irony is that world wars were the catalyst for finally getting the vote and equal pay for equal work.
But comp doctrine is nothing more than elevating men to be the Holy Spirit for women. Kephale does not mean boss or authority. But Satan loves it because it keeps us man centered instead of Christ centered.
Stunned,
Concerning that so-called “idyllic” era: I have sort of believed it. Well, at least I’ve believed that the people who have been espousing such things sincerely believe what they’re saying. But I am realizing more & more how erroneous this is — the assumption that the 1950’s era exemplified some kind of values ideal which we need to return to.
I imagine that society at large was riding some kind of happy post WWII wave, which made things seem comparatively good, strong, and stable. For people who hadn’t been born til after the 50’s (like myself), I think our understanding of that era is largely from what we perceive through the media — what the media was putting out at that time, (and perhaps the way the media portrays it now). And again, I think it’s posible that that post WWII wave induced a kind of euphoria — not exactly in line with reality.
Those who pine for 50’s-dom and spiritualize it as more of a godly ideal probably also villify the 60’s, spiritualizing that era as evil and a bad turn of events. I see the ’60’s, though, as an honest response to the false veneer of the 50s — realizing the freedom to explore truth and reality beyond false appearances. It was approaching things honestly, instead of ignorantly.
Lydia mentions “people just want to go to church, sit and be fed. They do not want meat. It is easier to listen to someone else tell you what the Word teaches than take the time and energy to really understand the meaning of the Cross and the New Covenant.” Perhaps this is symptomatic of this “return to the 50’s” ideal. Being grounded in ideals — and the illusion of a supposed idealistic time — instead of being grounded in the pursuit of truth through honest scrutiny.
Lydia said:
“In fact, poor women have always worked like dogs in the fields and in sweat shops with babies strapped to their backs. Pioneer women were having babies in covered wagons and helping plow fields and build cabins.So, where are those biblical roles outside of bearing children?”
Preach it, sister!!!
My husband comes from a long line of farming families, and he can tell you how hard the women worked in “the good ‘ole days”. How easily we forget that there was little distinction between “gender roles” on the family farm.
The idea of a sedentary housewife has never actually existed for the majority of the world’s population. Before industrialization, everyone in the family worked; they either worked the farm or they worked in the family business. It was only when people went away to work, to the factory or office that the distinction was made.
Also, with the exception of unusual circumstances like pioneer women in the wagon train scenario, almost all traditional cultures had a special time set aside for women after childbirth. Either 6 weeks or 40 days this goes across cultures (think of the story of Jesus being presented at the temple, it is 2 Feb in traditional churches) Feb 2 is 40 days after Dec 25. Traditionally, women were not expected to squat out a baby and go on plowing fields.
The comments on women’s roles are excellent. I was recently reading something by an anthropologist, and they made a very rough division of societies into three categories: hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, and city-dwellers. In both the first two, women work out of necessity. And even when industry and cities became commonplace, women still worked. It was only when living standards and wages increased to such a level that a family could survive on a single wage that they started staying at home.
As for the 1950s being some post-war golden age, what nonsense! The world was still in tatters, millions of people dead, bombed buildings everywhere, and the economy destroyed. I’m in the UK, and rationing over here didn’t end until 1954. Yes, things were better by the end of the decade, but it certainly wasn’t an easy time. It doesn’t suprise me that the divorce rate was high back then.
As well as being a response to the falsehood of the 50s, I’d also say that the 60s happened because everyone had been so repressed by the difficulties of the previous two decades, and suddenly it all burst out and went to the opposite extreme.
I have a theory that one of the main contributors to social breakdown is the fact that life is so easy now compared to what it used to be. In the past, everyone had to work hard just to survive, and the average lifespan was actually quite short. Come the 20th century, the two world wars and their aftermath gave everyone a common focus. But now, what holds our society together? We have nothing to do and no-one to fight (other than a nebulous “war on terror”). Rather than farming or manufacturing, the bulk of industry is now about providing services. Everything feels that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, their needs met, and plenty of leisure. It’s so individualistic, and a recipe for disaster.
Forgive that minor rant – it’s slightly off-topic, but can you relate it to the complementarian position? I certainly can, for both men and women.
Dave, just a little correction to your post- women at home still work. They just don’t get paid for it. 😉
Two more things, Dave.
One, i’m curious how you can relate it to the comp position.
Two, average lifespan being short is a bit deceptive. It wasn’t all that uncommon for people to live into their 80’s back then so people were still living a long time. It’s just that there was so much infant mortality and death among children under 5 that it brought the “average” waaaay down. So let’s say you have a couple- one lives to 82, the other to 60, they have one child that dies in infancy, another at 3 and three more that live to 85, 69 and 40 (accident – crossing a river let’s say). The average for the generation of the children is 39 years and a half years, but as you can see, once they make it past 5, they actually live pretty long. If we average in the parents (both of whom lived a long time) that only ups the average to 49 years which still sounds like people don’t live that long, but hey, two people made it into their 80s and two into their 60’s and one died in that terrible river crossing accident. (If they had another child that died in their first five years of life- which is probably more accurate for how things worked, the average would plummet even more greatly.)
All to say the whole average thing isn’t helpful for showing us the expected lifespan of everyone who made it into adulthood. We still had people living a long time, along with the implications and complications that come along with it.
I do, however, agree that having extra time and affluence has allowed society to change and morph from what it used to be. But I don’t think society is any more broken than it used to be. It just takes on a different form. A society where, let’s say 3 out of 4 couples stay together isn’t any more stable for the people in it if half of that population is being abused or lied to or cheated on or used or misused. So it may appear it is working for some, but hey it sure ain’t working for most. When we look back at history (Greeks, Romans, Egyptians) we often have more than half of the population living as slaves or abused. Like you said, the 50’s had more repression in it than a …. (I’m avoiding any of my inappropriately colorful analogies right now).
So I don’t know if time and money break society down as much as they change it, as I don’t see many societies, after you scratch the surface that were ever “up” in the first place. I wonder if it’s just human nature messing things up where ever we go.
Dave brings up a very important point that is totally ignored in the comp movement here in the US. The 1950’s was not a golden age in Europe post war. About a half of a whole generation of European young men were wiped out…not once but twice in the 20th century. This changed everything.
In the US, we idolize the 1950’s but it was different here than for Europe.
DB wrote:
“Traditionally, women were not expected to squat out a baby and go on plowing fields”
That depended on their race and socioeconomic level.
Dave
I think you have nailed it. I taught Sunday School with a guy who was a historian as well as an architect. He taught a class on history and the church and reflected on the 1950s in which he said that Ozzie and Harriet were not the symbols of that era. James Dean-the bad boy was. He said that in order to understand history, one must look first to the future events and then look back. So, in the 1960s you have massive rebellion against the status quo.
He said the 1950s was merely a window dressing, sort of “big hat, no cattle” approach to life. It all looked good on the surface but underneath there were un-dealt with issues.
So, you had Mom and Dad going to church with Billy and Susie. But, Dad was coming home, drinking himself into oblivion and Mom taking Valium (tranquilizers were a big deal during that decade) just to maintain. The rebellion was against the fakeness of it all.
Now, we can look back on the rebellion decade via the decades to follow such as the decade of excess, and so forth.
All of this is why comp doctrine is so shallow. They try to sell something that really never existed in the form they present. I can remember being astonished to read that the California Supreme Court refused to hear any domestic violence cases until the mid 1960’s.
That should tell us something.
Or that in Connecticut, it was something like 1983 before a woman could apply for a credit card or take out a small business loan without her husband’s written approval but a man could do anything he wanted without his wife’s approval. The more truth I learn, the more horrified I am.
Stunned,
Just wondering about Connecticut and the credit card conundrum.
Funny, I lived in Connecticut briefly after college (from June to December 1981 and then from December 1982 until August 1983), and I don’t remember that predicament. New England just wasn’t the place for this Southern gal, so I resigned my position and came back to the sunny South. I really feel for the Northerners who are experiencing one of the coldest, snowiest winters in history.
Sorry?! Girlfriend, it is awesome! 😀
Now I’m curious, did you try taking out a small business loan as a married woman while you lived there? Seriously, maybe my research is flawed.
While my father was dying in the l70’s, he made sure that every single thing was also in my mom’s name. Most things were before that because that is how it worked within their marriage. But I can rememberhis lawyer coming over to the house to dot all the t’s because back then widows often had the bank account frozen until probate. Women had NO rights even as a spouse. Back then it was “Diners Club” and her name was on the card, too.
I can remember as a kid the financial worries of the new widows at church. They could not even withdraw money or write checks for a while after the death of their husband. And I can remember how angry that made my father that their husbands…good Christian men…were leaving their wives in such a state.