What SGM and Others Could Learn From the History of Forced Conversions

“He had turned into a dragon while he was asleep. Sleeping on a dragon’s hoard with greedy, dragonish thoughts in his heart, he had become a dragon himself.” CS Lewis Voyage of the Dawn Treader

 

 

Theodosius-wikimedia commons

 

We recently received the following comment from Zenith, a former member of SGM. One of the more interesting aspects of the historical development of the SGM was the seemingly sudden wholehearted embrace of Calvinism by CJ Mahaney in the early 1990s. What makes it all the more fascinating is Mahaney’s apparent insistence that all members of SGM now accept, without reservation, Reformed theology as central to the SGM expression of faith.

It appears that, within SGM, one does as one is told. Period! I believe that Dave Harvey once said that If some people don’t like our polity, they should leave.

Here is Zenith’s comment. I have edited the remarks merely for sake of brevity.

"Any further thoughts on:
PDI/SGM Senior Pastor and Songwriter Caves to Leaders in Early 1990’s

My wife and I were part of a PDI/SGM church for over 10 years. I had been an assistant home group leader. When the radical change in doctrine occurred I strongly spoke out against it. At that time hardly anyone, if anyone, in our local congregation agreed with TULIP. But they eventually became heavily indoctrinated, (sort of the way the JW’s do), as had our pastor previous to that.

At one point, before my pastor gave in, I asked him how long he had been a Christian. It was like 25 years. I asked him if during that time he read God’s Word regularly. The answer was yes. Then I asked him if he read it prayerfully during that time. Again the answer was yes. Then I asked him when he came to believe in TULIP. He knew at that point he was just busted and uncomfortably admitted that it had been about two years earlier when CJ started propagating and later pushing it on people.

My pastor agreed to read any book of my choice which took an opposing view to Calvinism. I asked him to read Robert Shank’s “Elect in the Son”. He read it and about three weeks later came up to me before a church service he called me aside and very quietly and almost secretively told me that he completely agreed with Robert Shank’s position.

Now he had to break the news to Brent or Dave Harvey or whoever was “Over” us at that time. They were panicked, as he was one of their main songwriters. He had actually discussed pulling some of his songs that had a Calvinistic bent to them. He was asked to write a position paper and he asked me to help. I did, but it was very lengthy. So he wrote his own, which was very pointed and well written. He then submitted it to the PDI leadership.

Also during that time he had even seriously talked with me about leaving PDI, and we discussed whether or not he should turn the church building over to them. After submitting his paper he was asked to “dialogue” with them on the subject. When I asked him how the supposed dialogue was going he said that they gave him several books to read and discuss, like Anthony Hoekema’s “Saved by Grace”.

Then CJ even invited him to speak at CLC, which of course was PDI’s mothership. I very much doubt if he would have ever smelled CLC’s pulpit had they not been going all out to dissuade him from what he actually believed. It was either conform, conform, conform, or out, out, out.

Towards the end of our time at that church I continued to address many of the following things listed below, but our pastor refused to hear. I had been saying and have continued to say that:
- PDI/SGM leaders and local pastors are elitists who think they have a corner on the truth; they are very proud and arrogant; they view themselves as the enlightened ones, while viewing all other Christians and their church affiliations as the unenlightened; in other words, those who do not agree with their theology are looked down on as second-class Christians and denominations; they are manipulative and controlling; much of the time they act like a bunch of clones; and that they are absolutely obsessed with TULIP.

Over the years there has been lots of hypocrisy and a clear double standard regarding how they treat certain people and the way they treat certain other people. I’ve always likened SGM to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. At the very top you have the infallible Pope CJ. Then the cardinals, arch-bishops, bishops, priests, etc.

In his 7/10/11 Sunday evening message at CLC it was refreshing to hear Josh Harris finally admit to several of the same things. In Brent’s “documents” I found the part about CJ blackmailing Larry, Doris, and Justin sickening and reprehensible. Isn’t it interesting how even though CJ is supposedly so close and in tune with God, it took him some 13 years to acknowledge his sins of pride, hypocrisy, manipulation and mistreatment of others; and now finally he has gotten around to making things right with Larry. It so obvious, as is evidenced in Brent’s documents what an idol Reformed theology is within SGM.

Case in point, within these documents, CJ stated that it would have been OK and that he wouldn’t blackmail the Tomczak family, if Larry left the movement, but did not say that it was over “doctrinal” differences. It has become clear that CJ is not the most humble person on the face of the earth. As a movement they need to realize their facade of humility is nothing more than false humility, which of course is just another form of pride. It is apparent that CJ has always craved adulation and the leaders of PDI/SGM have always fallen over each other when introducing each other. And if they happen to be introducing one of their gods like RC Sproul it is downright scary.

As a post script I want to state that before CJ changed in the early 1990’s, he was my very most favorite Christian teacher. In my cassette/CD library I have by far more of CJ’s messages than anyone else. Unfortunately, his desire for prestige, power, and recognition made him the lesser man that he is today."

 

I learned a very important lesson early on in studying for my MBA. It is absolutely vital to define the rules of the game so that the people can play by the rules. If a company keeps changing the rules, there will be turmoil. I have often told non-believers that God gave us the rules of the game in the Bible. It is consistent and does not change with the whims of culture.
 

It is my perception that CJ Mahaney is a man who rolls with the tide. He comes out of the shepherding movement, embraced the charismatic movement and then embraced Calvinism. Since that time, the charismatic element, while allowed, has been downplayed, perhaps in order for CJ to it in with his now current best buddies such as Al Mohler and John Piper."
 

I attend a church in which there is a diversity of thought regarding such things as Calvinism, baptism, and the age of the earth. Within this church, because there are no “musts” regarding Calvinism, I find that many people openly discuss their differences and questions. There is no “stuff it” because open questioning and differences are celebrated. I hasten to add that this is a theologically conservative church.

Here is my question. Do the ‘leaders’ at SGM assume that there is unanimity of belief because everyone chants the doctrine? I say they are naive, if they do.

Which brings me to Thursday’s history lesson. It is an unfortunate fact that there were many instances of forced conversions within Christian history.

In an article discussing forced conversions in Christianity Today LINK

“… for many centuries, it (forced converions) was the method of choice among Christian rulers and missionaries. The conversion of much of Europe and of Latin America is unimaginable without the sword.”

Before I begin, let me make one point ardently clear. I do not believe that many of those rulers and leaders who implemented persecutions were followers of the faith. They used the faith to further their own power. Wait a minute…does this sound at all like today?

 

Christians discover power and politics

The early Christians had suffered persecution for three hundred years before becoming the predominant faith in the Roman Empire. One would think that Christians would eschew violence, having suffered terrible at the hands of the authorities. But, by the end of the third century, Christians and politicians had linked hands and the expediency of politics began to rule the day.

The University of Chicago Documents the end of paganism at this LINK
In 392 A.D. the emperor Theodosius I outlawed all religions except for Christianity.

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans.”
 

Theodosius then made all pagan practices illegal and had their houses of worship destroyed.

“The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative" (Codex Theodosianus XVI 1.2.)”
 

Christian” rulers justify forced conversions

Pope Innocent III, pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed (referring to the forced conversions of the Sephardic Jews and Muslims)in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:
 

...”does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. … [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined.”

(Solomon Grayzel writes in The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century, rev. ed., New York: Hermon, 1966, p. 103)
 

Christian leaders persecute the Jews

 “Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497.” LINK

 

There was an excellent article in Christianity Today:  Conversion of the Vikings: Christian History Interview – Converting By the Sword : Why Christians used it, why it worked, and why it died. 7/1/99

It featured an interview with Richard Fletcher  LINK
(All quotes from this point refer to this article.)

“To explore this topic, Christian History spoke with Richard Fletcher, history professor at the University of York, England. Professor Fletcher has spent a lot of time researching medieval Europe, the era when forced conversions were the rule, and his The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (Henry Holt, 1997) is one of the splendid results.”

 

The first persecutions were not against pagans but against dissident Christians and it was justified via the Bible; once again proving that the Bible can be misused, even by the so-called scholars and church leaders.

“Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo in North Africa in the late fourth and early fifth century, was faced with a dissident sect, the Donatists. Augustine wanted to bring them back in the orthodox fold, and he agonized about whether it was permissible to use coercion to do so.

Eventually he decided it was, and one biblical text that persuaded him was the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:16-24). A rich man gives a feast, and when no one he invites shows up, he tells his servants to go out and "Compel people to come in."
 

Old Testament kingship provided another “Biblical” reason to persecute pagans.
 

“It isn't until the Frankish kingdom of Charlemagne in the eighth century that we see force used to coerce conversions, specifically in the campaign against the Saxons.

“First, the concept of Christian kingship had developed the previous century, and the duty of expanding Christendom, if necessary by force, became part of a king's duty. It's partly based on an Old Testament model of kingship.”

Could this be the beginning of the old “authority” argument? You know the one that says the pastor is like a king.
 

Then, the “stupid people need to be forced to submit” argument comes into play.

“Second, an adviser at the highest levels of Charlemagne's government pushed this particular policy. Scholars think the real hard-liner was a man named Lull, who was of Anglo-Saxon origin, had traveled with Boniface, and had succeeded Boniface as archbishop of Mainz. He'd given his life to the conversion of the Saxons, and nothing had worked. In essence he said to Charlemagne, "These stubborn people will never convert on their own. We've got to force them to submit."

“Robert Moore, author of The Rise of the Persecuting Society, argues that from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, European Christian society became much less tolerant. This is the era when we see persecution of Jews and heretics, crusades against Muslims, and the increasing acceptance of forcible conversion—especially in the only area of Europe that remained unconverted: Scandinavia and the Baltic region. “

 

Did these forced conversions actually produce Christians?

“Charlemagne or Olaf Trygvesson would have said, "I defeat my enemies, and a priest then sprinkles water over them and says some words in Latin, and they become Christians. They've been converted."   Hmmmm…
 

Polytheistic pagans could just fake it by adding Jesus into their lineup.

“The common factor in paganism all over medieval Europe was polytheism. Anthropologists who've studied conversion in polytheistic culture in Africa, for example, have found that such peoples think they can just add Christ to their existing pantheon. “
 

Some pagans converted because of the health and wealth gospel, just like today.
 

“Another reason was that pagans were impressed with the sheer material power of Christendom. Paganism was a faith that was largely geared to gaining material prosperity. When these pagans looked at the wealth and power of Christian Europe, they were impressed: the Christian God was obviously one who could deliver the goods. Christians built bigger buildings, made more beautiful jewelry, possessed better ships, and so on. Many pagans were not adverse to converting to Christianity because they believed it would, in fact, give them more material prosperity than had their gods.”

 

So, where does this leave us in terms of Zenith, the commenter?

It is always fascinating to me what happens when a particular pastor “gets religion” on a secondary issue. He becomes a zealot, forcing those under him to become “just like him.” Why? He is in charge and the people must kowtow to his current theological whims. He knows what is best for them. And, perhaps, he is too weak to accept opposing views.

I have some questions about the Reformed direction of SGM

  • Could it be that it is not based purely on theology?
  • Could it have something to do with acceptance by the current “in” leaders?
  • How about all the money that Mahaney threw at Southern BAPTIST Theological Seminary?
  • How about all the money Mahaney makes through the endorsement of these leaders?
  • Is this about theology or about power and acceptance?
  • Do all of the SGMers agree with them or do some keep their mouths shut because they want to “belong? 

It’s too bad that Mahaney and his hand-selected ‘leaders’ are so weak that they cannot tolerate those who have differences in secondary issues. They may be missing out on one of the greatest gifts of the Spirit-the love and unity of the Spirit.

We leave you with this testimony of the Christian Copts who are being persecuted, and in some instances, forced to convert to Islam. You see, persecution seems to rear its ugly head when weak people and thoughtless zealots come into power and cannot tolerate the marketplace of ideas. Do they trust in Jesus or themselves?

 

 

 

Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 22:1-23:23 Acts 2:1-47 Psalm 122:1-9 Proverbs 16:19-20
 

Comments

What SGM and Others Could Learn From the History of Forced Conversions — 144 Comments

  1. Soul Freedom (Freedom of conscience). The title of a book written by blogger “The Big Daddy Weave” http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/ is part of the title of a biography of James Dunn. Dunn has long been a hero of mine, one who stood against coerced religion, and defended both of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

    Force a person to change their stated belief and many will say what it takes but still believe as before. Others will stand up against the force, and some, will actually change — especially those for whom the belief is shallow or socially derived.

    “Whosoever will” is a key to faith that lasts.

  2. Zenith, I’m only part way through what you’ve written and have read no comments. I just got to this:

    Towards the end of our time at that church I continued to address many of the following things listed below, but our pastor refused to hear. I had been saying and have continued to say that:
- PDI/SGM leaders and local pastors are elitists who think they have a corner on the truth; they are very proud and arrogant; they view themselves as the enlightened ones, while viewing all other Christians and their church affiliations as the unenlightened; in other words, those who do not agree with their theology are looked down on as second-class Christians and denominations; they are manipulative and controlling; much of the time they act like a bunch of clones; and that they are absolutely obsessed with TULIP.

    If you replace TULIP with “the group’s given pet doctrine,” this is one of the best short paragraph descriptions of spiritual abuse that I’ve read.

    Authoritarianism, image conscious, suppresses criticism, perfectionistic, and unbalanced (insert TULIP at SGM — the term refers to a majoring and primary focus on minor doctrines which are allowed to eventually eclipse the message of the Gospel).

    Another way of looking at spiritual abuse was described by Robert Lifton who identified eight characteristics of what he called thought reform, just another way of describing the old Pharisee. I tend to like it better when discussing the characteristics of the leadership, and I see lots of elements of Lifton’s critera popping out of your paragraph for me.

    The “sacred science” says that the doctrine and the “enlightened ones” can NEVER be wrong or faulty in any way. (That excludes humility and CJ’s style of repentance, because that’s a part of the doctrine and what is required to be in the group.)

    Having a corner on the truth is consistent with this sacred science as well as what Lifton called “doctrine over person” (people aren’t as important as the doctrine and can be sacrificed, though the doctrine is meant to help people). The doctrine that is lorded over “persons” makes them the “unenlightened.”

    Other church affiliations are lesser. This is part of the “milieu control,” and people understand from the informal communication in the group and from social pressure and modeling that you’re not to just mingle with other groups, nor can you accept information from the outside world. It has to be filtered through the grid of what SGM finds acceptable. Controlling the free flow of information and things such as “gossip” are potent control mechanisms. Discussing SGM stuff with people outside SGM is provocative.

    Looking down on others is part of the “dispensing of existence” as identified by Lifton. You don’t really exist or have true value, and you might not even get into heaven, if you are not part of the group. If you leave or if you misbehave while in the group, the right to exist which was dispensed to you suddenly is revoked, and people start looking right through you as though you weren’t even there. They may also punish you, too. You’re almost anathema, but all unofficially, of course. That makes it harder to really identify what’s happening. There are the spoken edicts and rules, but then there are the unspoken rules that everyone follows and everyone learns by osmosis. Don’t you dare violate them, or you’ll be sorry.

    Anyway, I saw these elements of Lifton in what you wrote, just in that single paragraph. It is brilliant.

  3. OOh, and a bit off topic rant. Grew up dispensational and LOVED Fanny Crosby’s songs (and her testimony), particularly “To God Be the Glory.” I know that hymn and love it.

    When we attended a Presby church for a time and started singing hymns only again, when we came around to that one, I remember joyfully belting it out as loud as I could. Was I confused, then embarrassed, then mad. Whatever hymnal they used made a very important Calvinistic change.

    The original hynm says “And opened the life gate that all may go in. Well, surprise, surprise! That hymnal read “And opened the life gate that we may go in.”

    I think that my piano teacher from Valley Forge Christian College probably rolled over in her grave, sensing my upset! It’s one thing to have a doctrine, and we should be very careful about the theology of our songs, in writing them and in how we let them inform our theology. But, holy Fanny, don’t change the woman’s hymn. I was furious.

    So I hope someone gets some amusement out of that today. A little levity is probably a good thing when discussing this subject.

    🙂

  4. It’s not just liberals who change the words to be politically correct. “Conservatives” can do it too. In the Baptist church I attended until I moved recently (and it really was a very wonderful church), they changed the Apostle’s Creed from, “the holy catholic church” to “holy Christian church”. It drove me crazy. They will complain about those who change the Bible and prayers to inclusive language, then do something not much different. I tried to convince them to educate people regarding the meaning of “catholic” rather than bow to their ignorance, but all to no avail.

  5. @Dee: I thought your quote from Lewis was good, but another one sprung to mind for me, from Prince Caspian:
    “Who ever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back!”

  6. How dare they change Fanny’s words! I would be furious, too! Fanny was blind, too. Remarkable woman.

  7. Why I write Zenith, not Dee??? Must be heat stupor.

    Lin,

    I’ve read some quotes about Fanny concerning her blindness, and I think that any Calvinist would be proud of them. She once said that if being sighted would have diminished her need for the Lord in any way, so that she would not receive Him as her savior, she would gladly choose to be blind.

    Right up there with Phillip Yancey’s “Where is God When it Hurts?,” Fanny’s quote helped shape my theology concerning human agency, making me lean even further toward the a Calvinistic perspective which had already started to develop. It provided great balance for me from the cosmic bellhop Jesus that I learned in a very arminian background. I’d say that the Assemblies of God were semi-pelagian, but the Word of Faith that my mom supplemented us with was definitely full on arminian.

    And I had the coolest thought. My piano teacher and Fanny have got to be old pals by now. Another string of odd thoughts, too. My piano teacher, Mae, went blind after an occipital area stroke, a few years before she died. And Who would be the first Person they saw when they left this life and entered the next? I look forward to the reunion.

  8. Cindy K

    There is no meanness intended in what I’m about to say, but please tell me that you can see that those same traits describe most evangelical Christians from the eyes of the outside (non-Christian) world, it is not the domain of only SGM or abusive churches.

    “Sacred Science” – This is the core of most Evangelical Christians when it comes to their belief in the existence of God and, as Dee calls them, the ‘A’ issues. I have never heard an Evangelical even admit the possibility that God doesn’t exist or that other belief systems might get into heaven and be saved apart from Jesus.

    “Doctrine over Person” – Again, it is all about what you believe. The goal is to make converts, people are secondary. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve personally experienced that…the vast majority of Christians want to be your “friend” or want to “help” as long as there is the possibility of converting you. Once it is apparent that this isn’t going to happen…you’d think Samantha twitched her nose…they disappear. And like you pointed out, the gospel is used to make people feel guilty, ashamed and unworthy…oh but we have a solution…what a sales pitch.

    “Other church affiliations are lesser” – Well in this case, it’s non-believers are less and as you pointed out…”people understand from the informal communication in the group and from social pressure and modeling that you’re not to just mingle with other groups, nor can you accept information from the outside world.”

    “Dispensing of Existence” – Change the group from “another church” to the difference between Christian and non-Christian and the attitude and actions are identical.

    “..you might not even get into heaven, if you are not part of the group. If you leave or if you misbehave while in the group, the right to exist which was dispensed to you suddenly is revoked, and people start looking right through you as though you weren’t even there. They may also punish you, too. You’re almost anathema, but all unofficially, of course. That makes it harder to really identify what’s happening. There are the spoken edicts and rules, but then there are the unspoken rules that everyone follows and everyone learns by osmosis.”

    Before I get beat up with stories of “Good” Christians, yes, just like in SGM churches there are good people, but like the SGM churches the overall group mentality is the same.

  9. There is another word in the Apostles’ creed that gives me a problem with it. “Apostolic”. It tends to be interpreted to mean that there has been a succession of authority passed down from the apostles, those who knew Christ while he was physically on earth incarnate, by appointment, baptism or ordination, from one generation to the next. Of course, we know of corrupt, and likely not Christian, popes in the interim, for example, so the succession concept is terribly weak in light of the history of the church. One might substitute “Constantinian” and be more accurate!!!

  10. Dee this is another great post.

    You quoted Dee as saying:

    “Isn’t it interesting how even though CJ is supposedly so close and in tune with God, it took him some 13 years to acknowledge his sins of pride, hypocrisy, manipulation and mistreatment of others; and now finally he has gotten around to making things right with Larry.”

    A whole blog post and more should be devoted to asking this question. Every pastor in SGM should be asking this question. Every SGM member should be asking this question. The “independent” board that SGM has appointed should ask this question.

    Mahaney’s actions certainly call into question his walk with the Lord. I seriously wonder if this hidden sin might be why he wasn’t a big man of prayer.

    We all have our issues and no one is perfect but for a supposed Christian leader to do this and who has to meet a certain standard

    The other thing that should be asked is what was wrong with the system that caused this to happen? How was Mahaney able to hide his sin and be a poser for so long?

  11. Bounded Reality,

    My comments were not made to the “outside world.”

    Concerning the recent themes here, I know that I share the basic beliefs of those at SGM and the blog hosts. My own former spiritually abusive church is in the vicinity as CLC, interacted with them at one time, and was birthed out of the same spiritually abusive roots of the shepherding/discipleship movement during the ’70s. The statements I made here this past week addressed those shared beliefs and shared affiliations. My recent comment describes what the New Testament identifies in the behavior of the Pharisees.

    That considered, I don’t know that it’s reasonable to expect me to adequately direct my comments to those specifics, while at the same time, still accommodate the perspective of someone like yourself who does not share those common beliefs, and I don’t know enough about you to know if you share a common history with us.

    I do feel that your comment a little unfair because of the focus and the context of the post, yet I am not to take that in the wrong way. I’m not permitted to talk of good Christians (who don’t follow shepherding/spiritual abuse). I must say that my comments have never been constrained like this on TWW before. 😉

    Am I permitted to state that I think it’s a pity that we have had no opportunity to get to know each other better, and it’s also unfortunate that you aren’t more familiar with my work and the objectives that I share with the hosts here. I believe that your assessment of my statement (and of me?) would be somewhat different. (I almost feel a bit like I’m expected to pay the bill for a dinner that’s already been eaten by people I’ve never met, long before I got here, so to speak.)

    It’s unfortunate.

  12. One thing that is baffling about “forced conversion” for those that claim to believe in Calvinism is that trying to force conversion contradicts what Calvinism teaches.

    My understanding of Calvinism is that it teaches that God gives to only some an “irresistible grace.” Only those that God chooses to give this “irresistible grace” will come to Christ. Those not given this “irresistible grace” have no chance of coming to Christ.

    Calvinism indicates that man has no input into whether he will be saved or not. According to Calvinism, it all depends on God and God’s decision. The term “sovereign grace” is another word used to indicate the belief that God solely decides who becomes saved.

    Thus I find it ludicrous for someone who claims to be a Calvinist and believes in a “sovereign grace” to try and force conversions. Isn’t trying to force conversions a direct contradiction to what they claim to believe? If they want these people to convert why not blame God since according to what they teach God is the one who decides who comes to Christ.

    If you are going to say that you believe in predestination including an “irresistible grace” or a “sovereign grace” be consistent. That would include not disciplining pastors for their children not coming to Christ. After all they claim God is the one that decided this.

    I don’t believe in Calvinism and as Tim Lahaye is quoted as saying, I see it close to blasphemy. I am baffled that some who claim to believe in Calvinism but their actions contradict this supposed belief.

  13. “I do feel that your comment a little unfair because of the focus and the context of the post, yet I am not to take that in the wrong way. I’m not permitted to talk of good Christians (who don’t follow shepherding/spiritual abuse). I must say that my comments have never been constrained like this on TWW before.”

    Good point, Cindy.

  14. Cindy,

    Sorry, I am having trouble following your comment. No one is constraining your comments. I also do not understand why my comment is “a little unfair”….what’s unfair about it? I was just asking if you agree, that the descriptions you provide of issues within abusive churches, are actually also valid descriptions, in general, of any Christian?

    In other words, it seems to me that the things you feel are wrong with the way in which SGM and abusive churches treat their own flock and how they relate to other churches seems to also be a good description of how Christianity relates to the world in general.

    If I misunderstood your post, attribute it to a lack of coffee on my end this morning 🙂

  15. ” I was just asking if you agree, that the descriptions you provide of issues within abusive churches, are actually also valid descriptions, in general, of any Christian”

    Now call me confused but the fact you are commenting on a site published by two believers, about Christian issues and you interacting freely with believers here, not moderated out, makes your question above seem a bit strange.

  16. “I also do not understand why my comment is “a little unfair”….what’s unfair about it? ”

    For one thing, you asked Cindy not to tell you stories about ‘good Christians”. You think Dee and Deb are not good people who are Christians? Is that a fair assessement?

    “I was just asking if you agree, that the descriptions you provide of issues within abusive churches, are actually also valid descriptions, in general, of any Christians””

    You want Cindy to agree that the descriptions she provided apply to me, Deb, Dee, and all the other believers here? That would be “in general”.

  17. @ Bounded Reality: I think the Us vs. Them mentality is alive and well in many, many churches – but also that it’s much more universal than that.

    And guys, why can’t someone with different beliefs than your own ask questions here? (I’m Christian myself, just sayin’…)

  18. oh, and… I’ve done the phony “friend” thing, though not (I hope) recently. (But back in the day, when I was younger and believed all the ideologies proclaimed by a series of churches, yet.)

    it’s very real. The focus on “friendship evangelism” … which goes pretty far back – proves it.

    I agree that it is dishonest and hurtful to those who are the objects of the so-called “friendship.”

  19. “And guys, why can’t someone with different beliefs than your own ask questions here? (I’m Christian myself, just sayin’…)”

    Is there some reason we cannot ask them questions about their questions? Or make points about their questions?

    Can you be specific on anything Cindy or I have said that leads you to believe that we think unbelievers should not be allowed to ask questions here?

    Color me confused! :o)

  20. …I’m not permitted to talk of good Christians (who don’t follow shepherding/spiritual abuse). I must say that my comments have never been constrained like this on TWW before.”

    This, for example, is (imo) an evasion of the questions BR is asking. But that’s just my take.

  21. Again to BR: I think the emphasis (in many churches, though not all) on “unequally yoked” = do not marry someone is isn’t one of Us is a *very* good example of exclusivism and Us vs. Them thinking.

    But again, that can happen with any group of people… not just Christians, or Christians of a certain stripe – and I also think that particular “stripe” can be found in every denomination under the sun.

    It doesn’t mean that all Christians are prejudiced, but it does mean (imo) that certain prejudices are typically adopted by those who become convinced that their way is the only way.

  22. Lin,

    I did not ask Cindy not to tell me about Good Christians, I was just preempting the usual response by saying that because any group will always have some good people in it, it doesn’t mitigate the behavior of others nor compensate for an overall negative group mentality.

  23. “I did not ask Cindy not to tell me about Good Christians, I was just preempting the usual response by saying that because any group will always have some good people in it, it doesn’t mitigate the behavior of others nor compensate for an overall negative group mentality”

    Isn’t that what this blog is about? That is the point I was trying to make. This blog is about calling out certain groups who claim the Name of Christ but have bad behavior. That is why your question confused me. There are other blogs doing the same. I am not clear on exactly what it is you want. Isn’t this blog, in effect, admitting there is a problem. Not sure what else you expect us to do about it.

  24. Not all churches or groups of churches (association, denomination, synod, whatever) have authoritarian structures with a powerful pastor or small group of elders, staff (or whatever), practice harsh “church discipline” (treating those who differ on anything as misdemeanants or worse), and have no tolerance for freedom of conscience (called soul freedom in Baptist life). There are many who practice the Baptist distinctives, which makes for a huge difference from the abusive church model. Congregation-based governance (democracy) of the pew-sitter, for the pew-sitter, by the pew-sitter, is a totally different beast that SGM, etc.

  25. numo @Fri, Jul 22 2011 at 02:15 pm:

    You might like reading Frank Schaeffer’s “Crazy For God”. He lays out this very thing, the cozying up to people (non-believers) for the sole purpose of eliciting a conversion. Never mind them as human beings with feelings and imbued with a divine nature.

  26. @ Muff P.: Oh, I have (also his novels), and believe me, a lot of things he says resonate with me. (Has something to do with my visit to his home stomping grounds in the late ’70s – he’s the 1st person to describe some of the wild eccentricities I saw there, though I have to qualify that by stating that I had no contact with his parents.)

  27. Should also add that I’m Not* from a fundie background, and that Schaeffer’s parents were not fundamentalists anymore when I was there…

  28. Numo, you wrote:

    …I’m not permitted to talk of good Christians (who don’t follow shepherding/spiritual abuse). I must say that my comments have never been constrained like this on TWW before.”

    This, for example, is (imo) an evasion of the questions BR is asking. But that’s just my take.

    Can you explain this?

    Is your issue with the statement that I believe that SGM and other groups who follow shepherding are spiritually abusive, and that it is possible for some Christians to be non-manipulative and non-abusive?

    Or is it my statement that it’s my perception that I’ve never had any individual in this forum tell me to not offer a particular line of argument/defense of an idea, that I shouldn’t “go there”? To make that statement in the manner it was, especially with the opening disclaimer of “don’t take this the wrong way, but…” as constraining. It is my perception that I’ve never been constrained in that way before here. It is one thing to say, I don’t agree with you. It is another thing to say, “Christians are all alike, and you’re foolish hypocrites in your blindness.”

    You and I do not share the same beliefs about several things, yet I understand that we still do share many others. We have very willingly disagreed with one another quite agreeably.

    We’ve never told one another “Don’t go there.” We’ve never stated or implied that the other was a fool or a willful hypocrite (and as imperfect humans, there’s always a bit of hypocrite kicking in us by way of the human trait of confirmation bias). I don’t believe that either one of us has stated that one was superior to the other, morally or otherwise. I don’t believe that either one of us has implied that the other was not deeply thoughtful or had not spent great effort searching to hold the most sensible or ethical beliefs. I don’t believe that we’ve ever taken a comment out of context to make some point. I’ve always seen our exchanges as a coming together where each of us says, “I believe x because of the consideration of y and z.”

    I believe that I was asked by Bounded Reality whether I could see that my arguments were flawed because he believes that I am as a blind man, trying to point out to others just how blind they are. And that this is true of all Christians. I feel that he took my comments out of context and away from the target audience (Christians observing Pharisees in action), and then used black and white thinking and stereotyping and oversimplification to vent frustration that he has with Christianity in general by reducing all Christians into blind men who do not know they are blind.

    My germane point was that my comments were targeted to Christians about Christians within a Christian context on a blog that I understand is Christian. Yet I was expected to, at the same time, realize that, as an atheist, Bounded Reality did not find my comments satisfying to his different belief system. I stated that I believed that this was an unreasonable expectation and unfair in that sense.

    If Dee’s post dealt with the subject of how atheists perceive CJ’s authoritarianism and emotional blackmail, then Bounded Reality would have certainly had good cause to make the point, but I would still find it demeaning because I think it carries an air of moral superiority. It was an authoritative statement on me as a Christian and all Christians. It was not a statement of “Cindy, have you ever considered how this statement appears?” But also consider, if this was a thread about how Christian controversy appears to atheists, I would have made an entirely different comment.

    Please, could you explain to me how any of that is evasive on my part? I would like to understand, because I sincerely desire to be quite the opposite.

  29. Cindy,

    It seems that you are reading into my question things that I didn’t say or imply.

    You said to Numo, “I was asked by Bounded Reality whether I could see that my arguments were flawed because he believes that I am as a blind man, trying to point out to others just how blind they are.”

    I never, ever said anything about your arguments being flawed, nor anything about you being blind and trying to point out other people’s blindness. I have no idea where you got that idea, certainly not from anything I wrote.

    Then you said, “Yet I was expected to, at the same time, realize that, as an atheist, Bounded Reality did not find my comments satisfying to his different belief system.”

    Again, no clue where you got that idea. I said nothing about your comments not being satisfying to my belief system.

    Please re-read my original post.

  30. Bounded Reality,

    For several years, I have worked with all vigor to expose the very type of abusive practices within Christianity that are discussed on this blog as well. I ascribe to David Henke’s concept of “spiritual abuse” as determined by the aforementioned list of criteria as a test of whether a religious group amounts to a surreptitious process of coercion and undue influence wherein a person is pressured to accept beliefs and practices that they would otherwise reject without the employment of these tactics. Robert Lifton, the Harvard psychiatrist who counseled Korean POWs who were brainwashed in Chinese prison camps described this same process in a little different way, but they are essentially the same things.

    If a group of people that shares an ideology bear these characteristics, and if they use the covert manipulation of thought, emotion, behavior and information to get people to accept ideas that they’d otherwise reject, then they are a “closed” system, what Lifton called a system of “ideological totalism.”

    I absolutely believe that Christians can practice the Christian faith and can desire and endeavor to share their faith without utilizing any of these techniques. There are also religions that Christianity considers a theological cult, but they may never practice these factors that social psychology points out as very detrimental, requiring a person to develop a dissociative personality that allows them to meet the demands of a cultic group. The International Cultic Studies Association also agrees that a group can be evangelistic and still not exercise undue influence or cultic manipulation over members and new recruits.

    I was taught that my primary witness as a Christian was the manner in which I lived, and though I am called to be able to defend my reasons for believing with kindness and and respect, my life itself should be the biggest selling point for my faith. (That should be free of manipulation, too.) But I had a very non-manipulative way of Christian living modeled for me for many years, long before my four year involvement with CLC’s “poor country cousin” network in Maryland (affiliated and birthed through Christian Growth Ministries, Intl.).

    Also, if I believed that all Christianity was to some degree manipulative and unfair in so doing, I would never teach and encourage others to read books about manipulation, particularly not Robert Cialdini’s “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.” But I believe that by affirming people’s liberty of choice, it actually does them the greatest service. One’s choice of faith should be free and without coercion, and it should never be an act of intellectual suicide. Robbing people of their choice (which I see as given to them by God) is paternalistic and actually dishonors God, because as a gentleman pointed out above, that isn’t really a choice at all. Coercion only makes men slaves to other men.

    The God of Christianity or any other religion should ideally be followed out of love and freedom, not out of manipulation.

    We are all imperfect creatures who are in process, and we are blind to that which we don’t want to see. That is why we are all somewhat hypocrites. But I believe that if one loves the truth and loves liberty, the most God-honoring thing that a person can give another is informed choice that helps us grow out of our hypocrisy. My early Christian experience embodied that concept. I hope to be much less of a hypocrite at the end of my life than I was when I started.

    So I disagree with you if I indeed understood your comment properly. An empathetic and compassionate Christian who is honest about their shortcomings and is loving in their behavior does not exemplify spiritual abuse or thought reform characteristics.

    And I’m sorry, but I was not comfortable with the tone that I got from your comment. I could only interpret from what you wrote as having already determined that there was no difference between abusive Christianity and religious faith that is not.

  31. @ Cindy K: I pretty much agree with BR, that there was some reading into and/or misinterpretation of his/her questions.

    And I think – at least, I hope! – you know that I was not/am not saying any of this to be critical of you and all that you’ve been doing to expose bad churches (and abusive doctrine) and to directly help others. (Quite the contrary!)

    I didn’t see BR’s request to not mention “good Christians” as being loaded, but hey, that’s my take… and there was a time – not very long ago – that I would have gotten upset about that “no stories about ‘good Christians'” part of BR’s post myself.

    I dunno… I guess now that I’ve been pretty removed from certain circles for a number of years, I can see that people who get the bad side of the Us vs. Them arguments and actions have some very good points. (Regardless of what they do or don’t believe – and I’ve gotten that “We don’t want your kind around here” vibe from some churches and people, as I bet you have at times, too.)

  32. Bounded Reality,

    I just saw your response. Yours posted while I was getting interrupted while writing my more recent one. Phones, cats, people. I didn’t see what you’d written until now.

    I don’t know that I would have changed my response which posted after yours did, if I’d had seen it before I submitted the comment.

    I was pretty surprised at your comment to me when I read it this morning. I’d been complementary of Dee’s post. I found your comment rude enough that I actually had two different people read my my initial comment and yours before I decided whether it was even prudent to respond to it and whether I’d read something into it that was not even there. I offered no comment, but just asked what they thought of it. These two were both kind enough to then make time in their morning to review and possibly edit my own response. So two others reviewed what I wrote before I even posted it. Considering Lin’s response also, I don’t know that we were all completely off base.

    I’d be happy to admit that I’m being overly sensitive, but I don’t believe that my response was unwarranted.

    I’m also sad that this off topic observation tends to derail and detract from the benefit of my original statement. Now there are all sorts of red herrings floating here, detracting from the main topic – the recovery of those who are trying to process their painful or strange experiences at SGM. I think that it does a great disservice to them. The last time I discussed this message on SGM Survivors in early 2009, many people found the message about thought reform intimidating. Though I think that the seasons have changed and that more people are willing to consider it in light of recent events, the comment that expresses general criticism that draws Christianity into question makes the idea a little more complicated.

    Perspective is an interesting thing, and what is that saying about opinions being like a part of one’s anatomy? Everyone has one? I sought some counsel before responding here, and I guess it was of no real help.

  33. Numo, again my phone has been ringing all evening, and I was late to post a half written comment.

    Here again, I will have to disagree. One of the people I had to catch a call from tonight was one of the people who took looked over these comments here today, calling to see how things panned out. If running things by others first makes no difference, taking care to not react but to rather thoughtfully respond, how do I correct my now “incorrect” perspective? I was actually told by one person today that my response was too kind and later heard the same thing from someone else who emailed me after the comment went online.

  34. Cindy, hmm… I don’t know what to say, except that text-only is a very tough medium, and that i don’t see BR attacking anyone here. (Not you, not me – not anyone.)

  35. OK, I meant to say – “challenging,” yes. But not “attacking.”

    however, i really might be missing the boat here!

  36. Cindy

    I am back after writing a lengthy blog as well as being out for most of the day. I see nothing wrong in anything that you said and find your comments very illuminating. As for BR, he/she is a challenge. I happen to know who she/he is and his/her purpose is to disagree with most things Christian. However, being a good blogger, I will adhere to my nondisclosure policy.

  37. Numo, This blog and others here have gone out of their way to take Christian cultic groups to task for bad behavior. Cindy has made it her life’s work. I hope BR checks out her blog and the years of work she has put into exposing these groups and teaching others what to look for.

    Yet, BR implied that ALL Christians are really like SGM when it comes to unbelievers and you seem to agree. Do you think that way about yourself as a believer? Dee and Deb?

  38. @ Lin: Yes… I do know all of that, and have been reading and commenting here for about a year. This is one of my favorite blogs!

    As for BR’s identity, I have a hunch…

  39. @ Lin again: I did NOT say – or mean to imply – that all Christians are like SGM re. people who are Not Like Them.

    Please, could you re-read my comments on that? I did try to make a distinction, and I do think it’s easy for *anyone* to slip into that manner of thinking and acting. I KNOW that I have, in the past – especially because my “past” has a number of discipleship movement churches in it.

    fwiw, I was raised Lutheran and am kind of a revert to it, though there are doctrines I disagree with (to some extent, anyway). If I didn’t have that background to fall back on – particularly in its assurance of God’s love and grace for us – I would probably not be a Christian any longer.

  40. Numo, So you are a member of the “if you like me you will like my Jesus, too” club?

    I think that insults the intelligence of athiests as much as Christians. You don’t have to throw Christians under the bus to make athiests like you. It causes commenters to walk on eggshells and that does not make for good discussion. In fact, it makes one not want to comment here.

    What BR said was illogical from the standpoint of what this blog is about! But you seem to have a problem with anyone pointing that out.

  41. As for BR’s comments being challenging, yes, they are.

    But I’m not at all convinced that their intent is bad (I think the opposite, actually), and am kind of used to those sorts of questions as posed by another long-term commenter here.

    I deeply appreciate the fact that Dee and Deb have no problem allowing commenters who disagree with their beliefs to post here… I actually think it adds to the discussion, though at times it might be better if the questions were addressed on another forum or site. (Bounded Reality’s blog, for example.)

    Hope that makes sense!

  42. “Please, could you re-read my comments on that? I did try to make a distinction, and I do think it’s easy for *anyone* to slip into that manner of thinking and acting. I KNOW that I have, in the past – especially because my “past” has a number of discipleship movement churches in ite

    I have been reading them. Perhaps you do not mean to communicate what you communicate?

    How can one slip into that thinking on a blog that is about taking cultic Christian groups to task? Every comment is taking them to task. Every post. The point is so obvious it is like a neon sign.

    It is NOT a sin to point that out.

  43. @ Lin again: I think we need to agree to disagree. 🙂

    And I honestly don’t see any need for anyone to feel like they have to walk on eggshells here.

    all the best,
    numo

  44. @ Lin: Please… I was talkinga bout *my life,* not about *this blog.*

    There is a difference. And i DO think it’s easy for *anyone* (no matter what they believe) to slip into an “Us vs. Them” mentality.

    Our beliefs are “better.”

    our skin color is “better.”

    Our language is “better.”

    Our music is “better.”

    Therefore, We ARE “better.” And we will lovingly (or perhaps not so lovingly?) condescend to all of you who are Not Like Us until you see the light and become One of Us. (Which in matters of skin color and a number of other things, will never, ever happen, so… we get to discriminate against *you,* because *you* are NOT “better,” Like Us.)

    In her most recent post, Dee refers to Rosa Parks. That’s <b.exactly the kind of thinking I’m talking about! Keep Them (black people, non-comps, illegal *and* legal immigrants, people who don’t speak English and/or don’t speak it well, people of other faiths – Muslims especially!) etc. Down, because They are NOT Like Us.

  45. And… I’m throwing in the towel on this particular discussion, Lin.

    My take is both from the “inside” (Christian) and from the “outside” (as someone who used to teach ESL to Arab Muslim women and girls, has spent a lot of time with immigrants from Central and South America, the Middle East, some Asian countries, etc.).

    There can be a benign “Be like Us” attitude happening – and it happens in every country, in every culture. Someone always is the underdog; someone is always discriminated against. And the people who do the discriminating often have answers that are cloaked in religious belief.

    Even when, for example, people are dying by the thousands (as in Russian pogroms against Jews, as in the Holocaust, as in Bangladesh and Biafra, as in Rwanda and Uganda – and as people used to die here in the US, in lynchings and firebombings).

    I hope this clarifies some things about my ideas.

    again, I wish you all the best!

    pax,
    numo

  46. meant to say “relatively benign,” but that “relative” part is important, because it’s often a polite mask on intolerance, even hatred.

  47. Numo, In case you forgot, here is your first comment in this stream:

    “And guys, why can’t someone with different beliefs than your own ask questions here? (I’m Christian myself, just sayin’…)”

    That was in response to some disagreeing with BR’s comment. What else is one to think about your response? That we were saying BR could not have his beliefs or questions ours? That is what you thought about the responses to BR? That any defense of what was written means that we think he cannot have his own beliefs or ask questions here?

    Where did you get that idea? And how is it you think your comment is not meant to cause some to walk on eggshells?

  48. “I hope this clarifies some things about my ideas.”

    Not really. We all have our world experiences. I do not know why that should stifle discussion.

    Pax to you, too. But I fear this totalitarian approach to communication, too. You accused people of not allowing BR to question us because we dared respond in a way you did not like. I fear that as much or MORE than I fear the tyrants at SGM.

    Discrimination works both ways without even realizing it.

  49. no. there has been a longtime commenter here who is an atheist, and this argument seems to erupt regularly. people get offended that an atheist is asking challenging questions on a Christian blog.

    I don’t get why that bothers people. Really.

    again, I deeply appreciate Dee and Deb’s kindness in allowing a very open commenting policy. (in contrast to many so-called “Christian” blogs.)

    But I would prefer to just let the rest of this drop, OK? It’s not getting us anywhere, I think…

  50. “I don’t get why that bothers people. Really”

    I do not like it when someone maligns or implies mean things to a sister in Christ who has given her life to educating about cultic Christian groups and suggests all of us are just like that with unbelievers.

    I do not assume because they are an athiest that they cannot handle a serious discussion. Or that they must be handled with kid gloves or as BR would say, try to make friends just so he/she might like their Jesus. I find that insulting and unworthy of adults.

    I do not know why you have a problem wth that. Your first comment was meant to be shaming and insulting to those who responded in a way you did not like.

    Those are the same tactics SGM uses to quelch discussion. You do it in the name of tolerance which is actually, intolerance.

    But you don’t let things drop. You were the Mennonite commenter over at SGM. You would not let up on that one. I felt sorry for that poor guy.

  51. Dee,

    When I wrote my initial response, I recall reading in an earlier thread that either BR or you or someone had said that he was an atheist. I then went to the live link to their blog which they chose to include when they first logged in to “Leave a Reply.”

    What’s almost laughable to me is that I do atheist radio show interviews and get invited back, I’m quoted in Alternet, the Daily Kos, and I was quoted in the print version of B*tch magazine this past year. Of the many free thinker blogs that link to my website, one classifies me on a short list with Richard Dawkins with the link to my blog appearing immediately before his! BR didn’t realize it, but I’m highly atheist friendly. And I state that here because I hope it provokes him to go read through some of the topics on my blog.

    The other part of this involves my laissez faire approach to this topic in terms of working through beliefs. I guess that’s another element of why I found the comments difficult. Neither stereotype fit me at all! Making it tougher and online in general, it seems that critical comments about Christianity are tolerated, but Christians aren’t equally as free to stick up for their side of things. I believe that a little of that washed over into here today.

    I am sad that it turned the thread into a strange ride. It does nothing to help the SGM situation.

    Though I wasn’t sweating the confrontation, I do appreciate your comment. 🙂

  52. @ Lin: I think you are reading something into my original response to BR’s post that was not meant – by me – to be there.

    I had absolutely no desire to make anyone feel shame, or to shame Cindy or you or whoever else reads this blog and comments on it.

    Obviously, all you have for this is my word. I am sorry if I gave the impression that “shame” was intended.

    I sometimes think that it is easy to react to words (text-only) communication) and interpret what people say in a different way than they intended it to come across due to things like : no tone of voice, no facial expressions, no gestures/body language. So much of communication is about these things – words by themselves can be pretty cold and are also more open for misreadings than words plus the things I just mentioned.

    Please understand: I do not think BR was intending to insult anyone. And I would not take it kindly if BR *did* intentionally insult or belittle another commenter. I feel that way about all who comment here.

    Fair enough?

  53. @ Lin: could I request that you contact me offline about comments on other blogs? I don’t think that bringing that here is helpful, and I will not engage in a discussion of comments on other blogs here.

    That would really derail this thread, i think.

    and yes, I do sometimes hang onto things for too long. However, I think any further discussion on that topic should also be off-list.

    Dee has my contact info.

  54. and back to BR’s 1st post:

    here is no meanness intended in what I’m about to say, but please tell me that you can see that those same traits describe most evangelical Christians from the eyes of the outside (non-Christian) world, it is not the domain of only SGM or abusive churches.

    My 1st response to “but please tell me that you can see …” is, well yes and no.

    Why deal with this in a confrontational manner? Maybe BR asked his/her questions in that spirit, but I am inclined to think that’s not the case.

    I guess… maybe it’s good to sometimes say that we can’t necessarily answer all the questions someone might put to us, or at least, not today, but maybe later we could talk?

    I hope that makes sense – because i think BR’s concerns are valid, though not necessarily directly related to this specific post. I think that BR’s questions are being asked honestly, and not to bait people.

    That’s because I’ve had a chance to respond to BR here on this blog, in the fairly recent past. We disagree on many things, but I think BR’s a good egg. (never met BR, never talked with them on the phone, only here and a very little bit on Facebook.)

  55. Oh stink, I hit the wrong buttons and deleted my entire reply! Time to start again.

    Yesterday, I spent some tie at a residential facility, preparing to volunteer with devastatingly handicapped children. Then, I got home, dealt with an insurance company that was handling an accident that caused bad damage to my son’s car. I also had to write a complicated blog post, trying to be sure I captured the essence of “Evie’s” discussions with me. I finished all of this very late last night. Deb was on her way to her farm to check on the cotton/soybeans sue to the heat and drought conditions. Oh, to top it all off, I needed to contact some friends in the Campus Crusade Organization over the name change to Cru (sounds like heavy metal group).

    So, last night, when I jumped on , I realized much had been going on. I wrote a quick blurb to Cindy to say i supported her. I adore Cindy, as well as you, and did not want you to think that I didn’t care.

    I strongly disagree that all Christians are like SGM types. This very blog belies that. In fact, the wonderful people who come to this blog bear testimony to the faithful servants within the faith.

    Karl, the atheist, once made a remark that is most true. Atheists have more in common with the fundies because both of them take things as the literally see them. BR is of that mindset but many new atheists are now attack dogs, and have little use for dialogue. I say this due to my years of reading, and commenting, over at ExChristians.Net. They, too, are changing history saying that Hitler was a Christian as were many of the Politburo in the old Soviet Union. Why? Because they cannot accept the fact that “intellectually superior” humanist atheists could cause such pain.

    I also have a bit of an advantage. I know who BR is and can well assure you that he.she is testing our responses to see the effects of his/her words. I think it is helpful to learn how said folks communicate. These same comments are used, in general, by the new atheists. Perhaps you can say that this is a bit of a learning lab. However, unlike the incredibly over the top people over at exChristian whose main goal is to insult Christians who visit (although, to be frank, some Christian deserve it with their offensive comments), I think we can demonstrate that we can take it with style.

    Just know that appreciate you all and pray for you. You all are the best commenters a blog could have!

  56. Arce

    In your experience, do any of the churches that stayed with the SBC, function in a congregational motif?

  57. @ Dee: Thanks so much for your comment! Sounds like you had a pretty wild day. am hoping things are calmer for you today, and tomorrow as well.

    I really like “learning lab” – this blog really has been that for me, in terms of talking with others who have different beliefs. I have learned a lot from everyone, including Karl and Br, and I’m genuinely grateful for that. 🙂

    (am also appalled re. the revisionism on Hitler and some members of the Politburo – ??!! iirc, Hitler was baptized as an infant, but he certainly didn’t live his life according to the Gospels, and neither did the Politburo members during the Stalin era, which is, for some reason, what came to mind when I read your post…)

  58. Numo

    Funny thing about friendship evangelism. I took it differently. I know that hit and run witnessing was shallow. I have always been a friendly person and love to make friends just because i enjoy the image of God as expressed in different personalities. If one is truly a friend, we can share our lives, all of it. I do not make friends to evangelize. I make friends because I love people. Eventually, if we are truly friends, the subject evolves naturally. I try so hard never to abuse my friendship or make friends to “get something.”

  59. @ Dee: i understand completely re. what you’re saying – I was meaning the kind of “friendship evangelism” that Muff P. mentioned, where the goal is getting converts, not befriending people for their own sake.

    If you Google the phrase, you’ll see what I mean. I’ve had it taught to me directly re. getting to know people with different religious beliefs, and I’ve also seen what a number of people who were “befriended” for the purpose of conversion have to say about how they felt when they realized that their Christian “friends” cared mainly about getting them through church doors.

    it’s very sad, and (imo) things should be the way you’ve described them, *not* what is often taught today.

  60. Numo
    Do you think that not being “unequally yoked” could be for a far different reason that an “us vs them” mindset? My faith is the most central part of my life. How could I marry someone who is diametrically opposed to the very Being who inhabits my soul? Jesus invades every aspect of my being. How could I share this with someone who doesn’t believe it and like, BR, finds it a bit ridiculous?

    This would be akin to marrying a doctor and being opposed to the medical establishment and modern medicine. I have “friends” who dislike doctors and think they are involved in conspiracies to keep effective medicine out of the hands of the people. By their very comments, they insult the integrity of my husband. It is a major part of his life and one that is necessary for me to share. How could I marry him, disagreeing with the very thing he does?

  61. BR

    By preempting, you could be perceived as trying to control the free exchange of ideas. Whether or not you approve of the response is up to you.

  62. Cindy

    This blog rarely, if ever, constrains a response. So, respond away and ignore those who want to limit your response.

  63. Numo

    I am trying to figure out how to do just what you said. I was thinking that those who wanted to communicate directly with an atheist could go there through my blog. Here is my problem. I do not want folks to think I am endorsing a non-Christian viewpoint. Thoughts?

  64. Numo

    Communicating in short comments on a blog can sometimes be difficult. Jesus’ death on the cross made for a profound distinction. There are those who believe and those who do not. True Christians would say that their belief does not make them “better”, merely saved. The same thing goes for any group. I can’t play football so there are football players and non football players.

    As for a belief being “better” there is a bit of a problem. Jesus HImself said that He is the Way, Truth Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him. So, if Jesus is the Truth, is He not better? I may not be better because I am saved only by faith, not by works. But, isn’t He better?

  65. @ Dee: I meant how “unequally yoked” is often taught. It’s as if the “unbelievers” (no matter what they might happen to believe; can often included people who genuinely are Christians but belong to a different denomination) are somehow almost a different species. You use the term “diametrically opposed,” but how can we know – or assume – that that *is* the case with everyone out there?

    I have found a great deal of respect for my beliefs in places I would never have guessed I’d encounter it – and that is mainly because I swallowed the line about every “non-Christian” out there being “diametrically opposed” to everything having to do with Jesus’ teaching and the Gospels. That simply isn’t so – though lots of people genuinely *do* feel upset if they hear the word “Christian,” because it is often used as not-so-subtle code for “right-wing (and/or Tea Party) Republicans.”

    Gotta admit that I’ve been in churches where that *was* the case, and where people were greatly suspect if they didn’t toe the Republican Party line. (I hid my real beliefs and convictions about many things for approximately 2 decades because of this very unwritten rule.)

    As for marriage to an “unbeliever,” I wonder… had I been willing to consider a nice guy who was very supportive of my beliefs but Jewish (or…???), might I be married now? (As for someone Jewish supporting a spouse’s Christian beliefs – and vice versa – it really is more common than you might guess…)

    Believe it or not, I never, ever heard *anything* about “unequally yoked” in Lutheran circles – only in evangelical/charismatic churches and prayer groups.

    It isn’t taught much outside the evangelical world (imo, anyway), though certainly, there are unspoken rules about things. Most parents who are on the conservative-moderate side hope that their Catholic daughter will marry a Catholic (regardless of whether she’s a practicing Catholic or not), and so on. But it isn’t codified in the same way… or at least, it wasn’t for many years post-Vatican II, although things are (unfortunately) shifting back to pre-Vatican II in many ways.

    Also, I think not being married at all is a better place to be in than being married to a spouse who professes to be Christian but is intolerant, abusive, controlling, manipulative, an alcoholic or drug addict [add other descriptions at will].

    I hope that makes sense!

  66. Numo
    Whoops, I am working my way through the comments from last to first and see that you decided to stop this train of thought. Soory about that! 🙂

  67. @ Dee again: I was trying to say (albeit perhaps in an unclear way) that human beings often assume that *they* ARE objectively “better than” other human beings for all kinds of reasons.

    a lot of those reasons are cloaked in religious beliefs.

    Go back to the Civil Rights era and look at the language that Klan members (and other segregationists used – and still use), and you can see the problem.

    Go back to the late 19th-early 20th century in Russian history and you can see the same kind of horrible reasoning being used by the Metropolitans of the Russian Orthodox church – and the tsars – for the following:

    – exiling one third of the jewish population to what was referred to as “the Pale of Settlement.” (Ukraine, Poland, etc. – forcing them out of urban centers like Moscow and St. petersburg).

    – allowing one third of the Jewish population to die in pogroms sanctioned by both the government and church (though likely both would deny it if asked on the record; however, deals *were* made behind closed doors)

    – sending an inordinate number of Jewish troops to the front in WWI, thereby assuring that most of them would die

    I wish i was making this up, but I’m not. I started studying Russian history in HS and spent a lot of time on it in college, and quickly found that the tsars (up to and including Nicholas II) were no friends to the Jews. There are so many descendants of Russian and Polish Jews in the US – they came here fleeing pogroms (massacres by Cossacks) and other persecution. No wonder!

  68. @ Dee: No worries!

    My point is that every society seems to have its group – or groups – of people who are discriminated against. oftentimes, those people become not only scapegoats but are subject to terrible reprisals – even genocide – because they are perceived as “not being like Us.”

    I don’t have much experience with prejudice being directed my way (since I’m a white woman), but one summer i worked at Mystic Seaport and I can definitely tell you that the families of the museum’s founders regarded most of us as peons (“Nice but nor Our Kind”) because we weren’t from old money, Social Register families. (They were especially unkind toward Irish and Italian Catholics, and toward Jewish people as well.) And there were absolutely no Portuguese people on staff – Portuguese fishermen weren’t even mentioned in the New England fisheries exhibit!

    Pretty ironic and sickening, considering that one of the largest Portuguese-immigrant-run fishing fleets was a few miles down the road, in Stonington, CT – not to mention all the history with Portuguese (and other) immigrants in new Bedford, MA! (Since you’re from Boston, I think you’ll understand what I’m trying to say…)

    Basically, I was trying – however awkwardly – to say that i think everyone deserves what writer Bruce Bawer calls “a place at the table.” (Which is, not so coincidentally, what I believe jesus said – and did – as well. and i cannot believe that Jesus ever treated some as “better than” and others as “less than.”)

  69. I am trying to figure out how to do just what you said. I was thinking that those who wanted to communicate directly with an atheist could go there through my blog. Here is my problem. I do not want folks to think I am endorsing a non-Christian viewpoint. Thoughts?

    let me think about this a bit – though I’d suppose that a standard editorial type disclaimer might work, no?

    I know you want to promote dialogue, and I guess I would suggest emphasizing that.

    *

    Re. what Frank Schaeffer describes about his parents when they were fundamentalist Presbyterians – yes, it’s true that befriending people was viewed as a means to an end. if you read his memoir Crazy for God, you’ll see that. In his mom’s case, it had tons to do with her upbringing as an MK in a close compound in China. (During and immediately after the Edwardian era, when non-white people were generally regarded as “less than” by most whites in europe and here, fwiw… though I am not accusing his mom of racial/ethnic prejudice, just trying to set the scene.)

    The kids were taught that kind of “friendship evangelism,” and Frank explains that. When I read his book, i took yet another look at Edith Schaeffer’s book “L’Abri,” and you know – her writing is full of that sentiment also, though I fully believe she didn’t ever mean to be condescending to anyone. (I’ve never met her, though she and her husband were still living nearby when I was at Swiss L’Abri.)

  70. “Closed,” not “close.”

    You have to read Frank Schaeffer’s story about the Gospel Walnut Witnessing Kit. it’s hilarious!

  71. Numo

    Visit some of the atheist sites. It is amusing how they twist themselves into pretzels over the Hitler thing. Even Richard Dawkins has gotten in on the act. There basic premise is this: if someone says they are a Christian or has participated in any Christian ritual, they must be viewed as a Christian. Period, No excuse. I wrote on the ExChristian blog that, if they believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell them because I am a real estate agent and the bridge’s owner. If I say, it’s true. Right?

  72. Numo
    Speaking of the Social Register thing, there was a book, comedy, written years ago called The Official Preppy Handbook. We the author has updated it for the 2000s. She says something along the lines that Muffy’s daughter is now living with a Professor of African American Studies instead of marrying Sebastian Howell V and is attending a Wiccan group instead of the Episcopal church

  73. Numo

    You were at L’Abri? That is one thing I always wanted to do but didn’t. How cool.
    Did you know that Frankie Jr is now Russian Orthodox?

  74. The Official preppy handbook: Oh yes! I took my copy along to Mystic and was able to i.d. all kinds of things described in it, while (heehee) dressing fairly preppy myself.

    I will never forget reading that one of the writers – the one who did the piece on things with ducks in interior design – had their parents in a complete tizzy… until his (or her?) mom started actually counting all the things with ducks that were in her house.

    she changed her mind pretty fast after that! 😉

    *

    Rule #1: yes. (what else is there to say?!)

  75. About Frank Jr.: I’m not sure what he believes at this point (am reading his latest right now). But i do remember his conversion to the Orthodox church being a big, big thing… that happened shortly after he wrote all those ranty books back in the 70s-late 80s.

    he still gets fairly ranty, but from a different perspective. however, I think he comes by it honestly, from both his parents. As for the critics who say that he’s taking his family down – I’m not sure that they’ve read Edith’s books. She talked a LOT about family problems; more than most people will ever believe. (Like his dad’s temper and moodiness; she once described going to garage sales to buy old plates so that Francis Sr. could go into the garage and smash them against the wall when he was in a bad mood.)

    I didn’t like L’Abri – or at least, i didn’t like being a student there. Staying nearby and going to lectures/socializing was much more beneficial. I liked a lot of people there, but have to say that it was a pretty quirky place, staffed by nice but genuinely eccentric people. (You can read about some of them in Crazy for God.) It was *nothing* like Edith made it out to be in her book.

  76. Am not a big fan of Frank Jr.’s rants, but when his writing is good, it’s very, very good – iMonk wrote a very positive review of several of his novels a few years back, and that’s what convinced me to read them.

    I’m grateful to the late Mr. Spencer for that; I found them very… healing, maybe? Being able to laugh at the absurdities of life can be quite freeing!

  77. Numo

    I have finally caught up with the comments! Yippee!

    Thanks for downplaying the L’Abri thing. It has eased my regret for not getting there!

    I love the Internet Monk and miss Michael.

  78. About L’Abri: I had some pretty grandiose ideas about it, after reading books by both of the Schaeffers, and had high, high hopes when I went there.

    I had just turned 21 and was very idealistic, so to a certain extent, the reality was going to be a bit of a letdown. I met lots of nice people, but I thought there were *many* genuinely strange things there. However, if I mentioned those observations to anyone while I was there, the conversation was shut down or else the subject was changed immediately. (although I got the distinct impression that not all of the workers were in line with certain things – having to serve high tea every Sunday afternoon, for example.)

    here’s the thing about Crazy for God: Frank validated a lot of my observations about the place and the people. and I’m thankful for that, because hey – I found out I wasn’t crazy after all! (Only half joking.)

  79. Dee,

    With all the comments, it is hard to keep up and do anything else. Since my last post here, I have taken down 9.5 feet of three section chimney in the 1915 house. Have about 3 layers of bricks to go to get to the kitchen floor, then will be taking it a foot further into the basement. Next Sat is the take it down further and install the missing floor.

    I have been in churches that have not given up their affiliation with the SBC (yet?) for mission purposes more than anything else. A few are pastor-CEO models, but without authoritarianism in that role. Some have deacon or elder boards elected by the congregation. Some have church counsels nominated/elected by the congregation. A few have experienced hiring a pastor who then tried to take over the church. Two in San Antonio had that happen: Shearer Hills and First. Both eventually either split or encouraged the pastor to find another gig. Meg heard one one time and would not go back. It took the second sermon for me to decide that he was a would be tin horn dictator. He split the church and hurt many of our friends. The next pastor was among the best I have every known and did a lot of healing for that congregation.

    I suspect that within the SBC there are all forms of actual (as opposed to on-paper) governance. One thing. The larger the church, the more likely it is to be a pastoral dictatorship, with the pastor appointing boards, etc. Of course, another way is to control who gets elected by controlling the nominating process, by controlling the appointment of the nominating committee. It was in a model church bylaws put out 40 or so years ago for SBC church starts that the pastor would nominate the nominating committee. BIG MISTAKE. Gives the appearance of democracy when practically there is none.

  80. Somewhere up the thread, there’s a comment that defends Bounded Reality (BR), and goes on about what a great guy he is. I assume that this comment is directed at me, since it’s the comment that responds to me. It also insinuates that people (who I assume would be me or include me) believe that BR’s questions were not valid.

    I’ve already explained in some depth my reasons why I took issue with the “question.” But there’s something subtle going on here that I don’t like. They’ve bothered me in the back of my head as I’ve gone through the day, and I’d like to address them.

    Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, and IMO, I will again restate that there were several informal logical fallacies used in how BR’s “question” was constructed so as to also be a definitive statement and commentary on all Christians. Because it was very clear to me that BR had already decided on the answer to the question, and has, as he said, “pre-empted” responses (also condescending, IMO), he would find any response inadequate. That isn’t asking a question. That’s a set up and a posturing to “win.” By my answering it as an invitation to debate in the way it was stated is admitting a position of weakness. The weak party bounces around, trying to redeem their ideas. The only kind and friendly looking way of resolving the conflict is to admit defeat with grace, and I would have had to admit to something I don’t believe at all (with good reason and with material from about 15 textbooks that I could cite to back me up).

    It is a bit like the questions of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Any answer you give puts you in a losing position of self-defense which connotes guilt. So numo, I believe that with good reason, it was a baiting question. If you’re having an informal conversation with people in an environment of mutual respect, that kind of stuff is inappropriate. It’s a manipulation tactic that insults the forum of respect as well as those in it. You’d have to give me a lobotomy to get me to see BR’s “question” in a different light, because it’s a classic logic play.

    SGM does this to control members all the time. Atheists do this all the time, too. Atheism is an highly evangelistic pursuit for many people.

    It was also stated that I was “being evasive” and in doing so, it was stated that by some stretch, I was claiming that the question was invalid. (On the other hand, posing authoritative statements as questions is evasive.) If you look back to what I wrote, I stated that the question was valid — but in the appropriate context. BR could have said in the comment that a great new thread might be the discussion of how all Christianity is manipulative. Dee and Deb have used readers’ comments as blog topics all the time. BR could have contacted me privately or asked for me to contact him if he really wanted to discuss it. That didn’t happen. (And I had respect enough for BR to ask for input before I even responded, demonstrating that the question was valid. Consider that if I believed that the question did not have merit, I would have ignored it entirely and would have never responded to it. The fact that I did shows respect for BR.)

    And, by the way, where is Karlton to defend him? He’s notably absent. ???

    It is like walking into a conference on cell theory at a symposium discussing the medical treatment of a pathologic cell process, walking up to the mike and saying, “Don’t you think that these dangerous treatments demonstrate that there is no such thing as cell theory?” The moderator would either shut down the out of place commentary (which may be appropriate for a journal or at the conference for challenging the cell theory), and/or the critic would be asked to leave the conference. The questions are valid when asked in the appropriate context. I see this exchange in the same light.

    There is also some suggestion that because I assertively stated my perceptions directly to BR, that means automatically that I think that BR is a “bad egg” in contrast to the “good egg.” Somehow by setting my own limits on what I will and will not discuss, establishing that I will not answer a “do you still beat your wife” style question to lock myself into a place of weakness in argument with a person who has no intention of debating or seeking to understand, I’ve somehow also repudiated BR’s entire person or something. Please don’t insinuate or imply that anyone here is claiming that about anyone because of one blog comment. We all have idle words and bad days. And we all have our hobby horses, too. None of that kind of thing ever trumps common respect or the precious value of any person.

    Most people are a mixture of good and bad. They all have strengths and weaknesses. One comment on a blog does not a “bad egg” make. I don’t know BR and might find him to be one of the most compassionate and kind people I could know. I had a dear and close friend who joined the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and he was like a second father to me before he died. We would have crawled over broken glass for one another, and I loved him. But I knew him far better than I know a stranger with whom I’ve exchanged a few blog comments.

  81. And could someone clarify — I just want to make sure that I have this straight.

    There are people who have come to TWW to use it as a laboratory to test out either tactics of arguing with Christians or to practice arguing with Christians. But they are really atheists who have come from some atheist forum to pick up some lab skills?

    Did I get that right?

  82. re: Cindy K Sat, Jul 23 2011 at 05:37 pm

    After some thought, and rereading some of the posts, I have to agree with Cindy K. The entire “question” was a stated conclusion and seeks argument, not answer. And it is a “when did you stop beating your wife” kind of question. So Cindy has every right to point that out and refuse the invitation.

    However, I believe that when this sort of things happen, a commenter should merely state, “I am not interested in participating in that argument” and that should be accepted in good faith, because it is in at least as much good faith as the “question” that was presented. And the “questioner” should accept that and put that argument to others in some other place.

    That would allow the rest of us to continue a discussion thread that we can follow.

  83. @ Cindy K: I was responding to Lin, not you, re. the “good egg” post.

    Sorry for any confusion; I do genuinely like BR although i also feel that sometimes their questions don’t allow much room for nuance.

    However, we’re always free to say “Neither” when someone insists on “either or both,” right? (That’s how I’ve dealt with BR’s questions in the past – I don’t feel constrained to have to answer back in the way they frame things…)

  84. @ Dee: I’ve long thought that this place is a “learning lab” for Christians who hold differing beliefs, but hey, that’s just my take…

  85. …if someone says they are a Christian or has participated in any Christian ritual, they must be viewed as a Christian.

    That doesn’t make any sense to me, for a lot of reasons. I mean, one could be baptized as an infant and never set foot inside a church again for the rest of their lives (or maybe only rarely), and that makes them the same as someone who has (say) attended daily Mass for their entire life?

    Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of religious syncretism in Latin America and the Caribbean, so someone who is baptized in a Christian Church might also practice African-derived religions, and so on.

  86. Numo

    Sense has nothing to do with it. It is a talking point and they will stick to it. Read any good atheist book and this one comes up.

  87. Well,

    Sorry that I haven’t been reading for a few days, I didn’t realize what a stir my comment had caused.

    I’d like to clarify a few things…

    1. Cindy, you made the comment “Because it was very clear to me that BR had already decided on the answer to the question, and has, as he said, “pre-empted” responses (also condescending, IMO), he would find any response inadequate.”

    While it may have been clear to you, unfortunately, it would still be incorrect as I hadn’t “decided” on anything and would have listened to any response which came with evidence and support. The say that “I would find any response inadequate”, is to presume to be able to read my mind…you’re not going to claim that ability are you? In any case, again it would be an incorrect assumption.

    2. Dee,

    You made mention that atheists are somehow anxious to “prove” Hitler was a Christian because “Because they cannot accept the fact that “intellectually superior” humanist atheists could cause such pain.”

    I would disagree on several points, firstly the word humanist in no way applies to Hitler, certainly not the definition of Humanist as it is commonly used now. Secondly, even if Hitler had no belief in God, that would be a non-issue for most atheists that I know. Not believing in the supernatural for lack of evidence (an atheist) implies nothing about either the morals, ethics or humanity of the person involved…I have no issue with saying that an atheist can be either a good person or a bad person…there is no connection any more than having blue eyes and being evil should cause shame to good people with blue eyes.

    Arce,

    You use the word “argument” instead of “discussion” why? The “preemptive” portion of my statement was there simply to try and provide my opinion, an answer if you will, to what I felt was going to be the first response. It implied nothing, there was no “intent to squelch an idea”, it was there for efficiency only. If you or Cindy disagreed with the “preemptive” answer you were obviously free to engage in discussion on the point.

    To those who felt the original post was “off topic”, I would simply say that from my perspective I thought the list of traits that was being used to describe abusive churches in general and SGM in particular, where very similar to how non-believers describe the traits of evangelical Christians as regards their behavior toward the unbelieving world. I thought that trying to make that point would perhaps lend a bit of introspection and maybe an understanding of how easy it is to misunderstand a groups intent when looking in from the outside.

    Even when many of you read my post, you made immediate and incorrect assumptions about my intent and my willingness to hear counter arguments. Isn’t it even remotely possible that this same behavior has been unfairly applied to SGM? I am not saying they are innocent of bad behavior, but there have been many statements made about what their “intent” is and where their “concern” truly is.

    Just a thought

  88. Just out of idle curiosity, the following statement, spoken by a famous person…Christian or Atheist?

    “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”

  89. It’s out of Mein Kampf. I guess that makes anyone who says anything that sounds remotely similar a totalitarian? We Christians are then no different than Hitler?

    Context, my dear. Context.

    This quip reminds me of much of the prose in Albert Camus’ “The Fall.” Sadly, I think he knew more Christian doctrine and Scripture than most Christians do today. But it takes more than knowledge. We must add faith to it from which our good works follow and flow.

    I tend to think of the Christian life as a process of ridding ourselves of heresy — as we all have our unique ideas which, as Paul says, must be conformed to the Image of Christ as we are transformed through the renewing of our minds. It is work over time, and God works in us to will and do of His good pleasure. If we live out our faith and grow in the right way, we grow in virtue and rid ourselves of more and more corruption and our own heresies (that which holds a “wrong opinion” about who God is and what is written about Him in the Bible). If I die with less heresy and more virtue at the end of my life than that with which I started, I’ve done well. This was certainly not the case with Hitler.

    Another off topic comment, BR. What has this got to do with SGM? Let’s prove the Christian a fool and a hypocrite by a different method. I don’t buy into your tactic.

  90. Cindy,

    You seem to take every statement I make as a personal attack of some type. I fail to understand your reasoning for doing this. If you feel that you are lacking sufficient context to understand a statement, may I suggest that assuming a positive intent is a bit more charitable and maybe even more Christ-like then always assuming some type of insulting, demeaning or aggressive intent is behind it.

    The quote was intended as an aside for Dee (yes, I should have addressed the post as such), since she broached the topic of whether Hitler was a Christian, just religious or an atheist.

    Just for future reference I thought the phrase “Context, my dear. Context”, came across as patronizing, although I’m sure that’s not how it was meant. 🙂

  91. BR

    I have had that statement from Mein Kampf thrown at me by atheists who want to prove to me that Hitler was a Christian. Hitler was a clever man and used religion in order to quell the fears of those in the churches. Many churches did not realize his intent until it was very late in the game.

    I still remember the outrage people felt when GW Bush Sr promised “no new taxes” and then proceeded to implement taxes. People lie, BR, for their own benefit. And Hitler was one of history’s greatest liars.You are too smart for this sort of argument.

    I have read many books by atheists, have spent YEARS on their sites, have listened to them in debate and they have not convinced me. BR, Christianity just makes sense to me and I have been open to being proven to be wrong. I have certainly explored the issue more than many believers.

    Now, as for the evidence thing, you reject conclusion based on broad evidence. For me, there is enough evidence in the world around me to give credence to the Christian message. It provides answers for many of my questions. However, I will say this. The Bible says that “faith is the evidence for things not seen.” In the end, it is faith. Why I have it, and it makes sense to me, and you don’t, is a puzzle. But, I am convinced there is much more in this universe that is simply mind-boggling when confronted with the universe and many dimensions.

    I will read and consider what you say but, in the end, God is too real for me. I have spent these last decades growing to know him and see him in that which surrounds me and that which invades my life. Perhaps it is too late for me, my friend. I have been assimilated and I rather like it.

  92. Dee,

    I only used that as an example, he made many statements on both sides of the fence…where the truth lies…who knows. It is sufficiently murky that I think neither side should be using him as an example…for good or bad.

    That’s the truly frightening thing about being assimilated, you are never really quite aware of what it is that you are missing. 🙂

    How is it, this is the part I’ve never really understood, that Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews and Sikhs can ALL testify to personal knowledge and certainty of the existence of a divine being, who’s existence is made evident from the universe in which we live, who claim to hear his voice and to be doing his diving will can all be wrong, yet the same “type” of evidence is accepted at face value as “obviously” supporting the idea of the Christian God?

    Doesn’t a red flag go up when you consider that other people of other religions claim to have the same experiences, the same confirmations of the truth of their God as you do for yours?

  93. BR
    Hitler was NOT a Christian. This is doing a rewrite of history in order to support an agenda. One can say, without a doubt, that he was not a religious man. Most historians would agree, except the newer historians with an agenda. Yes, we can say, without a doubt, that he was not a Christian. None of this wishy washy trying to play both sides of the fence.

    Nope, I have not trouble, whatsoever, when others tell me they know the truth. It is to be expected.I have read their belief systems and understand how they view creation, sin(or lack thereof), the view of men and women, etc. None of them give me a world view that so completely answers my questions of what I see around me-both in actions and in creation.

    It is both faith and observation that put this together for me. I am also at peace that there is a just God who gives all men opportunity, and, in those cases in which some men do not have equal opportunity, I place their fate in the hands of a loving and just God.

  94. Dee,

    So, let’s take Mormonism, just as an example…what is it exactly in Mormonism that doesn’t answer your questions of what you see in creation that Christianity does?

  95. Hitler was such a great Christian that he had the German church take an oath to pledge their allegiance to him instead of Christ.

  96. BR, What do your questions have to do with SGM? I am almost afraid to ask that question because Numo will think I am discriminating and want to commit genocide on the outsider. :o)

  97. Lin,

    To answer your question, I’ll repeat 2 paragraphs from an earlier post today, that I hope will help.

    “To those who felt the original post was “off topic”, I would simply say that from my perspective I thought the list of traits that was being used to describe abusive churches in general and SGM in particular, where very similar to how non-believers describe the traits of evangelical Christians as regards their behavior toward the unbelieving world. I thought that trying to make that point would perhaps lend a bit of introspection and maybe an understanding of how easy it is to misunderstand a groups intent when looking in from the outside.

    Even when many of you read my post, you made immediate and incorrect assumptions about my intent and my willingness to hear counter arguments. Isn’t it even remotely possible that this same behavior has been unfairly applied to SGM? I am not saying they are innocent of bad behavior, but there have been many statements made about what their “intent” is and where their “concern” truly is.”

  98. “How is it, this is the part I’ve never really understood, that Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews and Sikhs can ALL testify to personal knowledge and certainty of the existence of a divine being, who’s existence is made evident from the universe in which we live, who claim to hear his voice and to be doing his diving will can all be wrong, yet the same “type” of evidence is accepted at face value as “obviously” supporting the idea of the Christian God?”

    I don’t know why you don’t understand it.

  99. BR

    Yes it does. Jesus’ sacrifice is central to the faith. As Paul said, without the Resurrection, there is no faith. Without Jesus being fully God , there is no Jesus.

  100. “Even when many of you read my post, you made immediate and incorrect assumptions about my intent and my willingness to hear counter arguments.”

    Don’t even need to consider intent at all. I was simply going on enviroment (the blog post topic), comment content (framing the response in your assumptions) and venue (Christian blog owners discussing Christian topics).

    That was enough. Intent does not matter.

    ” Isn’t it even remotely possible that this same behavior has been unfairly applied to SGM?”

    That depends on your belief system. As we know you do not agree, so what is to discuss?

    ” I am not saying they are innocent of bad behavior, but there have been many statements made about what their “intent” is and where their “concern” truly is.”

    I agree. Just sticking to long term patterns of behavior and facts concerning the SGM system and the leadership is quite enough to make logical conclusions. Intent does not matter at all.

  101. BR

    1. I am married (32 years now) to a top notch debater and rhetorician, and she has educated me regarding the kinds of arguments you make. And it is an argument. Your “question” was not a question. We have had previous discussions of these issues on this blog, and the question has nothing to do with our discussion of the abusive practices of the SGM hierarchy and similar hierarchies.

    2. Not all evangelicals are abusive. However, there is a large segment of modern evangelicalism that has adopted models of governance that are patriarchal and that enable abuse. As a life-long Baptist, I am quite enured to people who think they know a lot about me by knowing that and they are 90% wrong. They know about a caricature of Baptist theology, ecclesiology and praxis, and not about either the historical theology, ecclesiology and praxis of the historical main stream of Baptist life, which is gentle, preaches about the love God has for humans, democratic in organization, and not intolerant of people who are different. Baptists who believe in social justice and who worked against slavery and discrimination beginning in the 1700s and continuing to the present day. Baptists who also believe that credible evangelism starts with social ministry and a Spirit-led life, helping those less fortunate and in the course of that, sharing their own faith experience.

    3. Get off of Dee’s case. Though she does not need someone to stand up for her, most of us here are willing to do so.

  102. BR:

    As late 20th century social psychology teaches, it is in the nature of humans to make attributions about intent, mental state, morality, etc., based on observable behavior.

  103. Arce,

    This isn’t a formal debate hall and I don’t give a {fill in your own euphemism}, what your wife says. I asked a question, hoping to get an answer so I could learn how someone else felt, or more accurately if they felt the same as I did. I phrased it as a question, I’m pretty sure I even ended it with a question mark, so as far as I’m concerned it was a question….thanks for playing.

    I’m so glad you are willing to stand up for Dee, when you become either her father or caretaker, I might be inclined to give your “request” some weight, until then…

    Dee,

    Back to our question, you said that ” None of them give me a world view that so completely answers my questions of what I see around me-both in actions and in creation.”

    The question was what does Mormonism not provide in terms of explaining what you see around you, that Christianity does??

  104. @ Lin: I don’t understand why you keep making comments that belittle me.

    Please stop now.

    I am asking, partly because i would not do the same in return toward you, and (afaik) have never done so.

    Given your beliefs, it does not even make much sense.

    And i think BR is right: Dee and Cindy and other commenters don’t need anyone to defend them and their ideas. They are very articulate and more than able to speak for themselves.

    More generally: not sure why you are all rehashing Hitler’s beliefs. he propagated so much evil – counter to Christ’s actions in ever way – that I cannot imagine why anyone would or could that he was “a Chrstian.”

    (See Robert Jay Lifton’s book The Nazi Doctors, for example… probably the most chilling thing I’ve ever read.)

  105. @ BR: you know, I’m wondering if it might be better to host this discussion on your own blog?

    *Not* trying to chase you away; just thinking that an invitation for folks to join in a discussion over there would be a good idea – for your blog, and maybe for you as a writer, too.

  106. BR

    A credible savior-as i have said.
    And Arce is a good friend and I appreciate his concern. We could all use friends like him.

  107. Numo

    Arce is a wonderful friend whom I met through this blog. Sometimes it is nice to have an old friend to stand with you. Also, he is no chauvinist but he is a gentleman. I deeply admire his life and sacrifice. He also has quite a wife whom I also admire.

  108. @ Dee: I understand, and can’t “blame” you one bit for appreciating him!

    But I have seen – over the past day or so – a rush to defend Cindy, etc. I’m sure that’s well-motivated, but it can get wearying, especially when people aren’t necessarily disagreeing with her, let along harassing her! (See some of the comments above that are directed toward me, long before BR’s most recent posts.)

    I think I need a break from commenting, maybe…

  109. Pingback: What SGM and Others Could Learn From the History of Forced Conversions « Take A Look

  110. @ Lin: I don’t understand why you keep making comments that belittle me.

    Please stop now.”

    On this thread you have mapped us to people who discrimintate and commit genocide. You have given examples of atrocities throughout history and mapped them (very subtly) to the way we responded to BR. And YOU feel belittled?

    You may not realize it but you are doing what SGM does, except you don’t have the same power. But it is still the same tactics. You want to define for people what you think is a nice and acceptable form of communication.

    I do not accept your premise. In fact, I went and read BR’s blog before I even responded. And I know Cindy well enough, she checked it out, too. BR wears big girl/boy panties or she would not have come here to take us on. What you consider mean, I consider normal communication. You don’t have to agree with that. But when you start all this stuff about outsiders, discrimination and genocide….this hyperbole, don’t expect me to agree with silence. And silence is agreement.

  111. “As a life-long Baptist, I am quite enured to people who think they know a lot about me by knowing that and they are 90% wrong. They know about a caricature of Baptist theology, ecclesiology and praxis, and not about either the historical theology, ecclesiology and praxis of the historical main stream of Baptist life, which is gentle, preaches about the love God has for humans, democratic in organization, and not intolerant of people who are different”

    Totally agree. In fact, two big foundations of Baptist doctrine (outside the Gospel) are

    1.Soul Competency

    2. Priesthood of believer

    It is hard for authoritarianism to grow when those two things are front and center.

  112. To all,

    I want you to know that I both understand the focus of Dee’s blog and think that she is providing a valuable service to the Christian community.

    That said, I thought that perhaps there might be room for an outsider’s (atheist) voice here to provide a different perspective and possibly to challenge the validity of some beliefs, to play devil’s advocate if you will.

    However, while I have enjoyed many stimulating and enlightening discussions here in the past, I am finding more and more people are becoming sensitive to my presence and perceive disagreement as an attempt at control, aggressiveness or as personal attacks, something that has never been my intent.

    I also do not feel it is appropriate for me to participate any longer, given the fact that when I ask a question, the discussion at hand frequently devolves into a flurry of attack-counterattack posts that take us way off topic and thus dilute the message that Dee and Deb are trying to communicate.

    I have decided, mostly for the benefit of The Wartburg Watch, to no longer post here. I will miss those who have provided a rich and fertile debating ground. I have have learned quite a bit and I hope in my time here I have provided some interesting points as well.

    My best wishes to my friends here, I’ll check in and read from time to time, but I think it’s time to leave the postings to the Christians. Best wishes to all and certainly no hard feelings, I think it is in the best interests of The Wartburg Watch, and I owe you guys at least that much.

    Chao,

    Bounded Reality (a.k.a. Karlton G. Kemerait)

  113. I kind of prefer Soul Freedom to Soul Competency, which are but slightly different explications of the underlying concept which is that is one of the ways we are created in God’s image, that we (souls) are capable (competent) of exercising the freedom God has given to each of us in matters of faith.

  114. “That said, I thought that perhaps there might be room for an outsider’s (atheist) voice here to provide a different perspective and possibly to challenge the validity of some beliefs, to play devil’s advocate if you will”

    That would be fine if it was the focus of the blog or the post. When one is challenging the very basics or validity of another’s core beliefs, it is a means of trying to “convert” one to another belief system. Even if one insists that is not their intent. If it looks like a duck…

    I would suggest providing a link to a discussion on your questions and assertions about Christianity in general for those who are interested in such things.

    Best wishes to you.

  115. Karl

    You chicken!

    Maybe this is a place for you to learn how to effectively communicate with Christians. You know, I spent years over at EXChristians .Net and was called names that would cause anyone to pause. But, I muddled through and learned how to be a better communicator. I was even complimented (albeit only once) by one of the regulars over there.

    I am sorry that you feel this way. You know that fondly of you. So. think it through.

  116. I think that a missing element that has not yet been mentioned concerning why the Christian faith is different than other faiths and other individual’s certainty that their faith is correct is that the character of my God is very different from theirs. I have not run from other faiths and learn about them from others as I listen to them, and though the believe their faiths with all their heart, I do not feel threatened, nor do I feel that I am diminished in any way.

    Are some Christians fearful and too uncomfortable to listen to the different beliefs of others? You betcha. Do many evangelical’s abuse people and shame them, manipulating others to buy a “hell insurance policy” through the prayer of salvation? Definitely. But I believe that the example of Jesus to allow people to reject His message and walk away from (Him) without chasing them down to harangue them teaches us something that most evangelicals forget. Paul also went to Mars Hill and showed respect for the people there, demonstrating knowledge and respect for the different beliefs that people held there. He let the prison guard come to him, and he sat and sang with joy while in chains. He was beaten and left for dead many times, but that was is chosen course too, and he knew that. He chose, and he called others to choose. People came to him, and he left people walk away from him, just like Jesus.

    When people come to me for exit counseling, I validate their autonomy and create a safe place for them to wake themselves up to “re-create” their identity, trust, initiative, competence, etc.. Those things were buried when they complied with under what others wanted of them. I become their witness and their ally as they re-experience, integrate and move through the terrible trauma they suffered. If I force my “version of” Christianity on them or even Christianity in general when they are in such a vulnerable state, even if I believe it is the best thing for them, I am not any better than Hitler or Mahaney or even my parents. I’d be using the end to justify the means. It is the finding of their own autonomy and voice — that God-given choice to “choose this day” whom they will serve — that heals them. They heal themselves in the safe place of trust I endeavor to create for them. This is my approach to evangelism — the truth will set them free. And sometimes, that involves walking away from Christianity, and my concerns and my own agenda are tabled and taken to my God in faith to work His plan with them, not mine. And I die to my expectations in that place, for Him and for them.

    BR, if you believe that is anything like Hitler or SGM or the many forms of demeaning emotional blackmail that passes for evangelical Christianity, then so be it. I can look myself in the mirror at night and know that I respected and honored those people to whom I “witnessed” by affirming the Image of God in them by helping them find their power to choose for themselves. Ultimately I believe that creates the environment that facilitates God’s drawing them with kindness to Himself, whether it looks like that is what’s happening or not.

    The reason why this blog and my own blog exist concerns the fact that Christians do use thought reform, but that does not make us all guilty of the same. And we are works in progress, practicing and mastering this skill. The “Basics” section on this blog where our hosts declare their objectives clarifies your questions asked here, I believe. And I continue to contend that the manner in which you’ve presented these questions that you have (whether you believe it or not) is baiting and derails the purpose of this blog.

    The idea of a laboratory for ideas is curious. My husband runs a lab — a postmortem lab. His instruments can analyze evidence (“What’s in this unmarked syringe?”), he could do workplace urine drug testing, pesticide detection, aspects of food chemistry, testing of natural supplements and food stuffs for chemical contaminants, and human clinical toxicology as is done in a hospital — all on those same instruments. In fact, he has experience and top-notch credentials in some of those other areas. But he doesn’t take specimens for all of those things. He only analyzes postmortem toxicology in specimens from decedents, attenuating his procedures and his attention to best accomplish the mission of the medical examiner by helping them to determine cause of death.

    I will use that analogy here. Dee and Deb have declared a purpose to, as Christians, examine trends and abuses within Christianity. They want to be agents of change to expose the nature of those trends and abuses so that people can make up their own minds as to whether they want to free themselves from those systems. That’s why I said earlier that I see this as a place of healing. Though the questions and observations of an atheist and the debating of whether Christianity is cogent is an important debate, particularly in this thread, it is counterproductive and detracts from the mission and objectives of the hosts here. Dee and Deb, is it fair to claim this?

    I again am not persuaded that an avowed atheist asking whether most all Christianity is manipulative or whether it also causes a “snapping” or a degree of cognitive dissonance that changes one’s way of thinking belongs here in this thread at this time and in this context. I have asked and revisit this question often and I address this in great length on my blog. Take a look at the “Conference Survival Skills” material, for example. But here, now, and in the manner that the issue was broached, I don’t believe that it was appropriate.

  117. numo, I think that people were not “defending me” but were agreeing with and supporting the validity of what I said.

    Believe me, Lin and I can get into it! About this time in 2007, we went at it on a blog, defending opposite opinions. I haven’t had any online blog interaction with her in years, I don’t think since 2008 over on the now defunct True Womanhood blog. A year ago, we had an exchange offline concerning the FreeCWC that was hot enough that I believe it tested the mettle of our friendship. That was another reason why I was so glad to see her back here on an online forum, now that she’s on summer break from teaching school. Our conflict from a year ago resolved with out an ill effect on our growing friendship.

    I value the opportunity I have here to build relationships that grow here, though I think that I see conflicts regarding ideas with every single person who posts here. And that’s okay. It’s fine to disagree, and I think we should. I think that it gives people permission to has out disagreements assertively, rather than bury them in order to pour on maudlin and obsequious “fake niceness” (my husband’s term) or even agreement because people mistake that for Christian behavior.

    I don’t take it as personal but as a sign of respect and as an indication that Dee and Deb have built a safe place to exchange ideas.

    (And I wish my husband had come up with a more erudite term for “fake niceness,” but now it’s stuck in my brain that way!

  118. Quickie addition that’s a little humorous. When I met my husband, he loved to play devil’s advocate and to spar in discussions for the fun of it. (He was 24 and I was 18 at the time, and we’d been dating for about a month.) He got on to politics, and I bravely called him out on something that was completely indefensible and (what I know now was) an error in informal logic. He said this was the moment he was sure that he was in love with me.

    We’ve been married 21 years, and we’ve contended hotly over many things, usually philosophical, and sometimes, I wondered how I could lay in bed with this man and not share a particularly important belief that I never knew we disagreed about. Ego-free love and respect for him and myself let the discomfort pass over me, and we moved through the disagreements together. One of the things that I love so much about him is the freedom that he gives me to search, find, and speak my own mind while seeing the best in me. I aspire to this example here.

  119. Cindy,

    Iron sharpens iron. :o)

    Arce, Play acting is what I call all the focus on living out “roles” as Christians. And yes, it is hypocritical.

  120. Arce,
    You’re right. I told my parents that they asked me to honor their wishes above God and the Image of God in me — they asked me to make them my idol.

    Lin,
    As Bob Wright pointed out in his article critiquing the Danvers Statement in ’89 and as is discussed in this other recent thread, the word “role” is derived from the French language, a term describing acting in a play. We are to follow roles, just as Jesus has His role of savior only and is subordinate. Well, there is a word that corresponds to “role” in NT Greek:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5272&t=KJV

    Note meaning number 3. It is also “an answer,” a telling people what we think they want to hear, though it is not the truth.

    Hallelujah that we are redeemed from that. My parents are believers, and I have faith that God will work a mighty plan through my choice to “buy the truth and sell it not.” I love them, but I love God more, and I must honor him above them, though I love them so deeply, but no longer to the point of idolatry.

    I say this to demonstrate that it is far easier to just go back into the old manipulative religion and would have more primary and lots of secondary gain if I did.

    I chose and choose rational truth and liberty in the Spirit rather than the system of Jesus as a sugar daddy and magical thinking, along with the emotional blackmail and manipulation. And God’s grace will be sufficient. Hallelujah! May those in SGM who are held under the bondage of idolatry for their leadership be likewise set free and restored to their family and community of those others who left the system.

  121. Cindy, Good one!

    hypokrisis (Where we get the word, hypocrite btw)

    Outline of Biblical Usage

    1) an answering

    2) an answer

    3) the acting of a stage player

    First reference in the Greek is Matt 23 and Jesus calling the Pharisees, hypocrites.

    And the comps want me to play a “role”. Or, I should say, a “Gospel role”.

    No thanks!